Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/10/Category:Dead men

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Dead menEdit

We have a few hundreds of thousand dead people (by year) and 95% of category:People by name are dead. Clearly redundant category. Foroa (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This category is created after Category:Dead women, which has been long-standing with nobody assuming it redundant; category:Dead men comes to fill the male equivalent niche which naturally will take some work to fill - as probably most dead figures that we have on Commons are men.. - Tagging a dead man with this cat helps telling apart dead people by their sex. This category is, thus, as redundant as Category:Standing men, Category:Men of Norway and Category:Male artists, I guess. Orrlingtalk 07:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This category should contain pictures of men, depicting them after their death, and not all men that are currently deceased. The same goes for Category:Dead women of course. --Zejo (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
No... for that we use Category:Corpses. Category:Dead people is for listing historic people who are now, indeed, deceased - and one can see that we sort those people by sex, as is done with e.x. Category:Paintings of people, Category:Sitting people etc... ;-) Orrlingtalk 09:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, then I think this category would get extremely over-crowded. Create categories by year like e g "Male 1970 deaths", and make those subcategories to both Category:Dead men and Category:1970 deaths. --Zejo (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This is much more to agree with. Although very-very crowdeed categories are not rare here, if I need to remind this.. – Not the over-crowdedness should determine, if I'm asked, but the efficacy, logic & fluency of navigation, and there I would think that your proposal is most supportable, but I'd take it one stage toward the more inclusive – that is, century male death, instead of decade or year. This can look like that: Category:18th century deceased men/Category:18th century deceased women, Category:19th century deceased men/Category:19th century deceased women and so forth... Opinions? Orrlingtalk 10:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Fully redundant with Category:People by date of death and its thousands of subcats: do we have to split for each category and to specify that it is a men or a woman; what do we gain with such a male/female split up: 2 times 154000 items to recategorise ? It is easy to define and start such categories and leave the work for the others. --Foroa (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Heheh... no concensus. You won't be able to discard the cat. ;-) Orrlingtalk 11:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't need a consensus to delete a category that is redundant, not maintained and is only filled up with 0,01 % of its capacity. --Foroa (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
No.. You need to listen carefully now. :) If you try to perform actions that ignore the majority at a given dicussion page (such as this one) you will lose some legitimacy as an editor. I'm afaraid that this consequence is not too far from taking effect as we know that (– now that I notice the identity of the "serial violator") this is not the first nor second time for you to both override/circumvent discussion procedures and be asked to avoid such conduct. No need to make everyone's life on this project so harsh. Please refrain from repeatedly putting your prestige in such embarrassing situations. Orrlingtalk 12:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Redundant and hence useless. The current scheme with subcats by decade/year is perfectly sufficient.--FAEP (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

So far we can see two unique voices here (out of 4? 3?....) in support of continuing the use of this category, with respect to the long-standing existing Category:Dead women and Category:Dead children, whose existence blocks dialectical attempts to "delete" this-one equivalent category anyway. The only thing left is to agree upon the way in which to reuse it (-and its female equivalent): Group deceased men and women by decade? -By century? or by year, or maybe by other factor. Orrlingtalk 13:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I would definitely turn all of these into "by date of death" categories, which can be refined to whatever period makes sense (presumably by year when known, though for some we won't know more closely than century; we'll also want categories for unknown date of death (but known to be dead). The latter probably needs to be subdivided into those where we don't happen to know and those who disappeared (e.g. no one can be sure of Judge Crater's date of death). - Jmabel ! talk 15:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
But why not more simply batch the bucket-kickers into larger groups such as Category:1910s deceased men, Category:1780s deceased women - i.e the decade key? Won't you think that a "by date of death"+combined with the gender would be too specific, and interest-less? (I mean, for the particular year-of-death we do have already the sex-neutral classification, like this; here User:Zejo suggests a parallelling method that would offer attention to the sex of the deceased with, say, grouping by decades or other broader themes). What do you say? Orrlingtalk 15:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the problem with an overcrowded category like the intended Category:Dead men? What is your use case? What is the problem with the intended split into thousands of subcategories: You will slow down catscan by that until it runs into time limits. Here you have all men dead in 1870 (images and categories). And it works for the 1870 deads in the US also. Both dead men and women cats contain only *quite a few* examples and there are some images of already dead which should go to Category:Corpses (some of them I moved already). So from the current absolute number of elements these cats are not overcrowded at all. Compared to number of dead men and women these cats are empty and should be deleted. Nobody will maintain these cats over a longer period. And it's dull and stereotypic work to copy all images and categories to your dead wo/men cats. So if you, Orrling, are counting votes, this is a Symbol delete vote.svg Delete (both cats for gender correctness). If you need more interesting work, try this. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep; obviously useful basic-sorting category; no strong opinions (as yet) about the best way to organize it Lx 121 (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. I'm having trouble seeing any use for maintaining a combination of the 49% of humanity that has been male (and already have categories) and the 94% of humanity that have already died. (Only 6% of humans are currently alive: see, for example, Curtin, Ciara (March 1, 2007). "Fact or Fiction?: Living People Outnumber the Dead". Scientific American (web). Retrieved on 2013-03-15.) People who have died, by any division other than time period, seems useless. (And, in my opinion, the birth/death by year categories exist primarily to divide people by when they existed, not whether they are dead per se. Note that Category:Living people was long ago merged into Category:People by name on Commons.) Category:Male human corpses, on the other hand, would make sense. --Closeapple (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


for now this looks like we have 3/6 "unique" voices believing this category merits deletion vs 3/6 others not even expressing a damn intention to defend the existence of this subcategory as it is so obvious for most users & readers... each group is legitimate; as you all note, however, the discussion is being handled as on which better form to employ to better organize the content of the category(ies), it is not handled at a "Deletion request" page ;). We continue reusing these two cats! :-) Orrlingtalk 23:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral--Zejo (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Great. I think (After a second thought) that decades would constitute an all-better grouping level for us here (comparing to centuries or years). Example: Franz Kafka will be endorsed with a new Category:1920s deceased men, and Desideria of Sweden with Category:1860s deceased women. Parents for each will be 1920s deaths and Dead (wo)men. Orrlingtalk 10:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Subgrouping {dead + gender} by decade of death: Any objection? Orrlingtalk 02:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Just group deceased people by [Category:deceased people][Category:1934 death][Category:male], which would be quick, easy, and allow for future category intersections. Right now we can't really do those because there are over 14 million files here, and searching through a significant minority of those files are a lot of files to search through, but the tech should be coming, eventually. At that point, the files would all have to be recategorized anyway, so let's make it easy on and plan for the future with multiple categories instead of trying to pin down everything about a person in a single category. For one example, what about old images of kids (where boys and girls both wore dresses until they got older)? Multiple categories still shows them up, although specific categories would leave those images "lost" outside other categories. Banaticus (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The proposed category scheme is only relevant and applicable to identified items of deceased people - counting much less than 14 millions and is hence much more simple; correct me if I'm wrong but the tech IS there already, as much as spoken about those bots that are able to easily locate-and-recat but I believe that we can manually sort males from females – as has been long done in just so many other big-cats – and those ones where you cannot determine the sex can remain just Dead children, for the matter. Still, the theme of subgrouping deads by gender is basic to Commons, as I'd assume roughly 90% of people-categories are split to gender subs (sometimes male, female and children). Just think: at this moment, Shirley Horn is neatly tagged with everything you can think about, including 2005 deaths; but no single suggestion of the person's sex! Adding Category:21st-century deceaced women, or alternatively 2000s deceaced women, can so simply respond to that criterion. Even when you have Henry Ford's Category:Men of the United States, you still want to know men from women when approaching the 1940s deaths list... Orrlingtalk 08:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
If the tech's there, let's just use multiple categories. If a category gets really big, well, so what? Banaticus (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I for one would have no problem with death and gender being completely disjoing in terms of categories. - Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Hm. That makes you neutral, I guess; and for you here with the "multiple categories", could you specify more what it means? Thankz. Orrlingtalk 14:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

UselessEdit

Combined with Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/10#Subdivide_.22Dead_men.22_by_year.2Fcentury.2Fother.3F, this makes 5 people that advise against further subdivisions by gender. Anyway, such splits can only be realistically made with active bot operator assistance. --Foroa (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no "combined" calculations with other fora than the CFD ;) -- the invitation at the Village Pump was served to draw users who wanted it to this page here, where we have an overwhelming voice for extending the usage of Category:Dead men and Category:Dead women in a reconstructive manner & discontinue the attempts to sabotage this old scheme; anyone who wished to vote in support of the deletion would have come to this page – few did so. As already said, we proudly keep this category run ("four more years") and if needed a bot will be initiated though manual recategorization is prooved good no less. Orrlingtalk 14:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

By countryEdit

I propose Dead wo/men by country, as to variate from the prevailing proposal of "by time" in this discussion. This can be actually perfect as the "Death by country" scheme is to date relatively underdeveloped and attribution of past-people to the Death-by-country pool lacks. Category:Death in Serbia for this matter can have a subcategory:Dead people of Serbia where we further store Dead men of Serbia for males and Dead women of Serbia for females, thus removing from Vladislav Petković the category "Men of Serbia" and re-tagging him with "Dead men of Serbia" – in turn listed at both "Dead men by country" and "Men of Serbia". As said earlier on this page, notably plenty of personalities on Commons (as Slobodan Milošević) don't currently give any idea as to the person's sex! (in both dead and living,, like this one) Orrlingtalk 17:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A new proposalEdit

As some of you may have noticed, in the last few days I have made all the "Xth-century men" and "Xth-century women" categories through the 19th century subcategories of "Dead men" and "Dead women", respectively, since anyone who was an adult in those centuries has now died. This greatly reduces the number of categories that need to be separately placed in "Dead men" and "Dead women"; we mostly need to worry only about people from the 20th and 21st centuries (i.e. people who could still be alive, but are not). Any comments? Gildir (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice. I'd think "Dead wo/men by country" is more effective and on-the-mark, we boast of a very rich navigable by-country span maintained in big part by me, which can replace the devotion to a gender-deaths-by-time originally discussed here (as you've suggested, a dead-attribution to people through history may be too extensive to serve as a pointful and reasonable categorization of humankind). As no objection appears to have been expressed on the quite old comment above I think we can set in motion a by-country sketch. (The page was lately somehow reddened so I'll revive it in the light of this productive forum.) All of you welcome to give your bit at the spree! example here (deceased persons in respective national men-women subgroups) Orrlingtalk 20:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Already deleted. Presumably the images that were in this category have been relocated as needed, and there's longer any live discussion that needs this CFD topic to remain open. If more discussion of any new categories is needed, please open a new CFD. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Last modified on 6 June 2013, at 08:51