Talk:Lone Mountain Cemetery

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Cemeteries Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cemeteries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Lone Mountain Cemetery appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 January 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Phineas Gage was buried in Lone Mountain Cemetery twice, once without his head, before being relocated still without his head?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lone Mountain Cemetery.

Wikipedia

Sources

Excellent source: Proctor, William A. (1950). "Location, regulation, and removal of cemeteries in the City and County of San Francisco". Department of City Planning, City and County of San Francisco. Archived from the original on 2012-07-02.
It's not a huge deal, but the following sources aren't completely solid as RS. Not saying they can't be used at all, but they need to be used with great caution. Some of them cite fully reliable sources, and ideally, where possible, those sources would replace those below. (Though they have great photos and, as long as there's no question about their authenticity and the reliability of their descriptions, those are fine.)
- Encyclopedia of San Francisco
- Outsidelands.org. Western Neighborhoods Project
- FoundSF.org. The Richmond ReView
- Curbed SF
- noehill.com

E Eng 22:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regulating the dead: Rights for the corpse and the removal of San Francisco's cemeteries. Muckey, Lance David. PhD dissertation [1]

DYK?

Hey, PigeonChickenFish, howzabout we nominate this for WP:DYK? We have until the Friday to nominate (to meet DYK's stupid "newness" criterion). E Eng 21:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EEng:, firstly, thank you for your help on this article. It really made important improvements and I am grateful. I am totally open to doing WP:DYK, but I don’t think I have done one before. Would you like to do the nom? Or is that something I should work on? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll handle the paperwork. What we need first is a "hook" e.g. Did you know ... that Phineas Gage was buried in Lone Mountain Cemetery, dug up, buried there again (without his head), dug up again, and finally buried somewhere else (still without his head)?. (We'd have to add that info to the article, of course.) E Eng 22:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK @EEng:, I added a few sentences and citations about Gage in the Laurel Hill/Lone Mountain Cemetery section. Additionally I added info about the almost extinct species of shrub (only found in San Francisco) that was last spotted in 1947 at the Laurel Hill Cemetery bulldoze site; and was re-discovered in 2009, some 60+ years later. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible future developments

It has been hard to find information about who was interred at the Lone Mountain Cemetery. I found these resources that could be explored later, including the "Cemetery Registers" by the Society of California Pioneers.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Another thing missing is a map image of the four cemeteries in relationship to each other.

I did not add this to the article but I saw an old news article that mentioned the buried bodies were not always in caskets; some they had shallow, sandy graves; the bodies would sometimes "pop out" of the soil; and sometimes the organs of the dead were eaten by vagrants. I did not add it initially because it sounded so strange and I know there was a lot of bad press (based on the desire to shut down the complex), but this could be further researched as it is not impossible.

References

^ "Cemetery Registers". sfgenealogy.org. Society of California Pioneers.
^ Hart, Ann Clark (1940). San Francisco's Laurel Hill. Prelinger Library. City of San Francisco.
^ Records from tombstones in Laurel Hill Cemetery, 1853-1927. Daughters of the American Revolution, California State Society Genealogical Records Committee, San Francisco Public Library. San Francisco, Calif.: Copied by five San Francisco chapters Daughters of the American Revolution under the direction of the Genealogical Records Committee of California. 1935.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)

PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those three sources are quite interesting, and there may be some useful/fun info in them that could go in the article.
Yes, a map would be a great addition. I'm sure I've seen one somewhere, but that could be any time in the last 15 years so I have no idea where.
I have little doubt burials were sometimes made without caskets. However, I'm quite skeptical of the vagrants story; you sure they didn't say scavengers? Anyway, we need a source.

E Eng 17:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

~~... that Phineas Gage was buried in Lone Mountain Cemetery, dug up, buried there again (this time without his head), dug up again, and finally buried somewhere else (still without his head)?~~
- ALT1: ... that Phineas Gage was buried in Lone Mountain Cemetery twice, once without his head, before being relocated still without his head?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Elk Run (West Branch Fishing Creek)
- Comment: Article still needs work, but gotta nominate now in obeisance to DYK's stupid "newness" fetish. We'll let y'all know when the time comes for a review -- give us a week or two please.

Created by PigeonChickenFish (talk). Nominated by EEng (talk) at 18:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General eligibility:
New enough:
Long enough:
Other problems:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The original hook seemed somewhat unprofessional so I created ALT1. I agree the article as a whole needs work, but the promoter can use his/her discretion in deciding when this is ready for promotion, although even right now nothing is fatal for the main page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Tapdancing Chist, couldn't you just respect the request of the two people most involved with the article that you wait until we're ready? "Nothing fatal for the main page" is a pretty low bar. And ALT1 isn't nearly as amusing. E Eng 00:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I told the promoter to wait for promotion, and I've got QPQ bills to pay. (And FWIW, ALT1 is just the original hook made more professional for the Main Page). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me about professionalism. I'm DYK's greatest hooker so you might say I belong to the world's oldest profession. E Eng 01:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: i definitely laughed at ALT0, but I'd have to ask you to bring it to WT:DYK if you want to get an IAR exception for breaking style guidelines :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does it break style guidelines? E Eng 09:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYKSG#C9: No parentheses in the hook unless absolutely unavoidable. The (pictured) (or equivalent) for the image slot is an exception. I'd argue that the use of emphasis on again is also on shaky ground in regards to MOS:EMPHASIS, which states that Emphasis may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence, when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers (emphasis mine :D).^[FBDB] theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng, John M Wolfson, and Theleekycauldron: Any updates on this? There have been no comments since the end of October. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've really gotten behind. First I have to get on Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Church_of_St_Giles,_Stoke_Poges. Then this. Please be patient. E Eng 03:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This remains the only DYK I've accepted where my acceptance was rejected. That said, I still see no issues with the article that hinders promotion, so it's up to EEng. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one's rejecting anything. I just said the article wasn't ready yet. I'm done with Stoke Poges so this is next on my list. E Eng 04:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, it's been over two weeks and while you've been doing a ton of edits, none have been on this article. You originally asked for a week or two at nomination time, and it's two months later. Since you seem to need a deadline, how does 23:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC) sound? Absent significant progress by then, the approval will be restored. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the pressure, but I need to beg a couple more days. E Eng 06:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You got 'em. Thanks for posting. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I have looked over the article and think it is suitable for posting, what do you think? Kingsif (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could we use this image? More suitable for a Halloween special though. BorgQueen (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Let's "freeze" this nom until the Halloween. Yay! 🎃 BorgQueen (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring John M Wolfson's original tick. It has been three months since EEng reversed it, and three months that he's not made any edits to the article. That's a more than generous extension, and this is the oldest extant DYK. It will probably be about a week before this hits the main page, so there is still time to expand the article prior to its appearance. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T:DYK/P6

[1] "Cemetery Registers". sfgenealogy.org. Society of California Pioneers.

[2] Hart, Ann Clark (1940). San Francisco's Laurel Hill. Prelinger Library. City of San Francisco.

[3] Records from tombstones in Laurel Hill Cemetery, 1853-1927. Daughters of the American Revolution, California State Society Genealogical Records Committee, San Francisco Public Library. San Francisco, Calif.: Copied by five San Francisco chapters Daughters of the American Revolution under the direction of the Genealogical Records Committee of California. 1935.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]