Wikipedia talk:Death by age

Very long lives
Another important point is that some very old ages quoted for some people have been deliberately exaggerated for propaganda purposes, or to attempt to claim a longevity record. Werdnawerdna (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

An example of the former is Abraham, who is stated in religious texts, and even on his Wikipedia page, as 175, when we know for certain that no human has ever lived anything like that long. In his case, as well as others that are claimed by certain religions as being (super)centernarians, have had their ages deliberately massively exaggerated by their followers in order to falsely prove that they were 'superhuman' and 'loved so much by God that he blessed the said person(s) with an extremely long life'. There is, of course, no evidence, other than religious propaganda texts, of them having lived as long as the followers of the religions that the person was a figure in claim them to have. Werdnawerdna (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Those of the latter type are people who claim to be older than Jeanne Calment, in order to falsely gain admiration, attention and great respect from people around them and from the media. Werdnawerdna (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As a religious person, I do personally believe in the truth and accuracy of the Bible. But in order to comply with Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines, I do not feel it is appropriate to use the Bible as a reliable source of information to confirm the age of a person's death, especially for categorization purposes. I do not feel it is appropriate either to refer to the Bible as "propaganda" in policy text. My basic concerns are:


 * The Bible does not state the exact dates of birth of death, an important factor in calculating age in years
 * With references stating age but not exact dates (just like with newspapers), there should be multiple sources. The Bible is only a single source.
 * Age in the case of these categories refers to years on the solar calendar, the Gregorian calendar, the most widely used calendar around the world. A different standard for measuring years may have been followed back then. Also, as the Book of Genesis progresses, lifespans decline. This may represent a change in measurements of time that people followed.
 * The Bible has an overwhelming amount of interpretation that is left for quite a lot of dispute, and is not an exact science.
 * Many westerners do believe and accept the Bible. But various other cultures around the world do not, and they follow their own texts. Just another concern regarding neutrality.

If other sources accurately confirm that Abraham lived to the age of 175, I would be more than glad to see him put into a category Deaths at age 175, or a range of ages, since it is unlikely anyone else lived to that age. Sebwite (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we have these categories
The categories regarding death by age are currently under CfD. Below, I would like to have a discussion on whether or not we should have them, so we can come to a concensus.

In my opinion, I feel they are important. When a news article is published regarding a notable person's death, one factors that is almost always published is the person's age. Though this does not say anything in particular, it does imply quite a lot.

We already have categories showing some of the other important factors: years of birth and death, and various causes of death.

There is no need to worry about a category becoming overfilled - already, the category Living people has hundreds of thousands of articles.

This category is not hard to maintain either. There is no hurry to place it on the page of all deceased people on day 1. And when an infobox showing a person's day of birth and death is available, this can be added automatically. Sebwite (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that they violate an existing guideline (death trivia), recently removed (without consensus) by Sebwite, should also be considered. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Where was the consensus to add it? --Pixelface (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement was a summary of a longstanding CFD consensus as it already stood, and therefore no special consensus to add it was necessary in the first place. A new discussion to build consensus around the statement itself would only have been necessary if it had been a new proposal. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Living people's entire purpose for existing is so that WP:BLP patrollers can click on "related changes" to generate a quick watchlist. It's an internal category meant as an editorial tool, not a navigational category for the end user. End user categories do have practical size limits even if they don't have any technical ones. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So Category:Living people doesn't exist also to tell readers that a person is alive? Wouldn't editors be able to check the changes on every article for every dead person by checking the related changes for 122 or so individual categories? Or do you think it would be easier for them to check the related changes of every YEAR death category? There are 25 to 30,000 articles that tranclude the template death date and age. The oldest living person died at 122. So, on average (based on 30,000 articles), each Deaths at age X category would hold 245 people. This of course would vary based on the most common ages of death. --Pixelface (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't exist with the expectation that a user would ever make use of it as a navigational tool. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, we don't need these categories, as has been established through CFD discussions dating back to 2006. That some people might find it "interesting" is no reason to have them. Otto4711 (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's like saying Category:2008 deaths should be deleted because a category called Category:Entertainers who died in 2008 was deleted. You don't think a related changes watchlist is one reason to have them? --Pixelface (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, it's like saying that categories for people who died at a particular age should be deleted because categories for a subset of people who died in a certain age range were deleted. Nothing more, nothing less. Otto4711 (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. So Category:Deaths at age 83 should be deleted because Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s was closed as no consensus four times    (three of which by Kbdank71) and then deleted on the fifth time, two years ago, by Drini  and Kbdank71 cites the fifth CFD as precedent to delete Category:Deaths at age 83. The fifth CFD is the precedent and the first four CFDs offer no precedent. Why, the categories are virtually indistinguishable! And consensus never changes either! Or rather, consensus changes, but it can only change to delete. It makes perfect sense now! Boy do I feel dumb! --Pixelface (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Go with the feeling. Otto4711 (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Unneeded guideline
Guidelines should be something general to be applied to a wide topic or number of topics. This one is focused only in one particular and specific case, what to categorize into one category. The main page of the category itself is more than enough to explain whatever consensus is formed about it (if consensus to keep the categoy is obtained at all) Benito Sifaratti (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:deaths by age, Category:deaths by suicide, Category:deaths by execution, etc. It's not just one.  Or are you referring to a different guideline than the one I've reinserted?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right. It should be moved to Category talk:Deaths by age.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about the category "Deaths by age" was closed with a "delete" result. The discussion is here. As a result, this guideline about how to implement that category, can be considered to have been rejected in the process. MBelgrano (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, this proposal was one I created before the category was up for CfD. The purpose of the proposal was to help determine what guidelines should be used to place a person into such a category. Sebwite (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The CfD closing as delete suggests that the proposal was rejected. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wider document started
Please see Biographical metadata. Death by age could end up being dealt with that way. Carcharoth (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)