Category talk:Dead people

Adding people directly to this category

Resolved

 – No one else on Wikipedia seems to have a problem with it; wrong venue anyway.

Why can't we add people to this category yet we can add them to category:Living people? NorthernThunder 18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, a person is added here. But I think that it is a mistake as the comment on top of the page clearly states not to add people here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for not answering my question. NorthernThunder 01:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We add people to a category based on year of death, for example, Category:2006 deaths.--Lkjhgfdsa 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We also add them to Category:Living people but not to Category:Dead people. NorthernThunder 06:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you still have an issue with this, take it up at WP:BIO talk or WP:CFD. You will meet resistance. There is a longstanding broad consensus that these categories serve radically different purposes. C:Dp exists as a "container" category for more specific categories that actually serve a reader purpose; C:Lp does not exist for such a purpose (instead the birth year categories, e.g. Category:1959 births, and its alternatives like Category:Year of birth missing are used). Rather, C:Lp has a different purpose, of identifying in one pile all of the articles subject to WP:BLP policy; Jimbo Wales has made this very, very clear in the deletion CfD of Category:Living people, which he personally overrode and explained why. There are those of us that question the usefulness of that "one giant category" approach, but we are in the minority. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that 19xx births doesn't imply the person is alive; thus "living people" is also needed. However, 19xx deaths does imply they're dead. Thus, no additional dead people category should be added. Superm401 - Talk 17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense but 18xx births or 19xx births and no 19xx deaths or 20xx deaths does imply that someone is alive, while personally I think we should be able to edit the "Dead people" category, I can at the same time somewhat understand why it has subcategories, however, I don't understand why "insert year" births and no "insert year" deaths does not imply that someone is still alive Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Animals that appear in the category of 'dead people'

Resolved

 – This is a non-fictional humans ONLY category.

It's pedantic, I know, but although with several articles on famous animals (I've chosen dogs to illustrate my example) such as Laika and Greyfriars Bobby, they're not categorised in a particular year of death, whereas Buddy (dog) appears in the category of 2002 deaths, a subcategory of 2000s deaths, 21st century deaths, and finally Deaths by year, which in itself is a subcategory of Dead people.--HisSpaceResearch 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to propose similar categories for animals, let them do so at WP:CFD. I suspect that the community consensus will be overwhelmingly negative. In the interim, any animals found in these categories should be removed from them. Fictional people don't belong in here either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong

The name itself sounds so wrong, and not too professional. "Deceased people" would have been a much better term. While "Dead people" is more common-sense wise, it doesn't seem too encyclopedic. Are there any references from encyclopedia on how they catalog the deceased, as "dead" or "deceased"? --Anime Addict AA (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I too think that "deceased people" would be more appropriate.--Vera (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The word "dead" is fine, no need to use a euphemism. – Smyth\^talk 07:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

+1 agree that "Deceased" is the more medical, clinical, and academic term. Yes "Dead" does *logically* and *realistically* mean the same thing, however, it is highly insensitive to families and friends who have lost someone. @Smyth: Deceased isn't a "euphemism" for Dead; it is truly though a synonym which in its own right is less brutal, coarse, basic, laymen-ish, elementary, and biting than "Dead." From Peter aka Vid2vid (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC).

We Should Be Allowed to Add People to Here

Would love if someone explained but I don't really understand how this is supposed to only be subcategories while everyone in the "Living people" category can be listed under that category instead of subcategories, because I would love to contribute to this category if we were allowed - Feel free to respond why Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Living people is primarily for monitoring articles about living people to ensure that the articles meet Wikipedia's specific standards for such articles. For example, here are the most recent edits to articles in this category.

Also, you can contribute to this category, sort of—you can categorize the deceased by year of death, cause of death, etc., and all of those categories are subcategories of this one. Trivialist (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I understand that part of contributing but I primarily meant to the "Dead people" categories itself but I guess the two categories are different. Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Also another note but I don't really understand how if someone has a birth year in their category but no death year, how it doesn't indicate that they are still alive. Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(still think we should add to this category) ...

While I still think we should add to this category, I've realized how long it would take if someone started contributing to this category, but alas, the living people category has people into it. But I'm just here to say that I realized how long it would take, even though I still think we should, but I've started contributing to it in my own sandbox. In short, I'd still really like to contribute to this category, but alas, until Wikipedia allows it (if they do), I will refrain from editing it. Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

There's really no point. If there was interest in putting every dead person in the category, bots could do that easily. Trivialist (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see why some would see it as pointless. Of course, I still think we should be allowed to add to the category, but by this point, I can accept if one doesn't have interest in it. And yes, again, it'll take forever to manually add them. Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

STRONGLY move for Dead_people to point to Deceased_people not other way around (current)

I was QUITE surprised (perturbed?) tonight to see that when I went to "Category:Deceased_people" it kindly directed me to the MAIN or DEFAULT page of, "Category:Dead_people" -- I strongly move/urge for this current "pointer" to be in the other direction - perhaps Dead_people could "auto-redirect" to the more polite, more kind (or kindly-named, or more sensitively-named) "Deceased_people." Any history on why Deceased points to Dead ..and is not set up the other way around?? We not cave-people. Thanks - from Peter aka Vid2vid (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC).