Category talk:Possibly living people

Split?

Resolved

 – No consensus to split after 3 CfDs; current categories cover all the bases.

We ought to split this into two categories : one for people who are actually still missing (whether presumed dead or not), and the other for people who we merely don't have the information on - but could find out with further research. The two Nazis currently in the category fall into the latter - the others are all actual people where the historical record hasn't yet got a year of death. Morwen - Talk 22:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: This lack of clarity no longer exists; Category:Living people is for people definitely known to be alive; Category:Dead people's subcategories (by year, Category:Year of death missing, Category:Year of death unknown) are for those known to be deceased; Category:Possibly living people is for people for whom we have no death date and who may still be living; Category:Disappeared people is a subset of the former, for missing persons who may still be living. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i think Category:Possibly living people, Category:Disappeared people, and Category:Year of death missing cover that, though with a lot of overlap. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: No more overlap; see each category for their clarified criteria; they are all mutually exclusive now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

But year of death missing is for dead people who we don't know the year of death for, and disappered people includes historical disappeared people who we can be pretty certain have died. (e.g the Princes in the Tower). Morwen - Talk 16:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: Category:Disappeared people (and Category:Possibly living people for that matter) no longer include people we can be certain are dead; see Category:Living people for the criteria. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is 100% certain the Princes in the Tower are dead; no-one born in the 15th century is alive. It is only the details of their deaths that is not known, such as the date and cause. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal

Resolved

 – Question answered

How do we take someone off the list that we know is still alive? NMTPhysics 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Go to the bottom of that person's Wikipedia article, and replace the Possibly living people category from the bottom of the page with the Living people category. Which person is it?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, if the person is now known to be dead, change category to "YYYY deaths" (where YYYY is the year), "Date of death missing" (if it is and can probably be found) or "Date of death unknown" (if it is lost forever). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

At what point do we assume someone to have died of old age? --BDD 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been using about 105 years old. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. --BDD 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It should not be assumed that anyone died of old age. The cause should only be stated where a reliable source states it. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See Category:Living people; the standard appears to be "born after 1885", though that date may increment each year (I would hope it does). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If strictly adhered to, the (admittedly arbitrary) conditions of Category:Births of the last 123 years and Category:Deaths of the last 123 years, based on the 122-year-164-day lifespan of Jeanne Calment, would dictate that 1885 should enter the date count in mid-June 2007 (starting from January 11885 and taking into consideration leap years). For the small number of individual biographical articles affected, there would would be no point in micromanaging this matter by taking note of specific birthdays—only the year is noted. The elucidation of introductory text to this Category and Category:Living people would be updated annually in mid-June, with 1886 becoming the succeeding year in June 2008. For the handful of individuals from that period with missing years of birth, death or both, common sense is the best guide. Those with missing years of birth should have the earliest year of activity extrapolated. In counting backward 122-123 years, extreme care in ascertaining who is still possibly among the living is no longer a priority. The individuals involved are almost invariably of low notability (minor 19th century sportspeople, etc.) or once-somewhat-notables (e.g., Hugh Cecil (born 1889)) whom most editors already place into Category:Year of death missing or (prematurely and, almost always, incorrectly) into Category:Year of death unknown. Romanspinner (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To suggest that anyone born over 110 years ago who isn't known to be living and therefore already in the Category:Living people should be added to it, or to Category:Possibly living people for that matter, is ludicrous. There's about a snowball's chance in hell that we have unidentified supercentenarians lurking about in Wikipedia articles. Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Stupid abuse of the category

Resolved

 – Just fix it.

I think it might be sensible to remove Judas Iscariot from the list of possibly living people...

Questionable use of the category

Resolved

 – Questions answered.

What about Amelia Earheart? Cao Wei 07:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, she would be 109 years old. --Charlene 19:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Amelia is in Category:Disappeared people. It makes no judgement as to whether the person is alive, dead, or whatever.--T. Anthony 03:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

When they're something like 130 years old they get moved to Category:Year of death missing (if date can plausibly be found) or Category:Year of death unknown (if date lost to history); see Category:Living people for the criteria. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought Osama Bin Laden was strongly believed to be alive. Damian Corrigan 18:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No proof yet. If there is proof, just change the category. If there is doubt, he stays in here. Simple. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

How about Elvis? I strongly believe that he should be included. If only the stupid people from Pluto hadn't kidnapped him....

Jim Morrison? Possibly. Tupac Shakur? Probably not.

2pac's not dead, but alot of people think he is, he should be here

According to multiple reliable sources, he's been confirmed dead, or at least I'd imagine that to be the case (haven't checked the Tupac article).--HisSpaceResearch 06:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to familiarise myself with The 7 Day Theory, actually.--HisSpaceResearch 06:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Jesus?

In answer to all of the above, Wikipedia is not for crackpotism or wishful fanwanking about pop culture stars, nor for pushing religious beliefs (besides which, Christians do not posit that Jesus is alive, but rather that he died, came back to life for a bit and then ascended into heaven to watch over them as a deity). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Morrison, Presley and Shakur are all definitely dead; some fans just can't accept that. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing?

Resolved

 – Implied question answered.

[No actual question was posed.]

Assuming someone meant to ask a question here, the answer is that Category:Disappeared people exists for such cases (after enough time has elapsed that they could not possibly be alive, they go in Category:Year of death unknown (because it will probably never be known), as opposed to memebers of Category:Possibly living people, who at that point go into Category:Year of death missing since their date can probably be found. See Category:Living people for the cut-off dates. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So many of the articles in the possibly living people category are stubs, and/or unreferenced

I've noticed... perhaps a fair share of them wouldn't pass WP:N. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't see that this raises any point related to this category. That stubs are categorized and someone might disagree with one such categorization is matter for that stub's talk page. Whether something might not survive WP:AFD on notability grounds does not mean it should not be properly categorized until such time that it is AfD'd. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

But if there's not sufficient information to determine whether a person is even alive or not, then there is a good chance that there's not sufficient information for us to have an article about them at all. Many of these people are notable for one thing or one event in their lives only, failing WP:BLP1E, WP:PSEUDO and possibly WP:COATRACK, and we should also remember that Wikipedia is not a directory of people or of anything else - it is an encyclopedia.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, treat this category as a useful starting point as patrolling for biographies which fail the notability test and should be put up for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear...

People who were kidnapped, such as Jacob Wetterling, do they belong only in this category, only in Category:Disappeared people or in both? I figured I might as well ask, rather than get into a revert war. Canadian Paul 08:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually know. Look at other articles in the disappeared people category on people who are young enough to still possibly be alive, and see if this category is included on those articles. I recognise you from deathlist.net by the way...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Could be worthwhile

You could use findmypast.com or ancestry.co.uk to look in the England and Wales Death Records 1984-2005 for some of these people, especially if they are from England or Wales. 79.69.81.14 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Age limits

I suggest that it might be worth lowering the age limit for this category at both ends. If you look at Oldest people you will see that there are currently only 2 people in the world confirmed to have been born in 1893, and even if you add in disputed claims it doesn't get much earlier than this. There are only 80 confirmed supercentenarians (110+). Surely we can move to "Year of death unknown" people born, at the very least, earlier than the alleged oldest living person. The current limit appears to be based on Jeanne Calment who lived to 122, unlikely to be repeated very often.

People are supposed to be moved to this category at 90. We have some people who would be in their 80s if alive but nothing has been heard of for years, particularly some athletes who had some notable achievements in their 20s but nothing since then. Can we move them here?

There is also issues with younger people where there is some, but not conclusive, grounds for suspecting they may be dead e.g. Osama bin Laden. Should they be included here? PatGallacher (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of Possibly living people is that it is only applicable in three cases:

1. People over 90 for whom no evidence of being alive has been provided within a reasonable number of years. Once a person hits 100, it is not unreasonable to expect a yearly update I would think.
2. People whose living status is unknown to the world, regardless of age, in the sense that no amount of research would be able to determine if they were alive or not, such as people MIA, kidnapped victims etc. etc.
3. People who have made a concerted effort to disappear, such as performers who performed under a pseudonym and then vanished, or for whom there is a reliable source questioning whether or not that person is alive, regardless of age

Per WP:BLP, everyone under the age of 90 should be listed as alive, regardless of whether or not they've been heard of years. Having said that, as I have been going through this category, I have tended not to change people born in 1918 or 1919 to "living people", as I believe it to be a valid use of WP:IAR. If there are grounds for suspecting that someone is deceased, such as bin Laden, then it's up to consensus to determine what category they belong in. Silly abuses of the category, such as placing in Elvis Presley in it, should be avoided I would think.

As for people over the age of 110, I, as well as others, have generally assumed that if someone notable reached the age of 110, there would be at least a news story or two about them, and I have therefore moved them to date of death unknown. It has happened in the past, however, that people have been discovered alive older than that (Silas Simmons, although he did not have a Wiki page before his discovery), so I don't mind if I'm reverted in this. For this reason, occasionally and for very obscure people such as Rosemary Beresford, I have kept them in PLP, although I'm indifferent if they are moved to DOD unknown. Cheers, CP 22:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look at category BLP, I see no mention of a clear cut-off point at 90. Presumably all the legal and other caveats apply to this category (although it would be interesting if we got a complaint about their biography from someone in this category). People in category 2 above should be in the category "Disappeared people". The current oldest person whose claim is regarded as at all plausible was supposedly born in 1892 (although it's a bit fishy that she had a daughter at 44) surely we can remove anyone born before this. PatGallacher (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Per Category:Living people: Individuals of advanced age (over 90) for whom no documentation has existed for a reasonable number of years, may be removed from this category and transferred to Category:Possibly living people. You're right about category #2 and I hope that you can successfully enact that, but don't be surprised if you get reverted a lot (that's what happened when I tried to enforce it; maybe you'll have more luck). As far as the "upper bound" goes, I at least am not going to revert you if you switch categories at 110+ even, but others may disagree (or they may not, I don't know), so be prepared for that. Cheers, CP 04:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There is another issue come up with the use of this category. Is it legitimate to use this category with people for who we do not have a definite year of birth, but the information in the article suggests that it is most unlikely that they are aged 90 plus? This has come up with Anthony Reed Herbert, but it could be an issue with e.g. some sportsmen and sportswomen who have been active comparitively recently.

Also, is there a cut-off point at which we can say that there is serious doubt about whether someone aged 90 plus is still alive, so we can move them to this category? I have tended to move them if there has been no mention for 20 years. PatGallacher (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no legitimate reason to have a lower limit at 90. Anyone born 123 years ago or more should be assumed dead, as there is no evidence anyone has ever lived that long (122 year old Jeanne Calment holds the all-time human longevity record). Anyone born within the last 123 years for whom it cannot be established whether they are alive or dead should be in this category regardless of whether they were born 100, 90, 80, 70, 60 or 50 years ago. It is not a BLP vio to put someone into this cat when their status cannot be established. If evidence later comes to light proving them either dead or alive then they can be moved to the appropriate category. With a limit at 90, what would you do with, for example, a sportsperson born in 1930 who quit competing in the late 1950s and about whom no sources can be found since 1960? You can't put him in Living people as he might be dead; you can't assume him dead because he might be alive. Hence this cat would be the only sensible choice, along with 1930 births. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, the average life expectency is 67.2 years (see Life expectancy). This means that any one who would be older than 68, of whom no documentation exists for the past ten years, would, statistically speaking, have a greater than 50% chance of being dead. According to Wiki Answers (not sure how reliable that is) only 2% of people live to be 90. Even if that number is off by a little, I can't imagine that a double digit percentage of people make it past 90, so people (not documented for the past ten years) over 90 are not exactly possibly living, they're probably dead. Maybe a poll should be conducted about the criteria for qualifying as possibly living.Givememoney17 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

For people who do not have a definite year of birth (like Anthony Reed Herbert), use common sense and work out the latest reasonable date at which they could have been born. In Herbert's case, he stood for election to the British Parliament in 1974, when the minimum age for candidates was 21; so assume he was born in 1953. Now, it's extremely likely he was born earlier than that (and quite likely that he is in fact dead), but it seems sensible to generally presume someone is alive for as long as it is remotely plausible. Robofish (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Reed Herbert was at school at Rugby with Salman Rushdie, so he was probably born in the late 1940s. The article about him is curious because it has no information later than 1982 when he'd have been in his mid 30s. He has disappeared from public life. Pascalulu88 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

How far back should years active be allowed for?

Granted if its something like someone who was in a film I can imagine 1920 being possibly living, but I have found some in this cat like one person that said something like "Played soccer in 1920", shouldn't they go under year of death missing you think? (I've moved a few people here from living and even year of death missing, I even found one that I knew sounded off that had years active for working on a film as the 60s to the 90s and found they were indeed alive but were listed as dead) On the flipside I found some actress on here that has a picture from the 1960s who looked like she was in her 30s at the oldest that is listed here. But I guess since no info since the 60s that is understandable.

Wgolf (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The tool to search for people no longer works

Seems like https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikisense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&basecat=1900s+births&basedeep=2&mode=cs&tagcat=Living+people&tagdeep=1&go=Scan&userlang=en this tool is gone. Wgolf (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay got this one to work: http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan3/catscan2.php

Wgolf (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay for anyone looking for a tool as that one has been out of service for a while now-this is what most of us have been using for a while: https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ Wgolf (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

A vexed question

Should this page include missing people or not? The current situation doesn't seem to be consistent e.g. Disappearance of Tammy Belanger is included while Disappearance of Lars Mittank is not. Roughly speaking the question is: does this category contain people that no one knows if they're alive? Or it's just for people whose status (alive or dead) is an information not yet available to wikipedia editors? Ago (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)