|WikiProject Death||(Rated Stub-class, High-importance)|
|The content of Figural urn was merged into Urn. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2015-09-12)|
|The content of Biodegradable urn was merged into Urn on 5 November 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
I'm not sure an urn is an "architectural term, building feature or building type." The stub should be changed.
Does anyone know anything about Anglo-Saxon cremation urns??
Removed Undertaker ref
I took out: Urns in popular culture An Urn was said to be the source of the power of the Undertaker during his 'Deadman' gimmick.
This seems to be a reference to a comic book or similar, but it is inappropriate here. The Undertaker link was going the page about undertakers, which I don't think was what was intended. Carax 19:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- "In genealogy, the symbol of an urn indicates that a person has been cremated." Not in any work of genealogy I've ever seen, and I've seen both works of New England genealogy and Burke's Peerage and the Almanach de Gotha. I've moved this here: is this a joke? or perhaps some highly specialized corner of genealogy? Not even the Mormons use such a printer's vignette. --Wetman 08:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think this section should be reinstated. The Undertaker is a professional wrestler who did indeed perform with an urn at one time. The reference is quite approprite. Wikipedia promots nuetral point of view and so popular culture is to be taken as seriously as Chinese or European culture etc. If you look around you'll find hundereds of pages with "x in popular culture" sections. SuperlativeHors (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- The promotional value of the "Undertaker"'s prop can be omitted here without fear of incompleteness. --Wetman (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Im afraid I'm going to have to back up the horse here; I don't see why the undertaker mention is any less appropriate than any other cultural reference in the article. --Philosopher-kng (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because it's irrelavent. simple as that. -AeturnalNarcosis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
but the picture...
Article needs focus
This article needs to say exactly what an urn is, and what it is not. I thought I had a general understanding before reading this article, but now I'm utterly confused, and have an impulse to go find other sources to explain what the confusion is about. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The article biodegradable urn should be merged to this article. The existing article is an advertisement for a specific company. Only a couple of sentences would be required at this article, indicating the existence and purpose of biodegradable urns, without promoting the brand.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Why would a merge need to be limited to "a couple of sentences"? Multiple reliable sources cover the topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Biodegradable urn(s)are in flux and a growing industry that is soon to become it's own expanded definition. This article needs to stay where it is and in time many variables will be better understood in this space. The funny thing about the current status Jeffro77 is that your input to this article, namely the second and third line all refer to and is optimized to what is chronicled after your references. All three References eventually lead to one thing... a retail web-site. You may say all articles are relevant and in context, but it is obvious to anyone understanding content to build online authority, that this is blatant Reference Spam.--LisbethSlander(talk) 17:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)