# Category talk:Living people

WikiProject Biography (Rated Category-class)
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Category  This category does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

## Year of death missing

Resolved: Criteria agreed by consensus; use Category:Possibly living people for unknowns.

"For those with unknown death dates born after 1882…"

I seriously doubt anyone born in 1882 would be alive now. Should it be moved to maybe 1900 or 1920? —  \$PЯINGrαgђ  Always loyal! 21:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

1920 is far too late; plenty of people born then or before are still with us. 1900 at the latest.--Brownlee 13:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, shouldn't the sentence read: "born before [date]" ? --RCEberwein | Talk 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No. Then the sentence would make even less sense. Heroicraptor 07:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone that would be older than Jeanne Calment is likely to be dead (122 years and 164 days, i.e. born before 1883 in 2006).
When adding categories by bot, Category:Living people was only added to those born later than 1920, articles about people born between 1910 and 1920 (but not in one of the death categories) were checked after addition.
Category talk:Possibly living people discusses which articles to move to Category:Year of death missing. -- User:Docu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Docu (talkcontribs) 13:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
Marking this topic resolved, because Category:Living people sets the date criteria, and Category:Possibly living people handles the unknowns these days. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

## hi please remember hassan tajor

(Rotanalatesex (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)).

## If there's no news of a person's death

Resolved: The cut-off date is established at Category:Living people.

If a person in the living people category dies, but this is not reported in news media, they will remain in this category. Over time, there will be people who become very old for whom there is no recent news about. At what age should we move them to the possibly living people category, do you think?--HisSpaceResearch 14:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is now covered at Category:Living people in its documentation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

## Change the rules!

Resolved: No consensus to split into subcategories; WP:CFD consensus on topical categories would still apply.

I strongly suggest whoever decides Wikipedian policy ought to change the rules so that this category can be subcategorised in some circumstances. Wikipedia does not segregate any category into living and dead, but should do so for living supercentenarians as this shows the extremes of age. At present, there is a CFD on this category. Dovea 20:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with having living categories that are not sub-categories of this one? A category for living supercentenarians is inherently notable and if they're all also in this category I don't see what the problem is. Timrollpickering 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus to date for such subcategorization of this category, and many proposals for it have been rejected. I believe that some such categories exist, but they are not subcategories of this category, which serves a special WP:BLP purpose. Also, such categories, under the general principles established at WP:CFD, should not include only supercentarians who are still living; we do not remove people from categories (Category:People from Barcelona, Category:Scottish pool players, etc., etc., etc., simply because they have died. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved: Wrong venue.

Has anybody else noticed the bug in the fairly new two-letter navigation bar? Even if you click on all twenty-six of them starting with one letter, you will not get all the people whose names start with that letter.

In fact, if you do that under the O's, there will be more than six hundred fifty people that are missed.

That's because both the space and the apostrophe (and any numbers and several other characters), plus all of the capital letters from A to Z as well, have Unicode numbers lower than the Unicode number of "a".

Shouldn't it be fixed so that the single letters are also links? Gene Nygaard 10:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong venue; this should be addressed on the talk page of that TOC template. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

## Subjective

This is totally subjective though. How do you define when a person is "dead"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.249.63 (talkcontribs)

When they are no longer alive. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought that someone rejoicing in your sobriquet might have acquitted himself a touch more imaginatively given this free kick. Myles325a (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources, as always. If there is serious doubt, that is what Category:Possibly living people is for.

Resolved: Self-resolving FYI.

Interiot updated the "undead.txt" report on the toolserver. It includes all articles tagged with a birth category but not a death category. As the update of toolserver data from en.wikipedia.org stopped with data from c. 19 January, 2007, articles categorized afterwards aren't included.

Some 6000 articles from the list for birth years 1910-2004 have already been added to Category:Living people.

Articles about people with earlier birth years (born 1909 or earlier), Category:Year_of_birth_unknown or Category:Year_of_birth_missing still need a category for the year of death, Category:Living people, Category:Possibly living people, Category:Year of death missing, Category:Disappeared people, etc. -- User:Docu

## Just plain too long to ever be useful

Resolved: Category is not a regular category, but for bot and WP:BIO purposes.

I'd just like to make a point that's probably been made before, but here goes: every single article on Wikipedia is about a living person. Therefore, this category is entirely useless. I challenge you to find one article to prove me wrong.

What about William Shakespeare? Or Pope John Paul II? Hell, Lichen qualifies! --81.23.56.24 (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree - I just saw this Category at the bottom of a page - this category is 100% useless to 99.99999% of the people that use the net - a category like "Architects", "Chefs", etc. have some purpose, and I can see the service it provides. I propose a new Category: "Human" -- Themepark
Additionally, I think we should keep in mind that the existence of a category implies that there should be a Wikipedia article about every single entity in that category, as per WP:CATRULE. Consider Category:Footballers, which currently lists everyone alive who has ever played the game. In the case of "living persons", however, I hope we can agree that the over 6 billion of us would single-handedly crash the servers, in addition to being boring to read.— Lenoxus 08:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your second point. Only if we have an article about the person (footballer or not). Garion96 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Not true in the slightest — again, see CATRULE. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 02:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It was late last night... Garion96 (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh, totally understandable -- that's when Mrs. O'Leary's cow is up to her tricks. You have no idea how often I've had the same thing happen (like with m:Friends of gays, had to read it twice). Peace! ;) $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I quote you in saying "every single article on Wikipedia is about a living person". If you can excuse me using WP:IAR and make a mild personal attack, that's possibly the most outrageously ridculous statement I've ever read on this website.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not a usual category, but is for both and WP:BIO needs; the normal reader/editor categories are Category:1925 births, etc., etc., Category:1998 deaths, etc., etc., and the missing/unknown ones Category:Year of death missing, Category:Disappeared people, and so on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this category is useless. Obveously, I wouldn't say that "every single article on wikipedia is about living people" because not all of them are. But still, the world has a population of... I don't know, maybe 1,000,000,000,0000....etc. So yeah, this category is almost like listing the names of the worlds entire population. This category is useless JimboV1 (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think you'll find that the world's human population is projected by [1] — as five seconds of actually consulting a search engine would have told you — to be a mere 6.77*10⁹ people at the time that I write this, so your guesstimate is off by several orders of magnitude and will (hopefully) remain so for centuries to come. --81.23.56.24 (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Its rediculous. Living People? Really? Who cares. That's about 100,000,000 different articles. Now, my question is, how do we delete it? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

### Missing entry

Resolved: Wrong venue; just go edit the article or discuss on its talk page.

You need to add Martin Walsh to the list, as he is more "famous" than some others on the category page. Please comment back, if you add him to the list. Brylcreem2 17:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

## Number of articles in this category updating

From the page: "Organization: This category should not be sub-categorised. Entries are generally sorted by family name. As of 10 February 2007, there are 162,304 articles in this category."

It used to be that the total number of articles would be updated every month; this has not happened for a while. Any reason?--FeanorStar7 00:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The tally takes more time and there didn't appear to be much demand. Anyways, I updated it and could update it once in a while. 200,000 is close. -- User:Docu
Thanks for answering and updating the info. Appreciated --FeanorStar7 11:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

## Over 10% of all Wikipedia articles are currently in this category

Total: 1,951,742 Living people: 211,156

--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So? I think the interesting comment is that 10% of wikipedia articles are about living people. --Gmaxwell 16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, but there are over 4 million "living people" in the world. PS how do we know if a wikipedian has died? --[[123Pie|Talk]] 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

## Useful tool for working with this category

Give cattersect a shot. For example, living English footballers, non-living English footballers. Unfortunately due to the level of excessive sub-categorization and under-categorization on English Wikipedia it's not possible to simple get a list of all living footballers.

If you scroll down to the bottom you'll see a list of categories frequently found in the results. In order to further refine your results, you can click the plus next to a category mandatory, minus to make it forbidden, or equals to start a new search with just that category. --Gmaxwell 16:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

## Kelly Salmon and Duncan Duff

Resolved

Can you please add Kelly Salmon and Duncan Duff to this list as I can't work out how to. Thanks. Jordan5001 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You just needed to edit their page, and add Category:Living people to the bottom. the wub "?!" 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

## Is this a meaningful category?

I mean, there are (currently) more than 6 billion people in the world. Even if we count only persons of notability, this is a vast amount of people - and the category is not reliable either, for two reasons. 1) It's easy to forget to remove the category when updating an article on a recently deceased person, and 2) Far from all articles on living people use this category. LarRan 11:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See the old discussions. This category isn't really for readers but helps editors to monitor these articles for libel, which could present legal problems for Wikipedia. Obviously it's not perfect, but if you see articles where it needs adding/removing then please do so! the wub "?!" 18:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with LarRan. This list is inane. Anybody who is of any public interest will have their articles monitored without the aid of this list. 72.147.204.127 19:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)ah3133
I'm no exclusionist, but this list is a bit much! I've seen lists for just about everything, but a list for living people? I suggest the creation of a whole new WikiBiographies. Honestly. Wikitank 01:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why the living=yes field in the WPBiography template doesn't suffice for the purpose used as rationale for retaining this piece of semantic noise. We even have the blp=yes field for the WikiProjectBannerShell to make sure the WP:BLP concerns are properly advertised. I personally do not perceive how removing this category would result in a sigificant increase in disregard for BLP concerns. __meco 08:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If the list is for bot/admin purposes, why not make it private or something? It's bizarre to scroll down to the end of a page and see 20 links clogging it up, and one of them being the absolutely inane "living people." Why don't we have categories for "Living People With Hair" "Humans That Are Homo Sapiens" and "Dying People" (wherein we also include everyone). Pages on Wikipedia should be meaningful... this one isn't. Pariah23 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is absolutely no point in adding this category. Specifying the person's date of birth and death in the biography is enough to tell whether they are alive or death. If the dates aren't known then they couldn't be classified anyway. And yes, for that matter we could add endless classifications (people without a classification, for instance). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josuedavila (talkcontribs) 01:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree. This is a totally inane category and I don't see how it increases the accuracy of biographical info. If it really does then I suggest some hidden category flag instead. Karpouzi (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
And again... HOW DO WE DELETE THIS CATEGORY? It serves NO PURPOSE. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
We should have Cadavres category as well. --Tigga en (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually not only the category, practically all these pesky biography articles are meaningless. --Mitra (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Articles that attempt to identify anything in any concrete way are absolutely pointless. nothing exists, including myself. I AM Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

## Natalee Holloway

I have suggested per the category living persons that she be removed from that category since she is listed under the disappeared persons category. There was BLP concerns about monitoring this article that was discussed. I was told to take it up with the "BLP patrolers" who ever they might be. Can this category please be removed. There seems to be plenty of eyes watching this article to help avoid any BLP issues as well as all other policy and guideline disputes. Thank you.--24.250.59.250 (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

## Lists of people needing categorization by birth or death

I've compiled three lists of people needing categorization by birth or death (as of mid-March 2008):

Any help gratefully received in adding the appropriate categories to these! Dsp13 (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

## HIDDENCAT

Should this use the hiddencat keyword, as it's mainly an administrative category? Superm401 - Talk 05:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's not really an administrative category in the same sense as other hidden categories in that it can't become applicable or need removing as the result of an editorial proces—i.e. it's not to do with the current status of the article. Category:Possibly living people could well need to be hidden though, but I'm not so familiar with its usage. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
True. But this category is not useful for readers. It serves no navigational purpose. Thus it should be hidden. I had almost added hiddencat immediately (per Be Bold), but this may be hard for the servers so I'll wait a bit for other comments. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not useful to navigate from the category due to size, but I at least use the category list at the bottom of an article as a quick scan of a person's attributes, in which case "living people" is just as useful as "2007 deaths" (which is not useful as a navigation category either, also due to size). --Delirium (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
It certainly is useful to navigate from this category, and a whole lot easier to do than in a lot of other categories.
But why was this category hidden? I don't think it should be. Certainly not if you aren't going to hide all the date categories and living and dead people categories. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Why this one and not the other ones? I don't come across the others so often,I have no opinion on them, but it certainly wasn't a deliberate choice to not hide them. As for navigating: when you come at the category, how can you usefully navigate it? Yocan go to e.g. the section "Ci", and you still have almost 400 pages. I was goig to count the pages at "St", but at over 1,000 pages, I'm still only at "Sta", so I can't be bothered to continue... If you are trying to look for someone in particular, isn't the search box the more useful and logical option? You certainly woud find Princess Stéphanie of Monaco faster tah tway than through this massive category. Can you give some examples of how the average reader would use this category (so not for maintenance purposes, but to actually look for someone?). For maintenance, you can go to your preferences and mark the "show hidden categories" checkbox, then they all reappear on every page. Fram (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The search box doesn't find them when some fool has created an article about someone with squiggles in name and hasn't made the proper redirects, or when the article name includes titles as in the case of the redirects from Princess Stephanie of Monaco and for Stephanie of Monaco, but if instead you had put in Stéphanie of Monaco you would have been shit out of luck. In that case, trying Living people is probably the fastest way to get you there.
The search box isn't particularly useful when you know the surname and aren't sure about the given name, and might recognize it in a list or check the ones with that surname. Special:All pages isn't any help there, but a category sorted by surnames certainly is. And many of the other categories are so fragmentized as to be useless, where you'd need to know the nationality of the person you are looking for or the subbranch in the field of biology or various other factors in order to find them. There are probably faster ways if you are looking for a Smith, but most names only have a few people with wikipedia entries.
Furthermore, is is really quite simple to go more quickly to the name you are looking for. Click on the link to A in the navigation box, for example. Now look at the url: in your browser--do you see the &from=A at the end? Now just replace the A with the first few letters you are looking for and hit the enter key; it isn't limited to just one or two letters. Realize that you might have to use &Steph to find your princess. Remember, of course, what a crude sorting engine we have, so you have to pay attention to the case of the letters you use. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
My real question as to why it was hidden, of course, is that it was in fact under discussion on this talk page. And as far as I can see, there wasn't any consensus of any sort on this talk page. And the person who made that change--namely you, User:Fram--did not even participate in this discussion, not even to say you had made the change once it was a fait accompli.
Now, here's one for your search box magic. Go to that search box and find the Angel Rodriguez who specializes the 100 m sprint. How easy is that? How many pages do you have to go through before you decide you aren't going to find him that way? Is it easier to instead look for him at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Living_people&from=Rodrig using the &from= in the url listing? Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The category still exists, you can still use it if you want to. What you are actually saying is that when you have a living person you want to research, you first go to another article of a living person, then scroll to the bottom to find the category "living people", then go to the corresponding page by taking the first two letters (hoping that he will be listed on surname, and not on first name, like many, many are), and then to scroll thropough the hundreds or thousands of pages starting with those two letters... Yep, clearly way faster than using the search box. Let's take one example of yours. I look for "stefanie of monaco", having no clue how to write it. The search box page[2] gives me "Did you mean: stéphanie of monaco"? Clicking that link[3], the first result is the correct page. No problem, and way faster than your solution. If I want to find some Angel Rodriguez, and I note that there are too many people with the same name, I can refine my search, just like in any search engine. This gets me the correct person as the second hit, not as the 150th on a page of living people (where I have no indication that any of the Angel Rodriguez listed there is even the right one). As for discussion about this cat, I started a discussion on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 20, where it was very clear that the idea to delete it was rather misguided, but that quite a few people thought that hiding it would be good.
As for this being "under discussion", there were two comments from April, when the search box was still a lot less good, and one comment from November agreeing with hiding it. Not much of a discussion, so I was just WP:BOLD. Fram (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not just a matter of boldness, when you are editing a protected page. You have a greater responsibility to use your powers responsibly in that case.
A discussion peripheral to a discussion of deleting the category isn't really that relevant.
Note that when you put in Angel Rodriguez in the box and click on "GO", you don't get any search results. You get sent to an article about some obscure movie. Then, if you click on the hatline at the top of that page to go to the disambiguation page at Ángel Rodríguez, you still have to look through that list that nobody has bothered to fix so the one you are looking for remains hidden away. It is only after that that you might go back and try a another search in a not particularly good search engine, even though it is considerably improved over the crude one we used to have. I still wouldn't even bother to try to use it for any sort of serious, complex searches--even if you did luck out in this particular case.
And no, I wouldn't find some other living person just to find a link to get to this category. But I have often used the category links from an article I was viewing to get here. It is much easier to click on that link than to have to type something into the box first. And having to go to the edit page first, and wait for that to load to be able to click on a link to this category is not an acceptable alternative. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The page was not protected, it was semi-protected, which means that the "greater responsibility" line is largely irrelevant. And I did not "luck out", it is way easier to use the search engine than to use the "living people" cat. In that cat, I have to scroll to the "Ro" section, then clikc "next 200" seven or eight times, just to ind that Angel Rodríguez is a GP racer, not a 100m runner. I can then use the hatnote disambig, to run in the same problems I had when entering Angel Rodriguez immediately into the search box... Anyway, I did easily find your sprinter. And I don't get your "edit page" comment: all hidden categories are always visible if you change your preferences, not only when editing (on the contrary, categories are not visible when editing at all).
Now I want you to find Ángel Rodríguez Lozano, the living journalist. Fram (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing you haven't addressed is the effect that hiding the category will have on one of the primary purposes of having a "living people" category in the first place--to prevent the insertion of unfounded, potentially libelous statements into the article. The articles themselves don't have that gaudy, hideous template message which appears on many of the talk pages; but the presence of a Category:Living people at the bottom of the page is one of the clues to an observant editor that the particular article being edited is covered by the rules at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about this will ever prevent any type of vandalism or libel. The hope is simply that it will be easier to notice and revert. "BLP" is based on the presumption that we can't catch everything but we should always try, and correcting articles about living people is a greater priority. It is not based on the presumption that a different set of content standards should apply. — CharlotteWebb 18:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I refuse to believe that a user seeking to add libelous statements to a Wikipedia article will be dissuaded by this category, whether it is visible to them (see Special:Preferences) or not. — CharlotteWebb 18:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I don't believe that anyone will decide to only vandalize articles on living people. And I believe that the small benefit the category may have for some people being visible does not outweigh the added clutter to often crowded infoboxes. When I see the categories on biographies, I want to see other footballers, politicians, people from city X, perhaps at a stretch people born in the same year: I am not interested in other living people.
And as support for that final point: if it was commonly used in this way (i.e. not only for checkinh changes to BLPs and other editorial stuff, but as a search and information tool), then why don't we place people in the corresponding Category:Dead people? 20:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
As it stands now, the many editors who have regularly added the "living people" category to articles in which it is missing are no longer able to see whether or not a living person is included in this category by looking at the page.
That means there will likely be a serious increase in the number of living people who are not included in this category. Nobody is going to bother to routinely check for it, if you need to open up the edit page just to find out whether or not it is included for any particular person. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Gene, I agreee that this category shouldn't be hidden. Lugnuts (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

## Discussion at Category talk:Year of birth missing (living people)?

I've started a discussion at Category talk:Year of birth missing (living people) about the relation between that category and this one. I've been routinely tagging people with both categories, because that seemed to be mostly what others were doing. However, I have no other reason to feel committed to doing so, and have noticed a few people beginning to avoid duplication of Category:Year of birth missing (living people) with this, its parent, category. What do others feel the current consensus to be? Is it now time to agree to use just the one category, and delete redundant Category:Living people categorizations of people within Category:Year of birth missing (living people)? Comments welcome there. Dsp13 (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

## This category is a waste of time and disk space.

Keeping track of the living persons will probably turn out to be a waste of time, since there is too much person to track. Unless this job is made by a BOT and that wikipedia as a lot of free space, this section should be destroyed! Acce —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree - although I'm not an administrator, so my opinion counts for very little! Adaircairell (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Each bio article should be categorized by both year of birth and that of death, and since the death year of a living person is undetermined, it is quite straightforward to use Category:Living people instead of Category:XXXX deaths. The use of this category makes the categorization of bio articles in wikipedia uniform and consistent. -- Taku (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree too. It's completely plain. Less than 2000 admins wouldn't be able to keep track of the +292,000 people listed here. It'd be much easier an encyclopedical to have this main category with many subcategories, I don't know, maybe by place of birth: "living English people", "living Russian people", or maybe by profession: "living pianists" or "living footballers". That would make this easier to keep and take care of. Think of it at a country with no states. Mexico has 110,000,000 inhabitants. Each state (out of 32) has an average of 3,500,000 people. What would be easier then? --Fluence (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

## unreferenced pages of living people

there is a page for articles lacking sources (Category:Articles lacking sources) and there is a page for living people (Category:Living people). is there a page for articles about living people that are lacking sources?   — Chris Capoccia TC 13:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't then, there is now. Category:Unreferenced BLPs is slowly filling up (well, the subpages are). There are now about 850 pages in it, but expectations are that this will raise to way above 10,000 pages (about one in 12 of Category:All articles lacking sources belongs in here, plus a significant number of unsourced but untagged articles). On the plus side, many of these pages have no problems except the lack of sources (they are not negative, and seem to be truthful). On the other hand, I already have had to delete some pages on porn stars and nazi camp guards that were unsourced for two years or more, so it does serve a purpose... Fram (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

## Rick Warren

The article, Rick Warren has been repeatedly vandalized by dozens of unestablished users over the past couple days and needs to have a partial lock added ASAP.

Manutdglory (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

## WPBiography

Should every article in this category have {{WikiProject Biography}} on their talk pages? Thanks - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. With the "living=yes" parameter added as well. Fram (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion.

So how do I nominate this category for deletion? --98.232.180.37 (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To nominate something for deletion, you need to have an account here, and a good reason to do so. I nominated this category for deletion in October 2008, and it was overwhelmingly (and correctly) kept. This category is needed to track all changes to articles about living people, where extra care is needed (vandals stating that soccer team X sucks are just a nuisance, but an article stating that senator X is a paedophile are a very serious problem, both morally and legally). If you can suggest a better method of tracking these articles, then you may have a chance, but otherwise, I wouldn't try nominating this for deletion again. Fram (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

## Category idea: Left handed people, eye color, etc

Lets make a category for all the left handed people, and another for people with green eyes, another for people with brown, blue, etc. I mean, might as well, right? If we're going to have this amazing piece of work, we might as well come up with others.. --98.232.180.37 (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you really get the point of the category: it's for marking out those articles that need to have a higher level of verifiability, and not for any other purpose. It does its job well, really. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

## not alive?

according to this list both me an everyone with my surname doesnt exist >.< soo someone shud add COLIN WOODIWISS to the list =D

Yeah, but no-one alive with your surname has their own article of Wikipedia, do they? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

## Hiding this category

I'd like some more opinions on whether this category should be hidden or not. For me, the answer is pretty simple: This is a maintenance category (the category page says so quite clearly). All maintenance categories are hidden. Ergo, this category should be hidden. Others disagree, apparently, but I don't find the arguments presented in the discussion above or in the edit summaries compelling.

• "It's harder to learn about our BLP policies when this cat is hidden"
• Are our readers supposed to learn about the BLP policy? If our readers want to find out about the workings of our encyclopedia, they click on the talk page, where they are greeted with the BLP-template which explains everything a lot better than "Category:Living people" does.
• "the effect that hiding the category will have on one of the primary purposes of having a "living people" category in the first place--to prevent the insertion of unfounded, potentially libelous statements into the article."
• I fail to see how the category prevents, in any way, the addition of uncited, problematic material to our articles.
• There was also the argument that the category is useful for searching. It might be, but that's true whether the category is hidden or not. And I strongly doubt that there are a lot of people who use URLs like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Living_people&from=Rodrig to search for articles. If they know how to use URLs like that, they know how to find the category, even if it's hidden. Or they just use Google, like most people.

Are there any other reasons to not hide this category? --Conti| 20:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this category is not hidden precisely because related categories such as Death in XXX are not hidden. In other words, it wouldn't be consistent if we hide this but didn't hide the others. Also, this was probably discussed before, so you might want to dig into the archive. (I don't mean to take a side. I'm only trying to give what I know.) -- Taku (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This was discussed above in the section "Hiddencat". I am still of the opinion that the category would be better hidden, since the argulents to the contrary are not convincing to me (showing it will not stop vandalism or even the simple insertion of unsourced material at all; searching through this category, even though done by some people, is a most unproductive way of searching, and can still be done even if it is hidden; and consistency works both ways: it should be hidden as a maintenance cat, it should not be hidden compared to the "birth" and "death" cats...). Many of our articles have too many categories, making them useless to our readers. The indication if a person is living ornot should already be in the lead of the article (and/or in the infobox), not hidden somewhere at the very bottom. The category is not used to inform people, and is not used for looking for comparable articles (hey, who would have guessed, Wikipedia has a few other articles on living people as well!). It is only of use to editors, and then mainly through tracking recent changes or as a cat that's picked up by bots and so on. Fram (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have read the above discussion (albeit after I made the edit), and I haven't found any compelling arguments for keeping this category visible. I don't think this category can be compared to the Deaths/Births by year categories, either, since the purpose of those categories is a different one. A "death by year" category is for the reader, it is not intended to be used by our editors for maintenance or something similiar (at least as far as I know). The "Living People" category on the other hand is not for the reader, it is for our editors, and solely exists because with the category we can use Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people. If there would be another way to check the recent changes of all BLPs at the same time, this category wouldn't exist in the first place. So, once again, this category should be hidden because it is a pure maintenance category, and is not intended to be used by our readers. --Conti| 11:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So, what is the purpose of the category anyway? My understanding is that it belongs to the same category as death by year and birth by year cats. Those categories are not really for the reader, either; their usefulness as a navigation tool is as poor as that of this category. In general, we don't hide cats just because they are useless. If the sole purpose of this category is for maintenance, like clean up cats, for example, then the cat should be hidden, of course. But I don't think this is so. I think that this category exists for basic categorization just like any other categories. -- 01:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If categories are useless, we delete them. If categories are only useful for maintenance, we hide them. There is no such thing as "basic categorization", else we would have categories for male vs. female as well (and a cat:dead people). There is a category tree, so that every category can be found, but articles should be in the most specific categories possible, not in the most generic, as these are the hardest to use afterwards. I have no opinion yet on the birth and death year cats, these may warrant a separate discussion. But what we do with category X has no bearing on what we do with category Y: there is no reason that these should necessarily be treated the same way as the cat:living people. Fram (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of this category can be found on the category page: "Because living persons may suffer personal harm from inappropriate information, we should watch their articles carefully. This category exists to help Wikipedia editors improve the quality of biographies of living persons by ensuring that the articles maintain a neutral point of view, maintain factual accuracy, and are properly sourced." As far as I can see, the births and deaths by year categories do not have this purpose, or any purpose remotely similar to it. They are purely navigational categories, like most others (once again, someone correct me if I'm wrong). I agree that they're not too useful for that purpose, but that's a discussion to be held another time. As Fram said, we don't do "basic cateogrization" (the German Wikipedia does, tho). We might one day, when we can intersect categories, but we don't yet. --Conti| 12:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I don't really know the function of hiding cats, my opinion may not be relevant to this; but, JIC. Since there is a large scale operation underway (BLP uncat .. and to a lesser extent the whole Flagged revisions thing), I'd think it best not to hide this. My reasoning is that the more exposure we have, the more likely it is that folks will be encouraged to help out. Oh, and if anyone wants to give me a brief rundown on the "hide" function, and how it applies to admin. or non-admin. - perhaps I'd have to re-evaluate. I'm not really looking for a tldr or "link-click-read, and repeat" thing, just curious. — 18:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

## help?

I am alive but I am not on this list. This is an error as I am quite sure I am alive. Sincerly yours, Hector —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.208.47 (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to have your own WIkipedia article, then that article will be included in this category. It's not just a directory of all the billions of people alive today. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 10:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
He has not asked us to include him in the list of notable people. The list is titled "Living people" and he is living. I think he may have a point. Maybe we should rename the list as "Articles on living people" or something like that.Civilizededucation (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Would we apply that rule to every category? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I bet it would be cheaper to rename the namespaces – Inventory of articles on:Living people / Talk related to the inventory of articles on:Living people. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC) PS: ;-)

I don't think Wikipedia needs to involve itself in the ridiculous movement to label things with the obvious. "Do not drink" on the side of cleaning solvents, for example. Unnecessary. I think it's probably an uncommon expectation of readers to believe that Category:Living people is a repository for all the names of the world's 6.8 billion people. لennavecia 13:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

## dups?

Should Category:Biography articles of living people be a redirect to this cat? — 19:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that that category holds talk pages, this one articles. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Ahhhh ..OK .. thanks Jarry, appreciate the help. ;) — 02:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

## duo

I recently added this cat to Kerry and Kay Danes. It appears that both are still alive, but we may want to discuss how to deal with the Living people issue when a pair of people are involved. Comedy duos, singing couples, etc. I'd think we'd still want to monitor a remaining BLP for standards, even if one of them has died. I don't know if the "Living people" is going to be a part of flagged revisions, or "liberal protection" to BLP articles in the future - but I can envision that possibility. Thoughts? — 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The category at the moment (should) contains all groups and duos with one (or more) living member, if that helps. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, helps a lot. Appreciate the feedback as always. ;) — 22:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Wait a second - am I supposed to be tagging bands as "Living people"?? I took that first line This is a category for all articles on individuals currently believed to be living persons. to mean individual as opposed to groups. If I was supposed to be adding it (this cat) to the items I'm reviewing - then I need to revisit about 30 edits or so. Not that I tagged any as wrong, but there are a few that I let get by me if this is the case. Need some feedback here folks. — 01:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, time out. We've not been adding this cat to groups. I've only added it to biographical articles on couples, which are few and far between, but existent where notability is shared between them. However, this does not include musical duets and such. This for sure needs further discussion. لennavecia 12:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
My strong preference is for this cat only to be applied to individuals, and not extended to duos or other groups. (One possibility of course would be to introduce another category for living duos, etc.) The birth year, death year & living people cats are currently the most reliable way to find pages about individuals rather than groups of people on wp (since the biography wikiproject includes bands etc.) It would be a shame to break this. Dsp13 (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Right now, I'm of the understanding that groups, bands etc. should not have this (Living people) cat. I've never viewed categories as a "keywords" thing. While the "Paul McCartney" article should have this - as a measure of monitoring possible BLP violations, the article on "The Beatles" should be documenting what the band did - not BLP info. I think if we look at a duo: If they are famous enough to be WP:N, then they'll likely have a corresponding BLP article which should have this. There may be a "Donnie and Marie" (Osmond) article, but I'd be willing to bet there are individual articles on each member as well which would have the BLP info that I understand this category to be for. I'd think it likely that the Kerry and Kay article is a rare instance, but something that should be judged on an individual basis. Conclusion? I'm right with Jenna and Dsp - but open to information input should I not be understanding something. — 13:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
(This is not a reply to Ched, I just want to clarify.) I apologise if I gave the misleading impression that bands should be tagged with living people; when I said "groups" I was thinking octuplets (that sort of thing) rather than musical groups. Having never written an article about a band, I have little idea about that but the above helpfully clarifies. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I have very little preference as to whether they should be tagged, but they are routinely tagged like that. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

## events

Since there is so much BLP info in these, I added this cat to these articles after discussion with MZM and Jennavica. Is this a topic we need to expand our discussion on? — 18:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My preference would be for another cat, Category:Events involving living people or something, rather than adding this cat. Dsp13 (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

## Category surely requires diffusion

I have just skimmed some of the above comments, and tend to agree that this is too long as a category to be a "stand-alone" one, and also far too diverse. Rather than recommend its deletion, my recommendation would be that it gets categorised in the "Category requiring diffusion" category. Then, people might work hard to have sub-groups within this category, such as "Living writers", "living musicians", "living scientists", "living politicians", "living philsophers", "living religious leaders" and so and so forth. If even such categories as those would require diffusion, this could be done by nationality. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

## Why?

Is There Really Any Need For A Page That States Every Living Person That Has A Wikipedia Artical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.167.188 (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading through WP:BLP may help explain many of the issues involved. — 13:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

## how about changing the cat name?

how about to "living humans" or "living individuals" - - -? Dr. Eme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

Not that it isn't good wording, but it would likely be a solution in search of a problem at this point. — 13:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

## Living people v Possibly living people

Why should people of 90 or less, where there is no information regarding them still being alive, be put in the Living category. Surely they should be put in the Possibly Living category, unless it is proven (or reasonable) that they are still alive. I don't see BLP concerns as long as Cat:Poss Living is monitored just as Living. Otherwise there can be confusion if someone's article has the Living Cat, they could incorrectly be assumed to definitely be alive? Eldumpo (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I posted a similar sentiment with a longer explanation on the possibly living ppl category page (under my old username which I was still using at that time). Basically I think it should be for people who have no documentation for 10 years and the age limit should be lowered to 75 (since the average lifespan is below 75).Schnapps17 (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

## BLP and Bands

There is a thread here about whether bands should have the WPBio template on their talk pages. All input is appreciated. — 21:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

## "Children" or "issue"?

This is probably a topic for discussion on a higher level than this category, but I figured in my wiki-inexperience that I should raise it somewhere in the first instance. Does anyone else think that the term "children" (when used to describe the offspring of a person in their respective Wikipedia article), should be replaced with "issue" - in accordance with recognised biological/genealogical terminology? Thank you in advance for your thoughts Mjsp rn (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not really the right place but eh.. "John Doe is married with Jane Doe, together they have five issues". No way! In normal language nobody says "issue" instead of children". Garion96 (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

## Morton Marcus

{{editsemiprotected}} Morten Marcus is a non-unique name. For purposes of disambiguation, please change the current "Morton Marcus" Living People entry to "Morton Marcus (economist)", so that a new page can be added for a well-known poet with many published books: "Morton Marcus (poet)". Thanks! Jmekis (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Not done Wrong venue. The content of the list is determined by the title of the page (Morton Marcus in this case). Please create a page at Morton Marcus (poet) first, and then we can work out what needs to be done for the naming. Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

## 123 years

Surely this should be dropped to a lower threshold? I would cite this diff (which I agree with) as an example that in practise this threshold is not adhered to. In that example, while the year of birth is unknown, the person in question could be as young as 110. WFCforLife (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm... this is a tricky case. The threshold is 123 years but for example we know all the veterans of WWI so I would remove Living people from a stub article about a flying ace of WWI. I think for people over 110 we should also use common sense. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

## Multiple people

Should this category include multiple people, e.g. Gundecha Brothers ? The argument for excluding them, which I've always argued for in the past, is that it allows greater category consistency. The argument against is practical usefulness for BLP purposes. Another possibility would be a category Category:Multiple people who are all alive or similar.Dsp13 (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If we are talking about twins we should add Living people if at least one of the twins is alive. We don't add Living people to musical groups. So, afaik not for musical duos. PS Addition of Living people has nothing to do with WPBiography|living=yes. Other rules apply there since Musical groups are within the scope of the project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I take your PS. I don't really understand the rationale for adding Living people to pages for twins at least one of whom is alive, though.Dsp13 (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

## User pages

Since WP:BLP policy applies to all pages, shouldn't user subpages be included as well? Or is there another category for BLPs in userspace? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that active article drafts shouldn't have WP:BLP shouldn't be heavily patrolled; user pages get used as scratch workspace a lot. On the other hand, inactive pages, those that haven't seen edits recently, should have the policy applied. On the third hand, we shouldn't tolerate blatant defamation, even briefly. On the fourth hand, userspace pages should not have mainspace categories, except briefly during active drafting. From time to time, I insert a leading colon in such stale userspace articles that have found their way into Category:Living people and caught my attention; however, I don't patrol systematically and it's an ongoing problem. We need a bot of some kind for that. Not much help, am I? Studerby (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps another category? Something like Category:Living people draft articles? Maybe the BLP talk page is a better place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

## Edit request from 75.51.166.182, 25 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The entries for Rhiannon Argo all start with: User:Underscore fever/Rhiannon Argo This looks like a mistake and is incorrect Please change to: Rhiannon Argo 75.51.166.182 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC) 75.51.166.182 (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done "Rhiannon Argo" is neither on this page nor is it an article. Nothing links to User:Underscore fever/Rhiannon Argo. Goodvac (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Eunice Bowman born in 1898 is currently the oldest person in Britain; she now has an article on her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hohho56oy (talkcontribs) 03:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

## New notice?

Can we replace the {{notice}} at the top of this page with something that isn't the same color as every other header template? This would make it stand out somewhat so people, like myself, who come here wondering why this category is extant can see immediately that discussions have taken place, without really having to sift through the talk page/archives before (maybe) stumbling across the notice? I was hoping for something a little brighter, but this is the best I could come up with:

The code in this example is:
{{ambox|2=type=notice|text=<center>'''This is ''not'' a typical category!'''</center><br>Please read the archived discussion and reasons for its existence before commenting about the "point" of having this administrative-style category.}}
The </center><br> and related codes can be removed obviously to collapse the box somewhat; bold text is pushed back to the left. Anyway, just a suggestion. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 05:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

## Two of these categories?

Category:Wikipedia_indefinitely_semi-protected_biographies_of_living_people – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 07:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

## André Galvão in the wrong place

Resolved

André Galvão's name is now situated between Rolles Gracie Jr. and Rorion Gracie. It should be between Ana Galvão and Filipe Galvão. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.126.107 (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a false DEFAULTSORT in the article. Now fixed. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk)

## Abe Vigoda

Are we sure he's alive? I've heard that he's dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.247.3.230 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

## Zz

The end of the list has this:

l Rostam Mirlashari v Vibe Squad Š User:PrJ 27/Jan Šebek ほ User:星野らいむ

To my knowledge, neither L, nor V, nor Š come after Zz. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved
Thank you. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Ö comes after Zz either. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

## Edit request from 122.224.60.118, 8 February 2011

122.224.60.118 (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

## If he's dead, we don't care..

A deceased person can also be harmed by false allegations. The person has relatives that does not like that such things are written (I would be very angry if I was the widower of a woman who suffered from false allegations at Wikipedia, even after her death).. I propose it to be changed so the BLP policy also applies for persons 20, 30, 40 or perhaps 50 years after their death. This should be discussed. The purpose of this is to avoid false allegations on deceased people, to avoid harm to their relatives. JustEase (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

no, western law says that the deceased cannot be harmed by false accusations. however, the case of a widow harmed by false allegations against their deceased spouse, is actually being harmed by false allegations against them directly, unless the allegations cant possibly relate in any way to them (say, something allegedly done by a spouse before their partner was BORN). However, i am curious how administrators keep track of articles which are not about a living person, but which include information about living people, such as an article on charlie chaplin which may mention a descendent disparagingly.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.141.60 (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

## Here is something I don't understand...

It says the purpose of this category is "[...] ensuring that the articles maintain a neutral point of view, maintain factual accuracy, and are properly sourced."

Isn't that a requirement for all articles on Wikipedia?

So how does this category benefit anyone? 92.228.0.17 (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC) BugBunnySan

It doesn't. Like the multitude of other pointless categories and protocols on this site, a handful of people want this around for "bots" and the like. -Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.8.189 (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

## List in German?

Is there an appropriate list of living people corresponding to German Wikipedia? I don't see a link to something like this on the left.

No. The German Wikipedia rejected this category several times; the two most recent:
de:Kategorie:Lebende Person at de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Kategorien/Diskussionen/2010/Juli/8#Kategorie:Lebende Person (erl.) and
de:Kategorie:Wikipedia:Artikel über lebende Personen at de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Kategorien/Diskussionen/2010/August/5#Kategorie:Wikipedia:Artikel über lebende Personen (gelöscht).
A workaround might be to list all articles which use de:Vorlage:Artikel über lebende Person, e.g.: de:Spezial:Linkliste/Vorlage:Artikel über lebende Person. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification! --Nurutdinov (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
One more question please. Do you know whether it is the case with the lists in fr, pt and nl? --Nurutdinov (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know anything about where those Wikipedias stand in regard to this category. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

## Very Large Category

This category does not have Category: Very large categories and needs to be added into the Category: Very large categories page, additional subcategories can be in the value.--GoShow (...............) 06:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You will be able to edit this page yourself tomorrow. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

## Very Large Category

I was issued to have the go and edit the category today. This category does not have Category: Very large categories and needs to be added into the Category: Very large categories page, additional subcategories can be in the value.--GoShow (...............) 06:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

GoShow (...............) 16:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I don't understand your first sentence at all. I am uncomfortable adding the category based on the way you expressed your request and your evident experience despite being a new user. You will be autoconfirmed in about 24 hours. Please just wait until then to make this edit yourself. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank You

Forgive me about the rush of the second repeat report. The category can be reduce more, although, thank you for the autoconfirmation. ----GoShow (...............) 19:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 19:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It says in the header of Category:Very large categories: "Some categories intentionally contain many pages […]; these categories do not need to be tagged." Consequently, I'm not sure it is appropriate to add that category (Very large categories) to this one (Living people). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi GoShow - how do you propose that Living people be subcategorized? GoingBatty (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Proposals
There are alot ways and phrases for a living person, such as ill people, people with health reasons, or people with jobs, any any more situations?--GoShow (...............) 22:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
These are temporary time periods of living people and keep these up to date is time consuming and probably would violate BLP. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Alrighty then, I was about to comment it was fabulous in factual opinion.--GoShow (...............) 22:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I was about to agree with Magioladitis' concerns regarding the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, but then I saw that one of the subcategories of Category:People is Category:People by medical or psychological condition already exists with many subcategories. Note that these are not subcategories of Category:Living people, meaning these categories contain people who could also be dead. So let me ask my question a different way: what types of subcategories of Living people would be beneficial to Wikipedia users? GoingBatty (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Of course, you have observed some of the examples if needed, as there are some category ideas to plan.--GoShow (...............) 02:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

## Statistic suggestion

Perhaps this article should include an estimated figure of what percent of the world's cumulative population is currently living. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.192.210 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not an article, it's a category; see Help:Category and further links there. The "answer" (about 6%) can be found at World population#Number of humans who have ever lived. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

## Should this category exist?

I randomly see this tag on a small portion of Wikipedia articles about people who are alive, but not on most people's profiles. It always strikes me as very arbitrary and haphazardly applied. I've read over the page here on why it exists but it still doesn't seem to be consistently used. Is it really serving its purpose? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(Don't edit at all outside your contribution.) Can you give an example where an article ought to be so categorised but isn't? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

## Category optimization

I propose to divide this category in subcategoies for all nationalities, e.g.: Living americans, living frenchs, living russians, living moldovans. We have this feature on romanian wiki. It's very comfortable to use, and to search people by name in ona nationality ;) --XXN (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That will only open the can of worms of people's nationality and therefore impractical. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

## Errata

dont know — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.55.243.14 (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)