Category talk:Year of birth unknown

message: What a brilliantly useful category. If the Wikipedia reader's convenience is kept firmly in mind, fewer foolish errors are committed. --Wetman 01:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: This is an administrative category that is of no value to readers, so it should really be on the talk pages. Alex Middleton 17:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is precisely the conclusion that WP:CFD arrived at; it is considered "non-defining". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 16:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: In the particular case of this category, the article itself should indicate in the lead that the year of birth is unknown, and this category will to most readers other than WP:BIOgraphers not be understood to be different from :Category:Year of birth missing, implying wrongly that the article is incomplete, if applied to the article itself rather than its talk page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 17:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should not go on articles but on articles' talk pages

message: Now that we have hidden categories, shouldn't this category go back on the article as a hidden category? BencherliteTalk 17:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem to make a lot more sense; it's why we developed hidden categories, after all... Shimgray | talk | 19:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I think it a perfect item for a hidden category on the article page (I came here to suggest it as I saw all the edit summaries moving it).  A researcher will have "show hidden categories" active and will not need to look at the talk page to get the information. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a general proposal for all the other categories as well (place of birth/death missing/unknown, etc.)? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't thought about it in depth, but "talk page only" categories don't suit my personal editing style.  I'll need to think a bit more.  Looks like a lot of thought has gone into their use and I don't want to erase that thinking indiscriminately. Is this the best place to discuss this class of category or is there another spot? (John User:Jwy talk) 18:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better if we discuss it in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, but better let's form a specific proposal. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But only a prominent position at the very head of the article would satisfy a category-inventer for whom "talk page only" categories wouldn't suit his personal style. Meanwhile I am noting the appearance of the category at Guitmund. How about adding Sennacherib, Plato and John the Baptist.--Wetman (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking to propose a completely different approach to the subject. You did a great comment about the situation. I think that when we have an estimate for the year we should not use "Year of birth unknown" but the XXXXs births XXth-century births instead otherwise we ll end up with thousands articles in a category with no meaning. I think this category, and many others similar, are expanding with no control nor meaning. If we control this one and minimise confusions of the role of this category, then we can move this category to the article pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make this a hidden category? 

message: 107.77.253.55 (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page :Category:Year of birth unknown. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Log out   My iPhone