This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.
I removed most of the references indicating the metric conversion of six acres, leaving only the one in the introduction paragraph. The reason for this is when I reference the 'original six acres' I am doing so as a reference point as to the location in the cemetery, not necessarily as a statement of geographic land area (although the name I use is obviously also indicative of the area of land it occupies). Basically for lack of a better term for the original six acres, I just refer to it as such and thus feel that it is inappropriate and possibly distracting to give a unit conversion every time it is mentioned. -- uberpenguin 13:32, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm reverting the units back to hectares until I can see a compelling reason to use meters squared. Hectares are what I have most seen used for land areas (even if the meter is the SI base unit for distance) and are more intuitive to me; using meters squared makes a distractingly large number. Furthermore, in using square meters it is implied that the precision of that measurement is much greater than it actually is... Converting, for example, 2.4 hectares to 24,000 m² is inappropriate since 2.4 hectares is itself a rounded conversion of a somewhat rough estimate originally in acres. The actual area in square meters could vary quite a bit from 24,000. -- uberpenguin 14:06, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
If it is necessary to use metric land measurements, hectares should be used whenever acres are used. Using square meters is not appropriate unless the other measurement is in square feet. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Love this wonderful article on Oakland! However, the opening line says "Oakland Cemetery is Atlanta, Georgia, USA's oldest and largest cemetery as well as its fourth largest green space (behind Freedom, Piedmont and Grant Parks)." I was under the impression that the City's largest park was Chastain Park.
That line has been modified by others a few times since I wrote it; my source was some old books that I have, and frankly I have no idea if the ranking as its listed here is correct now... I'll dig around to see if I can get this straight. -- uberpenguin 14:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
After looking briefly, it seems that Chastain would rank as the third largest park in Atlanta if you count its golf course. Otherwise the current order is correct; Freedom with 210 acres, Piedmont with 189, Grant with 131, and Oakland with 88. -- uberpenguin 14:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, cool, the order you're using is erroneous but I guess it's no big deal. The City of Atlanta Bureau of Parks website lists the City's largest parks as follows: (1) Freedom Park 187; (2) Piedmont Park 185; (3) Southside Park 164.9; (4) Chastain Memorial Park 158.36 [258 including golf course]; (5) Bobby Jones Golf Course 130; (6)Grant Park 127; (7) Tup Holmes Golf Course 122.32; (8) Cascade Springs Nature Preserve 120; (9) Oakland Cemetery Park 88. Oakland would thus be the ninth largest green space rather than the fourth.
The fact that Maynard Jackson is buried in the cemetery makes me wonder whether Oakland Cemetery was ever segregated. In many places in the South, in the old days, whites and blacks were never buried in the same cemetery, or if they were, there would be separate sections. Does anyone know if there is a separate historical black section in the cemetery, from the days of racial segregation? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. I just enlarged the map, and that answered my question!!! 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)