Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 30

3965:. Categories of year of birth, year of death, deaths by cause, and even, in some cases, deaths by location, are already established. As all of those are to remain, then deaths by age should also remain. The argument that categorising the deceased by age is too trivial to keep is proven false, by the very fact that the kind of categories I've just listed are important and relevant enough to be kept. The argument that it is not reasonable to compare deaths by age in different parts of the world and in different eras, because life expectancy varies massively across those parameters does not justify scrapping age at death categories. If that kind of argument were valid, then categories such as murder and suicide would have to be scrapped - they vary massively across the world, so much so that you cannot compare their rates across the world on the same scale using a bar graph. Similarly, if that were a valid argument, the proportion of people who die from each cause has varied massively through history. Based on the argument of major variation across time, deaths from cancer should be scrapped, as, throughout human history, only a very small fraction of deaths were from cancer, but now a very substantial minority of human deaths are from cancer (for example, in the UK, in 1900, 5% of all deaths were from cancer, whereas the figure is now 27%). Therefore, deaths by age categories should be kept, along with various categories of death by year of occurrence, cause, and location. 4537:. A person's age at death has only an indirect effect on that person's life (i.e. it is not defining). Its significance is subjective, since various people can age at different rates, and also can have notable achievements either early or late in life. To make an absolute distinction between someone aged 92 and someone aged 82, or someone aged 42 and someone aged 32, seems difficult to me. It is also not something that is immediately apparent about a person. Categorization by year of birth and death, and even location and circumstances of death at least make more sense, because this places the person in their historical context, which cannot be said here. I also think that the argument that newspapers always report the age at death is faulty. The age of the deceased is only of interest during the period immediately following death. Later, it becomes most important to know when the person lived, but not for how long. -- 4353:

know is how old the person is; if dead, you want to know how long he lived. The interest does tend to be more in the extremes, but if the system is set up, it might as well be used for all. The categories can be assigned automagically, as Pixelface says. Some might think if they had to be maintained manually that the effort might be best spent otherwise (I'd disagree there as long as there are those who want to maintain it)--but that's not at all the case; WP is a computer database, and we should make use of the facilities it makes possible. One of the key functions of a database is in fact cross-categorization. I think overcategorization is an obsolete reason altogether for deleting categories that can be automatically maintained. There remains a tendency to think like we were paper. There is no actual argument for deletion except idontlikeit.

4867:- I would still like to hear what encyclopedic relationship between Jane Doe, a (hypothetical) woman who died in 1871 at the age of 33, and Richard Roe, a (hypothetical) man who died in 2008 at the age of 33, is established merely by their having been the same age at death. "People might be interested in knowing who else was the same age as somebody who died" is not an encyclopedic relationship. Dying at the same age as someone else is no more encyclopedic than those "Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln" sorts of trivia that I'm sure would be more than welcome on any number of trivia sites but have no place in a serious encyclopedia. 4192:, where the Times recorded her ages as 99, noting that "Ms. Kohler died a day before her 100th birthday." It seems that this "trivial" "overcategorization" only exists in the minds of a small handful of Knowledge (XXG) editors, and nowhere else. It seems that far to often it is editors who spend way too much time in the CfD court who have developed a rather bizarrely restrictive definition of the category system. This is a characteristic that could not be any more defining and worthy of a category and there has been no legitimate Knowledge (XXG) policy argument offered to justify deletion other than various versions of 4558:

different years, and also can have notable achievements at different years in their life. To make an absolute distinction between someone who died in 1926 and someone who died in 1936, or someone who died in 1992 and someone aged 1982, seems difficult to me. It is also not something that is immediately apparent about a person. Categorization by age at death at least make more sense, because this places the person in the context of how long they lived." Can you point to any Knowledge (XXG) guideline or policy other than

4922:. It's just a basic parent category. To an editor who wants to know which edits have been made recently to articles about dead people, they have to check recent deaths, YEAR deaths, deaths by cause, deaths by location, etc. I personally think it would be much easier if there were 122 age categories editors could check to review changes to articles about dead people with known birthdates and death dates. I suppose if you had a user subpage with a list of all 244,000 articles about dead people on it, I'd take that too. 5009:

the lists. Possibly not on Knowledge (XXG), or if on Knowledge (XXG) in some project space or other place where readers don't get distracted. The added bonus would be that this would avoid perennial discussions on this topic, and that would be a win-win situation. This is all fairly indisputable. The question then is what attitude to take? Is it best to take a narrow, hardline view and say "Knowledge (XXG) is not a way to analyse biographical data", and say "delete" and not much else. Or is it best to

702:. The arguments that the category is too broad are valid. The opposing arguments are not convincing and indicate that clean-up is required in any case. All articles currently in the category should be examined to see if they are in a specific "fictional creatures" category, and if not, moved to an appropriate specific category (or a general category if they are not a specific fictional creature) and the "Fictional monsters" category tag removed. The parentage of the current subcategories of 3825:. This is an obviously defining characteristic directly calculable from birth and death dates. If you know both, there is very little difficulty in maintaining, unless some people are reanimated or resurrected which will indeed be a maintenance nightmare. The oft abused -- and drastically overused -- excuse of "overcategorization" (especially in its current states) needs to be given a swift and sure death. I will be happy to calculate its lifespan given creation and termination dates. 3939:

individual: it may be considered trivial, and with those non-trivial categories already used, the age one is redundant. Knowing the birth and death years we can know if the man lived a long or a short time, or if he was alive by the time of a certain event. The age is just A - B or A - B -1: if the only useful idea of the category is to set if there is a year less or not, then that's a very trivial purpose for making a category. In fact, it's very close to

798:. Possibly these could be used as the basis for a reworked category (no deletion review needed). For the record, I'm listing here (in a small and collapsed section) all the articles in this category (this is not a requirement, just something I do to preserve a record of what was in a category around the time of the deletion discussion). Relist for deletion if the work has not been done within one month. 3505:. The noms reasons are "overcharacterization" and "difficult to maintain," which are not flat-out policies, but rather someone's (the nom's) own opinions. This is not overcharacterization, as one's age of death is generally viewed significantly somehow in describing a deceased person. Also, this is not any more difficult to maintain than the categories of 2768:, which not only isn't policy and doesn't seem to have consensus for its status as a proposed policy/guideline, but appears to have been created to try to hold off a CFD exactly like this one. That all said, I'll hold off emptying and deleting these categories for the inevitable DRV to be filed. Just remember that consensus does not mean counting votes. 4655:- At the time I notified the creator of these categories about this CFD, no editor had yet expressed support for keeping them. I was undecided, but hopeful that a robust debate would ensue -- and so it has, allowing me to consider all of the arguments on both sides. In the end, I am persuaded that the arguments for keeping outweight those for deletion. 4978:? That two people separated in time and space by centuries happened to be the same age when the died is coincidence, not encyclopedia fodder. Regarding your counter-examples, if you believe that "deaths in Washington DC" or "Deaths from pancreatic cancer" or any other category is unencyclopedic, then by all means bring it here for discussion. The 823:], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]|} 4882:

encyclopedic relationship. Explain how both dying in 2008 is an encyclopedic relationship. Explain how both of them dying of pancreatic cancer is an encyclopedic relationship. All you've done is say "that's not encyclopedic, that's trivia" when it comes to age of death. The age at which a person dies is a defining characteristic. You can look at

2029:. The single most defining characteristic of these articles is that they are articles about episodes of this particular series. Someone coming across a random article in the category may wish to see other similar episodes and this is an instance, given that it appears someone plans to write individual articles about each episode, where per 4690:. It makes much more sense to treat "age at death" by automatic categories than to treat it by a list. The latter would indeed be a challenge to maintain, but the former is practically automatic, so the "difficult to maintain" argument is completely hollow. There are also statistical reasons why categorizing notable people who died at 3884:

anything about that individual without context, and the comparisons between random individuals are not likely to be meaningful: compare someone who died at age 28 in Ancient Rome with someone who died at age 28 in modern Rome, or someone who died at age 28 in 2008 in San Francisco with someone who died at age 28 in 2008 in Darfur.

1868:

episode is "an incident, scene, etc., within a narrative". With that in mind, we can not consider "Frankenstein (radio)" and "Beowulf (radio)" to be episodes, because their subject matter bears no relationship with each other -- and the same is true for all the programs in the series. Here might be a better solution --

4588:. I also state that it is not reasonable to argue that the other "deaths by" categories validate this one, which is even less defining. The age at death may be a defining attribute of the person's death, but usually a person's death is not especially notable at all when compared to the other aspects of their life. -- 4352:

A perfectly reasonable way to do things. The age at which people die is not an trivial characteristic; we record the dates, and we usually in fact say specifically the age. Alansohn is right: this is one of the main ways of categorizing people--when you here of someone, one of the things you want to

4231:

Remember that we can't use Knowledge (XXG) as a source. Even so, age at death is a standard infobox parameter that is automatically calculated for any article that has an infobox. The question is not if there are some articles or newspapers that don't mention it, but are there enough sources that do.

3621:

When you read an article about a person who has died, several basic facts are listed about the person's death. These include their time of death (we have categories for that, by year), their cause (we have categories for various causes of death), and importantly, their age. A person's age of death IS

2107:

The majority opinion regarding merger for the articles in the aforementioned discussion was that there were too many articles for a merger to be practical or feasible, and that the individual articles were noteworthy enough on their own to be kept. The creation of "Category:Radio Tales" allows these

5008:

Hopefully, someone will rustle up some solution that allows people to do this kind of analysis to their heart's content and not impinge on those who don't want to do (or see, or hear about) this kind of analysis. All the information is there. It is just a matter of extracting the data and generating

4276:

This attribution of triviality is entirely arbitrary. What do people born in 1937 or who died in 1962 have in common other than they were born in the same year or died in the same year. That the media consistently mentions the age, incredibly often including that age in the title or lead sentence of

4187:

finds that every single obituary includes age at death in the title of the article. I could provide thousands of other obituaries from thousands of other publications, all of which treat age at death as one of the most defining characteristics of the individual covered in the article. The newspapers

2759:

to establish precedent for not categorizing by what amounts to a trivial characteristic. This is not to say that with these categories, you cannot find, for example, someone else who also died when they were 45, but I can't see, nor has anyone explained below, why we should categorize this way (aka

4612:

don't feel it is a defining detail, but I have yet to see an obituary that does not list it and one would be hard pressed to find an encyclopedia article that doesn't include age at death. To flip your logic around, "The year of death may be a defining attribute of the person's death, but usually a

4311:

does not fit the reasons being presented for deletion. What is the difference if someone dies when they are 73.99999 years old or 74.00001 years old? Do we round these into categories since there is no difference between some small differences? Why is something that makes sense as part of a news

4164:

Despite the repeated comments about death by age being "trivial", representing "overcategorization", or of some supposed ball being dropped, it seems that the media does not share this same bizarre opposition to age at death (or its calculation), treating it as a rather defining characteristic. One

4040:

Unlike article content, which WP:USELESS addresses, categories exist to serve two basic functions within Knowledge (XXG): to classify articles by defining characteristics of their subjects, and to group articles by virtue of their shared defining characteristics. If they aren't particularly useful

1265:

categories which I know we also have some issues in the names. The fact that the category needs policing to limit the contents to appropriate articles indicates a problem with the name or the inclusion criteria. Some of the keep arguments are based on how it can be used and in most cases read like

501:

I hate it when people use the argument that they've put a lot of work into things. Once you submit "your work" to Knowledge (XXG), it becomes Knowledge (XXG)'s work, and it's up to the community to decide what to do with it. Also, just because Bohemians have a similar category doesn't mean this one

3857:

are based on CFD precedent. So provide a link to the prior CFD. Sebwite brought up the idea for this category in an AFD. Before the category was created, there was support from Sebwite, Hersfold, DGG, Josiah Rowe, Banime, Matthewedwards and me. Explodicle didn't care either way. And TenPoundHammer

1920:

than with the Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits, since both Masterpiece Theater and Radio Tales adapt classic works of literature for broadcast media. The "Masterpiece (TV series)" article does not ever use the term "episode" -- it refers to its individual dramas as either "programs" or "dramas",

4779:

Hidden categories are a new thing and I'm sure the discussion which you are referring to has gone largely unnoticed. I'm quite interested in the categorizing issue in general and and would like to be able to participate in a renewed discussion on the use of hidden categories. And as is well-known

4149:

is a special case category and it in no way can be used to justify these categories, there is simply nothing that ties these together as a group that should be kept. In the end, this is another case where AfD dropped the ball into the CfD court. That does not mean the category should exist. It

1134:

Clearly, based on what's included, "monster" in the sense used here is quite ambiguous. What does "a being that is a gross exception to the norms of some eco-system" mean, and how is this category bounded or limited in any way? Any being with a single super-power qualifies as a monster under that

4881:

They both had a lifespan of 33 years. That's a trait they have in common. Speaking of Lincoln, how are "People murdered in Washington, D.C." and "Deaths by firearm in Washington, D.C." more "encyclopedic" than "Deaths at age 56"? Explain how Jane Doe and Richard Doe both being born in 1910 is an

3938:

No, because the year changes for everybody at the same time. The age, on the other hand, changes only for that 1 person. The birth or death of a notable individual at a given year is important not just for that individual, but also for the year itself. The age, however, is important only for the

3883:

as trivial overcategorization. I disagree that these are of comparable utility to the birth/death year categories, as sharing a birth year or death year with other individuals anchors their lives to the same period of history. The length of time someone lived, however, does not tell us much of

1867:

Also not meaning to be contentious, but I'd submit that precedent is not a good enough reason to continue using a term incorrectly. According to the official Knowledge (XXG) definition, an episode is "a part of a sequence of a body of work, akin to the chapter of a book". In Dictionary.com, an

4439:

29,000 is only the tip of the iceberg - we have 549,000 articles tagged by the Biography Project, which is still missing many. Most of these must be dead, though many older figures don't have reliable birth or death years. Even so the more "popular" ages for dying will potentially run into five

1182:

A defining characteristic of the characters in the articles included. I applaud Otto for his cleanup work, and continued work will be needed to police this category, just as with every other category that exists in Knowledge (XXG). Reliable sources to support the "monster" attribution should be

4735:

I think the notion of having this hierarchy as hidden categories is well worth considering. I think we could have a lot more categories which would be useful to researchers but which are simply combinations of existing categories (e.g. politicians by vocation, musicians by age to add another

4557:

I don't doubt that you feel strongly about the supposed "indirect effect", but the same argument could be made about year of death: "The year a person dies has only an indirect effect on that person's life (i.e. it is not defining). Its significance is subjective, since various people die in

1245:. Man I was craving to close this as delete, which for me serves as a sign that I need to voice an opinion, not close it. Otto sets out the problem well, as do the others who have opted for deletion. It's too vague, potentially too broad, and probably not definable in any acceptable way. 4925:

Besides the ability to check related changes, you don't think readers would be interested in knowing which notable people died when they were a reader's age? Which notable people died at the same age? Which notable people died at 20? 50? 100? I seriously don't see any cons to having the

3901:

With "X year births" and "X year deaths" categories (wich are an accepted use at categorization of biographies), a category for the age when dying is completely redundant. The issue of one year more or less if died before or afer birthday is completely trivial to justify a category

5049:

people (whether alive or dead) in it. That way we can finally have something useful to help generate disambiguation pages for people with the same surname. Seriously. Pick a random but fairly common surname. Now try and find all the articles we have on people with that surname.

1270:

type of argument. In the end there is overlap between monsters and legendary creatures. Better to use only one then to confuse things using two names to describe the same thing. If anyone really believes that deleting would damage something then simply merge the contents into

4334: 1113:

Something people care about and look for. Useful for browsing. A very clearly defining characteristic of figures in fiction, some of them obviously very famous. Monster in the sense used here is not ambiguous. When an author creates a monster as a character, its usually rather

4721:? The aim should be to get the biographical data only being used a few times. Having the same information used in the text, in infoboxes, in categories, and in Persondata, means the same information is being repeated three or four times and this is incredibly inefficient. 5058:

on the disambiguation pages. Now look up some obscure person with that surname and try and find out if we have a Knowledge (XXG) article on them. Try linking to their name in several different ways, with full name, initials, and so on. Then have a look at something like

1097:- This category could include the misshapen monstrosity, the superhuman, and even the serial killer/rapist. It's too broad in inclusion, too vague in definition, and the members are already categorised elsewhere in similar, more specific cats, which means it's 867:- Vague over-reaching category with no hope of an objective inclusion criteria. Editors are apparently dumping any fictional character that's non-human in form they happen to run across into this cat. The contents are almost completely random and arbitrary. 952:

article. "The term "monster" refers to a being that is a gross exception to the norms of some ecosystem. Usually characterized by an ability to destroy human life or humanity, more than an example of "survival of the fittest", natural law, or innate evil."

1510:

solution. One of the articles says that the fort was still in operation for several years after the NWMP became the RCMP, and another one says that the RCMP later revived the fort as a training ground, so it's not quite accurate to say that the forts were

2746:

delete. There are many arguments here on both sides which are along the lines of "keep/delete: nobody has made any good arguments to delete/keep", which is not a good argument to keep or delete. While not exact, this is similar enough in my mind to

2450:

per nom, I'm getting my head in tangles trying to work out the implications for "Fictional legendary creatures", and I'd like to see in works of fiction be the standard, to be honest, since it has more flexibility in other areas of the category tree.

4631:

Deleting the "Death by year" categories would single-handly wipe out the largest existing collection of biogrpahical metadata. The categories are the largest, followed closely by the infobox data, then (a long way behind) by the Persondata metadata.

3418:

indicating that CFD had an established consensus against categorizing people by death trivia. Within the last week, however, it appears to have been arbitrarily removed by an editor who was specifically in the process of sandboxing a revision to

4672:

I'm generally inclusionistically minded, and in this case this is the type of hierarchy that I think is useful and which will be most welcomed by users. I do not find the argument against of this being particularly hard to maintain credible.

3777:

It is clearly defining whether someone is alive or not! And "living people" can be used as an index for those not sure of the name etc. Neither applies here. I really don't understand why some people are so keen on this? Are you actuaries?

4784:. Yes, the last part of my musing involves the concept of category intersection, and with the hidden category function we could make ourselves some preliminary experiences with how to work with this without being very disruptive. __ 3742:. If a "longstanding consensus" exists as you claim, it should be possible to link to a discussion where that consensus was formed, instead of asking everyone to trust your word alone. All I've seen so far is a link to a CFD about 1420:: the name "RCMP" was not in use until 1920, by which time the forts were obsolete, so using "RCMP" in the category title seem anachronistic to me. "NWMP" was the contemporary name of the force at the time the forts were in use. 4107:

died at 122. Before the category was created, there was support from Sebwite, Hersfold, DGG, Josiah Rowe, Banime, Matthewedwards and me. TenPoundHammer said it "might be too narrow a categorization", but I doesn't conflict with

4613:

person's death is not especially notable at all when compared to the other aspects of their life." I understand that you have a personal bias against this defining characteristic, but I still see no policy objection other than

3509:, which are well-maintained. This reason does not cite any Knowledge (XXG) policies stating why these categories should be deleted, and is this CfD is doing nothing more really than soliciting votes to agree with the nom (see 4216:

The UK papers I read rarely mention the age, though of course they always mention the dates. Equally most WP articles don't bother to mention the age of death, a clear demonstration it is usually not significant in itself.

697:

Closing as dismantle (diffuse the contents and rework the category to be fit for purpose). Needs to be done manually because this is a complicated category structure that can't be picked apart by a bot. I will list this at

4973:

Where are the independent reliable sources that indicate that "people who died at the same age as other people" is the subject of independent research, such that a few paragraphs or more could be written on the topic per

3463:

and I have still not seen any evidence of a prior CFD on the topic. Since additions to OCAT are based on CFD precedent, I removed the paragraph. If you think the removal was incorrect, just give a link to the prior CFD.

2108:

articles to be organized in a way that removes clutter from other categories. The only issue here is in regards to the name of that category, whether it be "Category:Radio Tales" or "Category:Radio Tales episodes" .

1680:

the notion that opponents of the political system in Turkey would be 'political enemies of Turkey' is definately a pov notion. The notion that Kurdish nationalism is inherently 'anti-Turkish' is also definately pov.

502:

should stay. In fact, if this one gets deleted, then the Bohemians one probably should be too. Finally, your "compromise" over the goalkeepers category is irrelevant and is unlikely to save this one from deletion. –

2397:

wouldn't that be confused with fictional works with fictional legends? Those creatures would not be "real" legendary, but "fictional legendary". (This comment assumes a difference between legend and common fiction)

1995:: At first glance I thought this was an actual category about a genre of radio drama, but upon further research it seems to be a spin off list of the a main article, which already contains a list of each episode ( 4467:

arguments but feel nonetheless that the categories provide good information in a well organized manner. I can't see anything wrong with keeping them, I think age of death is important enough to categorize over.

2064: 2088:

as the AFD was not technically eligible for speedy keep. Just to clarify, I don't care if the articles are merged or not (although I note there was some support for discussing merger in the course of the AFD).

1807:– The term “programs” is correct for the separate installments of an anthology series. The term “episodes” suggests that the programs are all continuations of the same story, which they clearly aren't – see 473:

Bohemians have a category on this and it is helpful and not an over categorization. A lot of work went into this and Rovers only have three sub categories. I understand deleting the goalkeepers. Thank you

4291:

So is the attribution of usefulness. True, I am not big fan of born in xxxx categories, but to group people born in the same year at least makes more sense than to group people who died the same age.

2431:

I think in this instance it means mythical, it is a fairly well established term. I'd support a mass rename of all legendary creatures to mythical creatures, but doing just the one seems redundant.

5060: 4093:

time ago" which established "a very clear consensus against categorizing people by their age of death" according to Bearcat. So it's not overcategorization. And it's not difficult to maintain if

3680:

the statement, and then I reverted that because he didn't have a consensus to do so — the consensus against such categorization and the OCAT statement about it both long predate this discussion.

3626:

was seemingly placed there conveniently regarding this discussion, can be easily added and removed at any time, and should therefore be discounted until a more thorough concensus can be reached.

37: 4519: 2748: 2756: 42: 3580:

maybe. For most modern notable people, who live long into retirement, it is certainly not. If fully filled, these cats would have thousands of members each. What use is that to anyone?

2752: 3920:

If some is born (or dies) on December 31, they will be in a different category that someone who is born or dies January 1. Doesn't that make birth and death year categories trivial?

1811:

for the Knowledge (XXG) definition. I have copy edited all the individual Radio Tales program pages on Knowledge (XXG) to remove the term “episode” and replace it with “program”.

392:

Over-categorization. I cannot find any other football club with an equivalent category. A similar category for West Ham United F.C. was the subject of a CfD in October 2007 - see

169:

Over-categorization. I cannot find any other football club with an equivalent category. A similar category for West Ham United F.C. was the subject of a CfD in October 2007 - see

1691:

Sorry, i missed the passage 'Both highly inapropriate.' in dimadick's comment (thus judging his/her comment in the opposite way). sorry for that, sometimes i read to to rash. --

699: 3255:

Sorry about that, Arthur -- didn't mean to preempt you! I hadn't the faintest idea that you had barely finished setting things up. (I'm still hoping to hear from the creator.)

4900:

to find that out. 122 different age of death categories would be, in my opinion, the simplest way to sort articles about dead people that have a known birthdate and deathdate.

1653:

In its current state the category mostly covers political enemies of modern Turkey and political parties banned for one reason or another. Both highly inapropriate. However

3497:

Several editors and I had agreed there should be such a series of categories following an AfD in which we all felt this was the solution. We have talked about it mostly on

1894:

should tell us that the likelihood that anyone is going to say that a broadcast unit of a show like "The Twilight Zone" isn't an "episode" of the series is extremely low.

1161:? This is better handled in article space than category space. An article would be much more useful than a category. Category space is not the place to write articles. 4501:-- I find the keep arguments convincing. I think the request for a link to the discussion where the consensus to delete is said to exist is a very reasonable request. 1212:, too vague. There are no concrete inclusion criteria beyond anyone's subjective sense of what "monster" may connote, as the hodgepodge of current entries illustrates: 4694:

age could be useful — for example, seeing whether artists who died young are more or less likely to achieve lasting fame than those who live long and healthy lives. —

2346: 4829: 916:

Dissatisfaction with coverage of this particular category doesn't mean it isn't of interest. This just sounds like a clean up issue of an otherwise valid category.

4069: 1396: 4986:" is not a particularly strong argument. There are all kinds of things that people may find interesting that are not included in Knowledge (XXG) because they do 3676:

thing that changed within the lifetime of this discussion was that one of the people who agreed with you on the utility of creating these categories arbitrarily

4407:. That change would put approximately 29,000 pages about dead people into around 122 different categories. If someone adds the category to a page manually (and 372: 1921:

but never "episodes" -- since that terminology would be factually incorrect. If the Knowledge (XXG) article is not strong enough support, you can visit the

763: 4939:. If a person's birthdate and deathdate are not known, the categories obviously would not apply. If a person's birthdate and deathdate are known, I think 4833: 3839:

So a brand new wikiproject that has had less participation then this discussion should trump an existing guideline? Something about that seems so wrong.

4103:

is altered to handle it automatically. It's not trivial that James Dean died at 24. It's not trivial that Kurt Cobain died at 27. It's not trivial that

364: 21: 5013:, to recognise the demand and to try and channel it in a new direction and encourage the analysis to be done a different way, with a different method? 4717:- why not make this a hidden category or devote a project to using biographical data to generate this and other stats from standardised data such as 1784:. The articles are all for episodes and I don't envision that there's a lot of other material for other articles relating to this particular series. 899:?! I took a stab at clearing out some of the entries to see if something could be made of it but gave up in despair. I don't think it's salvageable. 4750:

Hidden categories would be great. Personally I still see no use in those categories, but this way they won't indeed clutter the categories section.

1872:-- since the Knowledge (XXG) definition is this: "Drama is the specific mode of fiction represented in performance". This seems more appropriate. 1364: 4580:

categories as well. My argument is that the age of death is not a defining detail of an individual, and fails the first and most basic criteria at

4256:

That the media mentions the age, does not mean we have to divide all people who died at the same age in one group. To look at two current examples

355: 1143:

qualifies as a monster because, since his blood is based on iron, he is a "gross exception the the norms" of the eco-system of the planet Vulcan.

4072:, and Deaths by age certainly is not. Also, you've got a "Living people" category with over 292,000 articles. Isn't that difficult to mantain!?-- 4482:

As I noted above, if someone has a link to the prior established consensus mentioned, that would influence me to possibly change my decision. --

2200: 1400: 1225: 755: 715: 17: 1392: 449: 334: 226: 90: 4369:

After seeing support for Sebwite's idea for the categories, and after Hersfold suggested the categories could be handled automatically with

453: 338: 267:

If this is kept it would lead to thousands of similar categories for every football club for every position. Ridiculous overcategorisation.

622: 590: 490: 4383: 2688: 1842: 1830: 2586:- Use complete term for clarity, and consistent with main article. It's also worth noting that I just added the "missing" parent cat, 1834: 4767: 4518:- I personally don't know/care if this is recreated content or not, I just think it is a bad idea. I did saw one related discussion. 2033:

the list and the category are strongly complementary. Now if someone wanted to make an argument for merging the episode articles per

4704: 3525:

criteria, because this is being disussed via a CfD. For this reason, if these categories are recreated promptly following deletion.

606:. Again a lot of time and effort went into this and the fact that it ends up deleted says a lot about moderators here. Get a life. 141: 4801:

As for the rest, while you may deem it interesting, or at least worth musing about, none of it would be implemented as a result of

574:

Again it is a useful and valuable resource. Rovers have the most Irish international players of all Irish clubs. Calm down Peejay

412: 189: 149: 3410:

I'd like to note, for the record, that a very clear consensus against categorizing people by their age of death was established a

1507: 1465: 1343: 3743: 2399: 997: 836: 3517:). The "pernoms," which are not in support of an actual policy, therefore must be discounted as votes, as this is not really a 1838: 530: 132: 3731: 2342: 2065:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/The_Time_Machine_(Radio)_et_al the closed AFD discussion resulting in '''speedy keep'''

2004: 1439: 1360: 3986:

categories (I personally don't see the death by cause categories as useful either), I haven't seen an explanation as to why

3514: 2376: 230: 94: 4065: 5125: 5108: 5072: 5022: 4999: 4958: 4876: 4845: 4823: 4809: 4793: 4774: 4757: 4745: 4730: 4709: 4682: 4664: 4641: 4626: 4603: 4571: 4552: 4529: 4510: 4491: 4477: 4449: 4426: 4364: 4344: 4321: 4298: 4286: 4271: 4241: 4226: 4205: 4159: 4129: 4081: 4050: 4035: 4021: 3999: 3974: 3951: 3929: 3911: 3893: 3871: 3848: 3834: 3813: 3787: 3764: 3725: 3707: 3689: 3651: 3635: 3589: 3557: 3534: 3487: 3473: 3450: 3405: 3384: 3363: 3346: 3321: 3264: 3250: 3238: 3218: 2827: 2774: 2693: 2666: 2640: 2623: 2606: 2538: 2479: 2460: 2440: 2426: 2407: 2389: 2369: 2356: 2332: 2273: 2256: 2236: 2217: 2188: 2117: 2098: 2075: 2046: 2016: 1983: 1965: 1934: 1903: 1881: 1858: 1820: 1793: 1759: 1700: 1670: 1644: 1588: 1524: 1491: 1477: 1459: 1447: 1435: 1429: 1412: 1381: 1352: 1284: 1249: 1237: 1204: 1192: 1170: 1152: 1125: 1105: 1087: 1069: 1052: 1031: 1019: 1005: 980: 962: 939: 925: 908: 807: 743: 691: 626: 594: 564: 552: 535: 509: 494: 465: 440: 424: 403: 347: 280: 259: 242: 217: 201: 180: 126: 106: 4464: 4142: 3478:

Do you have a link to the prior established consensus? That may influence me to change, but for now I cannot find it. --

4736:

perspective to the current debate) if they were hidden and didn't annoy users by "cluttering" the categories section. __

4599: 4548: 2196: 1272: 5141: 3747: 2733: 2709: 2519: 2495: 2313: 2289: 2169: 2145: 1740: 1716: 1564: 1540: 1329: 1305: 667: 643: 320: 296: 74: 4943: 4933: 4411: 4393: 4097: 3753: 3423: 1015: 827: 739: 703: 420: 399: 393: 197: 176: 170: 4918:

has over 244,000 articles in it according to same tool, yet it has no such use. Dead people aren't simply placed in

3290: 3187: 3153: 3119: 3085: 3051: 3017: 2983: 2949: 2915: 2881: 2847: 1014:

And the subjects of those movies, vampires, werewolves and the like, are found in the specific categories for them (

2583: 2000: 1804: 1773: 719: 711: 707: 783: 4762:

Such usage of hidden categories has been opposed. Hidden categories, as I understand it, are to be restricted to

2791: 1954: 1845:

and so on. Whereas for radio, "program" is used to refer to the show not to individual periodic broadcasts, c.f.

1443: 1213: 775: 723: 5140:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

5063:

and come and help out with that (ask for a new batch of names disambiguation page suggestions to be generated).

4832:. I think the discussion jc37 is referring to is the one mentioned there, which has now been archived and is at 3947: 3907: 3822: 3750: 3539: 3502: 2708:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2494:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2288:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2144:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1715:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1603: 1539:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1304:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1157:

In what sense is this useful for browsing? And in what sense can we speak to authorial intent and remain within

844: 642:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

295:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4117: 3281: 3178: 3144: 3110: 3076: 3042: 3008: 2974: 2940: 2906: 2872: 2838: 2732:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2518:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2312:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2168:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1739:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1563:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1450:. Given the location of the main article, I think that I'll stand by my suggestion pending other suggestions. 1328:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

735: 666:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

618: 586: 486: 319:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4983: 4798:

You may be "sure", but I think you'd be mistaken. (And the discussion was definitely broader than this one : )

4614: 4559: 4308: 4193: 3298: 3195: 3161: 3127: 3093: 3059: 3025: 2991: 2957: 2923: 2889: 2855: 2554: 1999:), rather than an actual category. I see no reason it can not be simply added to existing categories, such as 1275:

but I suspect that some of the articles are also included in that structure eliminating the need for a merge.

603: 727: 5121: 4577: 4113: 2782: 2684: 2619: 2012: 1917: 1846: 1654: 1473: 1434:

So, would it be sufficient to add that explanation to the introduction of the category? Also, according to

1425: 1377: 4718: 3943: 3903: 1594: 779: 610: 578: 478: 4907: 4903: 4146: 4138: 3970: 3648: 3602: 3554: 3318: 3247: 3215: 2824: 2799: 2025:

It's as much a legitimate category as any other category that gathers episodes of a series, not to get al

1769: 1043:, category invites original research through speculating upon, analysing and interpreting primary source. 921: 548: 416: 395: 255: 193: 172: 4312:

article mean that it needs to be categorized in the encyclopedia? Clearly this is over categorization.

3460: 2545: 4897: 4700: 4317: 4155: 4141:

as a reason to keep this and pointing out other categories which could be deleted as well seems to be a

3844: 3393: 2422: 2252: 1611: 1584: 1487: 1455: 1408: 1280: 122: 102: 2765: 1925:, which also never uses the term "episode", always instead using either the term "drama" or "program". 1912:

Putting aside any conjecture about what people might think about the definition of the word 'episode',

996:"monster movie" is a valid film genre, so there are things that are validly called fictional monsters. 4188:

also seem to have no difficulty confronting the issue that one's age changes on their birthday, as in

2562: 2007:

in addition to the programs page listing. Why does this show merit it's own Knowledge (XXG) category?

2003:, where it is not currently listed. Likewise I see no reason why it needs it's own Subcategory in the 5068: 5018: 4919: 4915: 4841: 4726: 4637: 4520:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 24#Category:Entertainers by age upon death

4089:, Arthur Rubin's reasons for deletion are invalid. I have yet to see a link to the prior CFD from "a 2403: 2037:

I would be amenable, after which should consensus be to merge the category would become unnecessary.

1001: 971:

First, that definition is unsourced and second, Knowledge (XXG) is not a reliable source for itself.

803: 687: 4581: 4009: 3660:. And for what it's worth, the consensus against categories of this type has already existed for at 2056: 2034: 1267: 4954: 4422: 4335:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of people who died before the age of 30 (2nd nomination)

4125: 3867: 3760: 3712:

The onus is not on me to prove that a longstanding consensus exists. The burden of proof is on the

3703: 3577: 3469: 3225: 2593: 2535: 2352:

These creatures originated in legends, folklore, etc., rather than in the fictional works noted. -

2185: 1349: 1246: 614: 582: 561: 525: 506: 482: 437: 214: 4889: 3656:

I'm pretty sure Arthur Rubin just used the wrong word by mistake; he's quite clearly referring to

3522: 3510: 1891: 5106: 4995: 4872: 4754: 4660: 4622: 4567: 4526: 4506: 4341: 4295: 4282: 4268: 4237: 4201: 4180: 4176: 4167: 3925: 3830: 3380: 3260: 3234: 2679: 2662: 2615: 2602: 2475: 2385: 2269: 2213: 2113: 2094: 2071: 2042: 2008: 1979: 1961: 1930: 1899: 1877: 1854: 1816: 1789: 1666: 1579:. While there was some discussion, it supports the fact that this is a POV category with issues. 1469: 1421: 1373: 1188: 1148: 1065: 1027: 976: 958: 935: 904: 795: 4914:. An editor can click on related changes and check every change to every one of those articles. 4766:

Knowledge (XXG) internal categories, such as cleanup. And the further thoughts sound not unlike

4585: 4445: 4222: 4077: 4064:

as per Werdnawerdna and RobDe68. There are many irrelevant categories at Knowledge (XXG) like

4046: 4031: 4017: 3995: 3966: 3889: 3809: 3783: 3721: 3685: 3645: 3631: 3601:

There is no limit as to the number of articles that can be listed in a category. The category

3585: 3551: 3530: 3498: 3446: 3401: 3342: 3315: 3244: 3212: 2821: 2636: 1520: 1233: 917: 544: 251: 3854: 3657: 3623: 3610: 3569: 3456: 3415: 2085: 930:

What, per Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines, is the objective definition of "monster"?

871:

was included, because out of a 46-year publishing history she became a harpy for two issues.

5054:

assume our disambiguation page will have all of them. Do searches and see just how many are

4695: 4593: 4542: 4487: 4473: 4313: 4151: 3840: 3483: 3359: 2587: 2456: 2436: 2418: 2248: 1580: 1483: 1451: 1404: 1276: 1217: 1166: 1083: 1048: 876: 461: 238: 118: 98: 4987: 4979: 4975: 4781: 2761: 2614:

as per above. This was also the intended meaning when I created the category back in 2005.

2030: 2026: 5064: 5014: 4837: 4722: 4633: 4417:

is already present), the category still just appears once at the bottom of the article. --

1696: 1686: 1640: 799: 791: 683: 4109: 3940: 3859: 3622:

a significant factor in making a judgment rearding a person's death. The guideline under

3518: 1158: 4277:

the obituary, is the clearest possible evidence that this is a defining characteristic.

4189: 4184: 2649:

As a matter of fact, I've subsequently discovered that there are several categories for

4950: 4883: 4819: 4789: 4741: 4678: 4418: 4333:- Overcategorization. I assume this category scheme is based on the deletion debate at 4264:

have nothing in common except that they both died at age 28. That fact is too trivial.

4257: 4172: 4121: 4104: 3863: 3756: 3699: 3465: 1658: 880: 751: 731: 558: 520: 503: 434: 276: 211: 3804:"Overcharacterization" and "difficult to maintain" are not valid reasons for deletion. 5101: 4991: 4868: 4751: 4656: 4618: 4563: 4523: 4502: 4360: 4338: 4292: 4278: 4265: 4261: 4233: 4197: 3921: 3826: 3376: 3256: 3230: 2771: 2658: 2598: 2471: 2381: 2329: 2265: 2233: 2209: 2109: 2090: 2067: 2038: 1975: 1957: 1926: 1895: 1873: 1850: 1812: 1785: 1756: 1662: 1201: 1184: 1144: 1140: 1121: 1061: 1023: 972: 954: 931: 900: 892: 787: 759: 344: 2631:

per nom. Term does have modest potential to be misunderstood without the clarifier.

5041:

What this about wanting to have all dead people in one category? That's silly. The

4911: 4441: 4373: 4218: 4073: 4042: 4027: 4013: 3991: 3885: 3805: 3779: 3717: 3681: 3627: 3581: 3543: 3526: 3442: 3397: 3335: 2632: 1632: 1516: 1229: 1074:

Doing that looks like it will leave two or three articles. So not a valid concept

4522:. To me that one was actually a little bit less trivial than the current scheme. 4137:. I have yet to see a reason to keep this in the discussions above. Pointing to 2227:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.

1228:? Protagonists and antagonists, humanoid and non-humanoid... This is useless. 5117: 4589: 4538: 4483: 4469: 3479: 3355: 2452: 2432: 2264:

No reason for separate categories that are clearly addressing the same subject.

2060: 1996: 1913: 1162: 1079: 1044: 896: 884: 457: 234: 4181:"Elinor Guggenheimer, Advocate for Women, Children and the Elderly, Dies at 96" 3640:

Actually, the guideline was placed there in January, and was recently removed

3396:, which old-time regulars will remember all too well, is a different matter. 2417:. Isn't legendary about as vague as famous? If so, then I'm leaning delete. 1692: 1682: 1636: 1635:(which is ripe with pov issues), none of the presently included articles fit. 868: 771: 4828:

One of the earliest discussion was at the Village Pump in February 2008. See

3858:

said it "might be too narrow a categorization", but it doesn't conflict with

3755:

CFD (where you argued to delete) and that's not what these categories are. --

2590:-- the proposed rename will thus make more sense to readers in that context. 5084:

Overcategorization and trivial. I don't find sorting X person born in year

4815: 4806: 4785: 4771: 4737: 4674: 2366: 2353: 1136: 1102: 888: 872: 272: 268: 4982:

of one category does not justify the existence of another. And again "it's

4404: 2726: