Category talk:Missing people

Merge?

Resolved

 – No consensus to listify at WP:CFD, June 1, 2006.

shouldn't this merge with the List of people who have disappeared? CDA 18:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You can't merge "lists" in article namespace and categories. They work differently. -- User:Docu

That's not true at all (first sentence). Spend more time in WP:CFD, and you'll see that categories get converted into lists on a very frequent basis! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Renaming?

Resolved

 – No consensus to rename at WP:CFD, June 1, 2006, no rename proposed at CfD since.

What about renaming this Category:Missing people? This would correspond to the recently created Category:Living people. I think the title fits better. Disappeared sounds like a term an illusionist would use. --malber 23:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree; apparently this was changed/merged from the above due to a CfD back in June 2005 [1], that only got four comments... I'm not persuaded by the argument that 'missing' implies a present tense, as they are still missing, aren't they? -- nae'blis _(talk) 01:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well that the category is misnamed. "Disappeared persons" is a phrase specifically associated with secret abduction, torture and/or extra-judicial execution of people in a police state. ("Disappeared" in this case being used in the transitive sense—i.e. a person is said to have been disappeared by secret police.) --Tabor 03:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That, and the sheer grammar of it is kinda grating. *shudder* JPG-GR 04:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing grammatically wrong with "disappeared people", any more than there is for "dead people" or "imprisoned people"; it's simply [past-tense adjective] [plural noun]. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to name this category without using "missing" or "disappeared" in the category name?

What would be the point then? The entire purpose of the category is to identify precisely such people! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Disappeared People" isn't even proper English, this list needs to be renamed "People who have disappeared" or "Missing People". It dosn't fit in "Possible Living People" unless the list is broken up because some people are historical figures, and it is highly unlikley for others to still be alive due to their potential age. Anon 12.12.205.58 06:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, there's nothing grammatically wrong with "disappeared people" — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: I think a few people are simply completely unfamiliar with the use of "disappear" as a transitive as well as intransitive verb. While the transitive usage is probably only two generations old in English (it was borrowed from Spanish), it is well-accepted at this point, and used regularly in the news media to refer to people who have been "disappeared" by nasty regimes in South America, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well accepted by whom? I don't accept it. It sounds completely wrong and incorrect. It is, at the very least, completely unidiomatic English. No educated person would ever be heard saying this, unless they were simply trying to be witty or funny, in which case everyone knows the error is on purpose. Just because the Spanish say it doesn't mean it's correct English. You would automatically correct any Japanese person who said "I disappeared the bowl." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.116.14 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 August 2007)

Possibly living people

Resolved

 – Self-defeating proposal points out why this wouldn't work.

Should this category be included in the "Possibly living people" category? It sounds ok, except that a lot of people could be in this category, but have disappeared such a long time ago that they couldn't possibly be alive now. Like Amelia Earhart, it's not likely she's still alive, since she'd be over 100 years old now. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrés Nin

Resolved

 – Moot.

Andrés Nin was recently added to this category, so I came over to see what the category was. There is no explanation here. His fate was briefly unknown; in fact, it turns out that he was killed days after his arrest. Doesn't seem to me to be very useful to use this category, but it is entirely unclear whether means people who disappeared (as in their fate is unknown) or people who were disappeared, as in they were arrested unaccountably. Nin is the latter, but not the former. I suspect that only the former is the intent of the category, but there is no clarifying text on the category page. - Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This problem of ambiguity in the category name has been mentioned above, and there was an attempt to rename it here, as shown in the so-called "deletion" nomination mentioned above (in fact, it was a renaming nomination). If someone would put it up again for renaming, I would support it again (drop me a note on my talk page), but as I was the nominator last time round, I don't want to re-nom just yet. Carcharoth 20:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like now that the category has been clarified, Nin would not qualify, since his ultimate fate is now known. I have removed him. - Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Marking this "Resolved" since the category now has sufficient documenation that such errors won't happen any longer (i.e. it is clearly not for "people who were once disappeared". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

1885

Why 1885? should we update it every year?--89.131.125.120 (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good question. The 1885 date was added in May 2007. Also - we need a category for people who have disappeared and are dead due to having disappeared before 1885 (or whatever the cutoff date is).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I object to the 1885 as being too recent. According to Wikipedia, the oldest 'verified' person lived to 122 years. This year, a person who was born in 1885 could be 124, a scant two years from matching the verified oldest. It's likely that others have been older, but not verified older (especially considering that if you go back to the 1880s and earlier, it starts getting difficult to verify birth dates anyway). While unlikely in any given case, there is always the possibility that someone who went missing years ago, fate unknown, could still be alive -- even if born in (for instance) 1881. In fact, Elizabeth Ma Pampo Israel, a Dominican, was born in 1875 according to her baptismal certificate (issued by the Roman Catholic Church), but isn't considered "verified" because it's not an "official" document by the Guinness World standards. (She died at the ripe old age of 128 and about nine months.) Anyway, my point is that I don't think we can just assume anyone born before 1885 is dead now. - Apotheon (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Steve Fossett

When, and if the news comes back that the remains found in the wreckage were his, would we be able to remove him from this list?--Alphamone (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Declared dead?

I am wondering about other people's thoughts on missing people who have been declared dead such as Dzmitry Zavadski who currently has the missing people category as well as the Belarusian murder victims category. Should people be moved from Missing people to the Dead people category? Greyjoy ^talk 11:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)