Talk:List of necropoleis

Unclear question
Isn't the roman lady gonna be in this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.25.2 (talk) 20:31, May 30, 2006.


 * 1) Sign your comments. It's not difficult, it's a courtesy to other readers, and it's a rule.  It was stated right there on the same screen you used to create your comment.
 * 2) Please explain, because your comment makes no sense whatever. No one can answer your question if no one can figure out what you're talking about. Canonblack 16:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1.)Please do not bite the newcomers.
 * 2.)At the bottom the "Sign your comments" page it explains how to deal with with unsigned posts. Bear21 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Mention of modern cemeteries in this article
The article states that the term is primarily used to refer to ancient burial sites, rather than to contemporary sites; well and good.

In the list of necropolises by nation, however, the largest entry is that of Australia! Which lists contemporary cemeteries!

If the list is to include contemporary cemeteries, there are some notablly absent countries - for an example, the United States - which have urban cemeteries that are centuries older than anything to be found in Australia.

The Aussie entries seem anomalous compared to the ancient sites listed under the other nations of the list. As far as I can tell, no other entry is listing active modern cemeteries. Moreover, there is a seperate article, cemetery, as well as a List of cemeteries that includes these cemeteries.

It seems that large cemeteries are called necropolises in Australia today, and this is likely the source of these anomalous entries. But the fact that Australians may call their cemeteries necropolises doesn't mean that they should be in this list - it's clearly intended as a list of ancient sites, not of contemporary sites.

These entries should be removed. nitus 1:22am, Oct 17, 2006 (MT)


 * You're right, and I'm going to go ahead and remove them. Someone will probably revert it, but what the hey. This article is clearly not intended to be about modern cemeteries. 75.153.202.25 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that some of the UK necropolises listed here may also be too modern to really belong here, but I don't want to go hog wild. 75.153.202.25 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, these should be removed and I will help out with this if more work is required. To the anonymous user who replied above me, I don't think it's likely others will simply revert it now that we have reached consensus on the talk page here. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Plural form
Does Doremítzwr or anyone else have a reliable source for the English plural of necropolis being necropoleis? I know that's the plural in Greek, but necropolises is the only plural in my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, and as a native (British) English speaker who has learnt ancient Greek, -eis looks unnatural in English. I propose that -ises is reinstated, or at least the two are given as alternatives, with the OED's variant given first. FlagSteward 18:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The American Heritage Dictionary and Wiktionary, off the top of my head. All words ending in the -polis morpheme form plurals ending in -poleis. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 02:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Either necropolises or necropoleis is acceptable, but necropolises is by far the more common form in contemporary english. 75.153.202.25 15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The full OED online sticks with the descriptive rather than the prescriptive. It is clear that -poleis is the plural in Greek, while -polises is the way that English usually deals with plurals of Greek -is endings. This is because the plurals of Greek -is endings are a bit unpredictable. For example, the "correct" Greek plural of clitoris would be clitorides (Gk: kleitoris/kleitorides). OED also records one instance of the faux-plural necropoli in 1968 -- an instance of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicumque (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In a quantitative analysis as per WP:GOOGLETEST & common usage in Wiktionary as b.g.c., GBS, & wikt:Template:b.g.c. (e.g., wikt:User_talk:thecurran), books.google.com yields:


 * 770 texts containing necropoleis; 760 in English


 * 5,686 texts containing necropoles; 2,130 in English


 * 871 texts containing necropolises; 867 in English


 * In English language texts, necropoles shows the highest count by far, then necropolises has 69% less, and necropoleis has 12% less than necropolises. :)--Warmest Regards, :)-- thecurran let it off your chest 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was shocked and sad to see the "word" necropoleis used as the header to this page. Wikipedia is a people's encyclopedia, not a show-off zone for snobs. As has already been said, English is not Ancient Greek. (Nor is it Latin.) 82.46.175.44 (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria site?
Tuhovishta's Village Necropolis (Satovcha). Where exactly is this in terms of longitude/latitude? Thanks --98.232.182.66 (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Barrows
I was wonderingif anyone could clarify the definitions of necropolis' with regards to tumuli. Apparently barrows belong in the category of grave fields - the equivelant to necropolis but without above ground markers. It would seem to me that barrows are fairly obvious above ground grave markers though. Can anyone clarify this? Cheers Psychostevouk (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the article necropolis I just created. There the Etruscan necropolis of Banditaccia is discussed, which includes tumuli covering subterranean tombs. So yes, if you ask me tumuli definitely qualify as structures above the ground. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Fengdu
What on earth is the relevance of the Fengdu hotel picture? Agricmarketing (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC).

Translation
RE: The word comes from the Greek νεκρόπολις - nekropolis, literally meaning "city of the dead"

Nekropolis literally means "death city". Would it be more accurate to say "city of the dead" is a transliteration of the greek word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorba (talk • contribs) 17:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

New article
I was annoyed by the fact that "necropolis" redirected to this article, unlike all the other versions of Wikipedia in different languages which have a separate article for "necropolis". So I went ahead and wrote a full article at the page necropolis, removing the redirect to this page. Some of the pages which still link to this page probably need to have their links adjusted to the new page. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability of necropoleis to be included in the list
I think we have to agree on a criterium for notability of the necropoleis we include in this list. Mine is that the necropoleis must have its own article, as a rule of thumb that makes it notable. On the other hand we don't have an article yet for the Banditaccia necropolis near Cerveteri even though it's very notable, so this doesn't always work.

On the other hand, Stara Novalja which is currently included in the list under Croatia doesn't have any indication of notability: the article just mentions a necropolis is in the proximity of the village. That's not the way to go, because then we might just as well mention every ancient provincial backwater with a necropolis such as Idebessos and Kitanaura. And that would make the list way too long.--AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove images from this article
I think the images used here, especially the two very wide images, disrupt the article. Many other "list of" articles don't have images either, images of necropoleis in general are already supplied in the article necropolis and are used in the wikilinked articles here themselves. I suggest we remove all images here, do others agree with me? --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove this article altogether and make a category instead?
I've been thinking, wouldn't it be a better idea to remove this article altogether and make a subcategory in Category:Cemeteries instead? After all, this article doesn't do more than present a list of articles. I wonder what Wikipedia's policy on this matter is? And what do others think? --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)