Talk:Crematorium

Re-Worked
The article has been re-written to describe the technical aspects of the machine itself, not the process. The history section has been moved to the beginning, though it does seem to overlap a bit with the cremation history section, which is probably unavoidable.

The 'UK-centric' concept has been removed, as these things work pretty much the same way everywhere. Every vendor has their own little features which are insignificant to the general functioning of the machine. References to hot-hearth and other vendor-specific items has been removed.

Yerocus (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of the word in India
In India the word is used as a synonym for the place where cremation is done whether closed furnaces are used or not. The method could be open fire or use of a closed furnace. See the attached news article. The attached link has photographs of a number of open wood fired furnaces and and the facility is termed as a crematorium. I would like to introduce this meaning in the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crematory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230204229/http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/this_day_in_history/this_day_March_26.php to http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/this_day_in_history/this_day_March_26.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829145954/http://www.miller-mccune.com/environment/new-life-for-crematories-waste-heat-31501/ to http://www.miller-mccune.com/environment/new-life-for-crematories-waste-heat-31501/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725153407/http://www.cremationprocess.co.uk/cremation_process.html to http://www.cremationprocess.co.uk/cremation_process.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The case for a seperate article on crematoria
The reason why I favour having a separate article on crematoria (the venue) is because this article can talk about topics such as the design and architecture of crematoria. I don't see how these would fit well into the articles on cremation (the process) and crematory (the device). If having articles on all three seems inappropriate, then to be honest the crematory article is better off being merged into the cremation article. Anywikiuser (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merging of Crematorium
It does not appear that a standalone article Crematorium is really necessary. The content is basically "building that houses a crematory" - which can be bolstered with a good number of notable examples, but probably not to the extent that it would burst the confines of this article. I suggest redirecting here and treating the material in a subsection would avoid almost all of the expository duplication now present at Crematorium and keep things in context. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I would argue the other way round. This article deals with information that could fit fine in the cremation article, or duplicates content that is already there. On the other hand, a separate article on crematoria can talk about topics (like the architecture, design and funeral customs of crematoria) that don't really fit on the cremation or crematory articles. It's short at the moment, but it can be expanded and that is something I intend to work on. Anywikiuser (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Elmidae, the Crematory article covers most of what I would expect about crematoriums. I saw very little that was added at Crematorium and that could easily be added to the Crematory article.
 * Also, WP:BRD says that when a change is disputed then the article should be restore to its pre-change condition, then discussion takes place. And technically this should be a split discussion rather than a merge discussion because the status quo was already merged.  Stepho  talk
 * How much material do you think you might be able to add? Not opposed to a split if it's a substantial amount, just not seeing it at the moment. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't hurry when creating fresh content, but I reckon it could have as much content as this article within a few weeks, without merely duplicating existing articles. Perhaps if I use this talk page as a sandbox, and when there's enough content it can split? Anywikiuser (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe better keep it in an actual sandbox and place a link here? I believe extended article content on talk pages is generally frowned on. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * At the moment, it's in a bit of a mess. Crematorium was a redirect to Crematory, but then somebody decided that Crematorium warrants a separate article.  Then came the merge proposal.  But then somebody reverted Crematorium to a redirect, but left the merge template at the top, meaning that (a) the redirect doesn't work (b) it's ended up proposing to merge the redirect, which is of course nonsense.
 * There seems to be disagreement over whether "crematorium" is a synonym for "crematory", denotes the single building in which the furnace (the crematory) is housed, or denotes the overall facility which may include one or more funeral chapels. The Crematory article looks to me to about the furnace itself, and it isn't clear how information about the overall facility would be incorporated into it, so on this basis I think a separate Crematorium article is sensible.
 * The original edit in which Crematorium was changed from a redirect to a separate article looks to me like just a case of starting a new article. In my mind, starting a new article is essentially the same whether there was a redirect or nothing there before.  Does WP:BRD apply when the 'bold' action is to start a new article?  I didn't think so – rather, we have processes like WP:AfD and WP:PROD for reverting article creations.  Furthermore, this doesn't look to me like a split proposal, since the new content doesn't look to me like it was taken from Crematory.  As such I say that, if BRD applies, it is with the 'bold' action being this edit in which it was changed to a redirect. — Smjg (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above looks like unnecessary process churning to me. The question is, do we think there is sufficient material for two separate articles? If yes, go ahead and build them; if no, keep in one (and then decide whether to name that Crematory or Crematorium). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have fixed the broken redirect. I also changed the tag to  at Crematorium.


 * This is not a new article creation. It is pulling some information from Crematorium and then expanding it - ie an article split. The existance of this redirect shows that there is pre-existing content that was at least partially fulfilled at Crematorium. The real question is whether the information is better here or at Crematorium? To my mind, a crematorium always contains a crematory and a crematory will nearly always be inside a crematorium. The 2 subjects are so interlinked - especially the cultural aspects - that separating them merely splits the readers attention unnecessarily. Unless the new information is at least half the size of the exist Crematorium article (without duplication), then it would probably be better served as a section within Crematorium, not a full article.
 * However, the draft article is a good idea. If it proves worthy enough (by consensus) then it can become a proper article. Otherwise it can be used as the basis of a section within Crematorium.  Stepho  talk 23:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a consensus for this requested move. (non-admin closure) qedk (t 桜 c) 09:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Crematory → Crematorium – Crematorium is a more universal and less ambiguous term, and the article has now shifted to encompassing the venues, not just the furnaces. Anywikiuser (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC) So contrary to something I attempted last year, I am now no longer proposing separate articles for the venues and the furnaces. Instead, this article will be about the venues, and will incorporate information on the furnaces (though detailed information about the cremation process is better suited to the cremation article). Anywikiuser (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Makes sense to me, but the plural is a redirect targeting Cremation, and has been since 2004. So unfortunately User:Anywikiuser you still have a bit of trouble... that is probably a WP:XY redirect that should be discussed after we get consensus here. As for BRD, "Turning redirects into articles is positively encouraged". 178.164.248.220 (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, and yes do fix the plural Crematoria to go to the same place (WP:RFD would certainly do that, so we might as well do it along with the RM and avoid redundant process with a guaranteed outcome).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.