Category talk:Year of birth missing

message: Surely everyone who has a Wikipedia article has been born? Not everyone has died, of course, so the explanation for the respective death category is OK. — JIP | Talk 19:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known to have been born 

message: ok my idea is that we have it sorted out by occupation, for example all actors and actress go into one catergory one for writers and one for potilcian leaders, does this good —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeafGreen Ranger (talk • contribs) 
::Same objections as to the male/female suggestion — that's an artificial division that doesn't provide any information or help to the editor or browsing reader. --Quuxplusone 15:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marking this "Resolved", since over a year later this proposal (which also came up in several related categories) has gained no traction at all, and some "bold" attempts at creating such subcategories have been WP:CFD'd out of existence. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My Subcat Idea

message: My impression of categories is that they logically group Wikipedia articles according to the subject matter.  From Wikipedia:Categorization:
:"Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists, and infoboxes) help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called." 
::Are we helping users find information?  How many other self-referential categories exist?  Is this a candidate for category deletion? (Big disclaimer: I haven't done a lot of template work.)  Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 20:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-reference to Wikipedia? 

message: I'm working on the article for author Truddi Chase. As long as I have known of her, Ms. Chase wouldn't give her exact date of birth. However, this morning the words "DOB 13 JUNE 1939" turned up at the bottom of the article, attributed only to an IP address which I traced to Australia. Now, I've gone ahead and put it as her date of birth in the article, but I have not removed the "year of birth unknown" category and won't until I get confirmation.  Is this proper procedure? Should I make it "possibly June 13" instead? Thanks, --Bluejay Young 18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add it as normal as if you knew the information for sure and use the 1939 births category, then tag it with this immediately after the date:  --HisSpaceResearch 06:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking: hang on, if you know that she doesn't want her year of birth to be public knowledge, then how about just not including it?  For goodness sakes', we don't want WikiPedia to become oppressive to people.  I'd like to think that we are kind and gentle folks here at WikiPedia. Tmrussell 00:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am now thinking, that is right, if she doesn't want that published, leave it off and besides that was a pretty 'iffy' source. Maybe it could be said in the article that the date of birth info is left off by request. --Bluejay Young 04:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What if year of birth is supplied but undocumented?

message: Here's my ideea. I don't know it it can be done, but it would be nice to see articles (in this case - people) that belong to more categories. Example: Let's say I'd like to reduce this list of people (Year of birth missing). I am a hungarian guy. So the easiest thing for me it would be to reduce this list (Year of birth missing) to a list like : "Year of birth missing" + "Hungarian". See where I'm going? It would be a lot easier for me to go after a few guys and get their birthdate, if I'd know where to look. And I know where to look for hungarian-related stuff. And this is also true for every other article on wiki. Let's say you are looking for people, who got an Oscar (Academy Award) and also got an Emmy. Makes sense? I don't know how. Maybe this is a totally new feature to wiki. Maybe we can even do this right now. Maybe it's only me and I cannot find the information I am looking for. Csabadapp 14:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Subcategorization has been proposed before and not gained any consensus at all.  I realize that you are attempting to re-opening the issue, but I think the case would need to be compelling and well-thought-out to gain any traction. The only way that will happen is if the well-crafted proposal is aired in depth at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography and if consensus reached, proposed as a multi-category splitting-CfD that covers all related categories. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's reduce this big list 

message: Please, remove the "year of birth missing" line -- I fear that having my date on the page will be used to discriminate against me by reason of age.  Sadly, I already have the female Hispanic dilemma with which to contend. Do I need another one?  Please respond as privately as possible. My name is very Googleable.  Thank you for your time and ettention to this concern Mig 16:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of birth missing - living person 

message: I adjusted the paragraph/sentence "This category and Categories Date of birth missing and Year of birth unknown are intended to be mutually exclusive" to read "This category and :Category:Date of birth missing are intended to be mutually exclusive". While I found (and corrected) numerous instances of editors appending :Category:Date of birth missing and :Category:Year of birth missing to the same article (in the mistaken belief that the absence of the month/day of birth and the absence of the year of birth must be separately documented for the same individual), I have never seen a single instance of an editor appending :Category:Year of birth missing and :Category:Year of birth unknown to the same article. Those two categories are also, of course, mutually exclusive, but the exclusivity appears to be of such clear nature as to virtually eliminate any possibility of confusion.—Roman Spinner (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted this without intending to (that is, I didn't know you'd previously made this change). I stick by the revert though, as while the mutual exclusivity of the missing/unknown categories may be obvious to some, everything about this talk page suggests that many people have been confused by the difference, and simply making the sentence shorter does not to me justify making it ambiguous and missing the logic.  That is, if the sentence is going to state what C:Yobm is mutually exclusive with, it should include both C:Dobm and C:Yobu even if the latter is obvious to many of us.  Does no harm, and makes more sense. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 12:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Year of birth missing]] and [[:Category:Year of birth unknown]] as mutually exclusive 

message: I removed this category from 4 redirect pages, Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri, Nanny Agsteribbe, Alfred Agsteribbe and Dawn Hochsprung. I'm making the assumption that someone without an article or at least a paragraph in the target article doesn't need to have their date of birth known. Perhaps a bot could remove the rest or at least move them to a sub-category for review. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This category on redirect pages