Category talk:Deaths By Year - Revision history

Ric: Reverted edits by Boroto (Talk) to last revision by Emaster

2011-11-05T21:12:19Z

Reverted edits by Boroto (Talk) to last revision by Emaster

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:12, 5 November 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I've written a hook <deaths>YYYY</deaths> where YYYY is a year from 1900 or if blank gives the last 50 ~~FUCK BOXREC, THEIR PEDO ADMINISTRATORS LIKE MATT WOUTER JOHN RIC MARINA, DONT BUY ANYTHINF FROM THEIR SHITTY SHOPS, EVERYTHING IS STOLEN GOODS!~~deaths to date. It should make death tracking a lot easier and maybe some of the categories unnecessary.--[[User:John]]		I've written a hook <deaths>YYYY</deaths> where YYYY is a year from 1900 or if blank gives the last 50 deaths to date. It should make death tracking a lot easier and maybe some of the categories unnecessary.--[[User:John]]

	[http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_b_0700.htm Compilation of ring deaths]--[[User:Matt Tegen]]		[http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_b_0700.htm Compilation of ring deaths]--[[User:Matt Tegen]]

Boroto: FUCK BOXREC, THEIR PEDO ADMINISTRATORS LIKE MATT WOUTER JOHN RIC MARINA, DONT BUY ANYTHINF FROM THEIR SHITTY SHOPS, EVERYTHING IS STOLEN GOODS!

2011-11-05T21:09:17Z

FUCK BOXREC, THEIR PEDO ADMINISTRATORS LIKE MATT WOUTER JOHN RIC MARINA, DONT BUY ANYTHINF FROM THEIR SHITTY SHOPS, EVERYTHING IS STOLEN GOODS!

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:09, 5 November 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I've written a hook <deaths>YYYY</deaths> where YYYY is a year from 1900 or if blank gives the last 50 deaths to date. It should make death tracking a lot easier and maybe some of the categories unnecessary.--[[User:John]]		I've written a hook <deaths>YYYY</deaths> where YYYY is a year from 1900 or if blank gives the last 50 FUCK BOXREC, THEIR PEDO ADMINISTRATORS LIKE MATT WOUTER JOHN RIC MARINA, DONT BUY ANYTHINF FROM THEIR SHITTY SHOPS, EVERYTHING IS STOLEN GOODS!deaths to date. It should make death tracking a lot easier and maybe some of the categories unnecessary.--[[User:John]]

	[http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_b_0700.htm Compilation of ring deaths]--[[User:Matt Tegen]]		[http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_b_0700.htm Compilation of ring deaths]--[[User:Matt Tegen]]

Emaster: added link to compilation of ring deaths provided by Matt Tegen

2010-02-20T03:28:37Z

added link to compilation of ring deaths provided by Matt Tegen

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:28, 20 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I've written a hook <deaths>YYYY</deaths> where YYYY is a year from 1900 or if blank gives the last 50 deaths to date. It should make death tracking a lot easier and maybe some of the categories unnecessary.--[[User:John]]		I've written a hook <deaths>YYYY</deaths> where YYYY is a year from 1900 or if blank gives the last 50 deaths to date. It should make death tracking a lot easier and maybe some of the categories unnecessary.--[[User:John]]

			[http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_b_0700.htm Compilation of ring deaths]--[[User:Matt Tegen]]

	==Do We Really Need This "New" Category?==		==Do We Really Need This "New" Category?==

Emaster: placed explanation at the top

2010-02-19T21:23:21Z

placed explanation at the top

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 19 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~== Do We Really Need This "New" Category? ==~~		I've written a hook <deaths>YYYY</deaths> where YYYY is a year from 1900 or if blank gives the last 50 deaths to date. It should make death tracking a lot easier and maybe some of the categories unnecessary.--[[User:John]]

			==Do We Really Need This "New" Category?==
	I thought this series of "Death Year" categories was to start only from when the Wiki was launched, back in 2005 or 2006. Otherwise, if we are now going to have such a category for every year of deaths, that's at least another hundred potential categories. Lordy! That begins to make a mockery of what "category" means. Category should be a relative limited family of pages. If you start to have hundreds of categories--many with only a handful of entries--it starts to lose its purpose. Let's all please be a bit more cautious before creating a "new" category. I think this one should be deleted. --[[User:Ric\|Ric]] 07:57, 7 April 2007 (CDT)		I thought this series of "Death Year" categories was to start only from when the Wiki was launched, back in 2005 or 2006. Otherwise, if we are now going to have such a category for every year of deaths, that's at least another hundred potential categories. Lordy! That begins to make a mockery of what "category" means. Category should be a relative limited family of pages. If you start to have hundreds of categories--many with only a handful of entries--it starts to lose its purpose. Let's all please be a bit more cautious before creating a "new" category. I think this one should be deleted. --[[User:Ric\|Ric]] 07:57, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

	== Response ==		==Response==

	You raise a valid point. On the other hand, I feel that all information should be categorized in a way that researchers can find it quickly & efficiently. While a researcher working on Ring Fatalities would be able to find their information easily, a researcher looking for those who died in a specific year would not. As far as I know, there is no current database or publication that provides this information in its totality by year. I think that to be totally accurate for research purposes, information should not only be as acurate as possible, but should be categorized so researchers can find what they need without spending hours and hours of searching because a category is not listed. As an example, if I, as a researcher, wanted to find a listing of all deaths in 2001, whether in or out of the ring, how would I find that information without looking through every person listed in the BoxRec database? Just my thoughts... Tony		You raise a valid point. On the other hand, I feel that all information should be categorized in a way that researchers can find it quickly & efficiently. While a researcher working on Ring Fatalities would be able to find their information easily, a researcher looking for those who died in a specific year would not. As far as I know, there is no current database or publication that provides this information in its totality by year. I think that to be totally accurate for research purposes, information should not only be as acurate as possible, but should be categorized so researchers can find what they need without spending hours and hours of searching because a category is not listed. As an example, if I, as a researcher, wanted to find a listing of all deaths in 2001, whether in or out of the ring, how would I find that information without looking through every person listed in the BoxRec database? Just my thoughts... Tony

	== Debate Continued ==		==Debate Continued==

	Tony, I wonder how many researchers would really be looking into, for example, who all died in 2001, to make such a category worthwhile. For what reason? Anyway, assuming there would be many who'd like this info, you can use the search box on every page here, and type in the search term "died 2001". Although you will get some results you were not searching for, you will also get most, if not all, pages where it is specifically mentioned that a death occurred in 2001. Try it. --[[User:Ric\|Ric]] 10:26, 7 April 2007 (CDT)		Tony, I wonder how many researchers would really be looking into, for example, who all died in 2001, to make such a category worthwhile. For what reason? Anyway, assuming there would be many who'd like this info, you can use the search box on every page here, and type in the search term "died 2001". Although you will get some results you were not searching for, you will also get most, if not all, pages where it is specifically mentioned that a death occurred in 2001. Try it. --[[User:Ric\|Ric]] 10:26, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

	== Discussion Ended ?!? ==		==Discussion Ended ?!?==

	Ok Ric, I tried it and did get a listing. Why someone would want that info I think is a mute point when it comes to research. I have been asked for information from researchers that I thought was strange, but who am I to question their reasons why?!? I think we're just here to provide the best information we can in the most easily accessible format. I have no problem deleting the link. This is why you're here, Ric - you're the man!! Tony		Ok Ric, I tried it and did get a listing. Why someone would want that info I think is a mute point when it comes to research. I have been asked for information from researchers that I thought was strange, but who am I to question their reasons why?!? I think we're just here to provide the best information we can in the most easily accessible format. I have no problem deleting the link. This is why you're here, Ric - you're the man!! Tony

Emaster: Category talk:2001 Deaths moved to Category talk:Deaths By Year: general discussion, probably worth keeping, otherwise delete it

2008-04-09T17:23:45Z

Category talk:2001 Deaths moved to Category talk:Deaths By Year: general discussion, probably worth keeping, otherwise delete it

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:23, 9 April 2008
(No difference)

Boxer561: Discussion Ended ?!?

2007-04-07T15:44:02Z

Discussion Ended ?!?

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:44, 7 April 2007
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Tony, I wonder how many researchers would really be looking into, for example, who all died in 2001, to make such a category worthwhile. For what reason? Anyway, assuming there would be many who'd like this info, you can use the search box on every page here, and type in the search term "died 2001". Although you will get some results you were not searching for, you will also get most, if not all, pages where it is specifically mentioned that a death occurred in 2001. Try it. --[[User:Ric\|Ric]] 10:26, 7 April 2007 (CDT)		Tony, I wonder how many researchers would really be looking into, for example, who all died in 2001, to make such a category worthwhile. For what reason? Anyway, assuming there would be many who'd like this info, you can use the search box on every page here, and type in the search term "died 2001". Although you will get some results you were not searching for, you will also get most, if not all, pages where it is specifically mentioned that a death occurred in 2001. Try it. --[[User:Ric\|Ric]] 10:26, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

			== Discussion Ended ?!? ==

			Ok Ric, I tried it and did get a listing. Why someone would want that info I think is a mute point when it comes to research. I have been asked for information from researchers that I thought was strange, but who am I to question their reasons why?!? I think we're just here to provide the best information we can in the most easily accessible format. I have no problem deleting the link. This is why you're here, Ric - you're the man!! Tony

Ric: Debate Continued

2007-04-07T15:26:05Z

Debate Continued

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:26, 7 April 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:

	You raise a valid point. On the other hand, I feel that all information should be categorized in a way that researchers can find it quickly & efficiently. While a researcher working on Ring Fatalities would be able to find their information easily, a researcher looking for those who died in a specific year would not. As far as I know, there is no current database or publication that provides this information in its totality by year. I think that to be totally accurate for research purposes, information should not only be as acurate as possible, but should be categorized so researchers can find what they need without spending hours and hours of searching because a category is not listed. As an example, if I, as a researcher, wanted to find a listing of all deaths in 2001, whether in or out of the ring, how would I find that information without looking through every person listed in the BoxRec database? Just my thoughts... Tony		You raise a valid point. On the other hand, I feel that all information should be categorized in a way that researchers can find it quickly & efficiently. While a researcher working on Ring Fatalities would be able to find their information easily, a researcher looking for those who died in a specific year would not. As far as I know, there is no current database or publication that provides this information in its totality by year. I think that to be totally accurate for research purposes, information should not only be as acurate as possible, but should be categorized so researchers can find what they need without spending hours and hours of searching because a category is not listed. As an example, if I, as a researcher, wanted to find a listing of all deaths in 2001, whether in or out of the ring, how would I find that information without looking through every person listed in the BoxRec database? Just my thoughts... Tony

			== Debate Continued ==

			Tony, I wonder how many researchers would really be looking into, for example, who all died in 2001, to make such a category worthwhile. For what reason? Anyway, assuming there would be many who'd like this info, you can use the search box on every page here, and type in the search term "died 2001". Although you will get some results you were not searching for, you will also get most, if not all, pages where it is specifically mentioned that a death occurred in 2001. Try it. --[[User:Ric\|Ric]] 10:26, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Boxer561: Response

2007-04-07T14:42:29Z

Response

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:42, 7 April 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	I thought this series of "Death Year" categories was to start only from when the Wiki was launched, back in 2005 or 2006. Otherwise, if we are now going to have such a category for every year of deaths, that's at least another hundred potential categories. Lordy! That begins to make a mockery of what "category" means. Category should be a relative limited family of pages. If you start to have hundreds of categories--many with only a handful of entries--it starts to lose its purpose. Let's all please be a bit more cautious before creating a "new" category. I think this one should be deleted. --[[User:Ric\|Ric]] 07:57, 7 April 2007 (CDT)		I thought this series of "Death Year" categories was to start only from when the Wiki was launched, back in 2005 or 2006. Otherwise, if we are now going to have such a category for every year of deaths, that's at least another hundred potential categories. Lordy! That begins to make a mockery of what "category" means. Category should be a relative limited family of pages. If you start to have hundreds of categories--many with only a handful of entries--it starts to lose its purpose. Let's all please be a bit more cautious before creating a "new" category. I think this one should be deleted. --[[User:Ric\|Ric]] 07:57, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

			== Response ==

			You raise a valid point. On the other hand, I feel that all information should be categorized in a way that researchers can find it quickly & efficiently. While a researcher working on Ring Fatalities would be able to find their information easily, a researcher looking for those who died in a specific year would not. As far as I know, there is no current database or publication that provides this information in its totality by year. I think that to be totally accurate for research purposes, information should not only be as acurate as possible, but should be categorized so researchers can find what they need without spending hours and hours of searching because a category is not listed. As an example, if I, as a researcher, wanted to find a listing of all deaths in 2001, whether in or out of the ring, how would I find that information without looking through every person listed in the BoxRec database? Just my thoughts... Tony

Ric: Do We Really Need This "New" Category?

2007-04-07T12:57:16Z

Do We Really Need This "New" Category?

New page

== Do We Really Need This "New" Category? ==

I thought this series of "Death Year" categories was to start only from when the Wiki was launched, back in 2005 or 2006. Otherwise, if we are now going to have such a category for every year of deaths, that's at least another hundred potential categories. Lordy! That begins to make a mockery of what "category" means. Category should be a relative limited family of pages. If you start to have hundreds of categories--many with only a handful of entries--it starts to lose its purpose. Let's all please be a bit more cautious before creating a "new" category. I think this one should be deleted. --[[User:Ric|Ric]] 07:57, 7 April 2007 (CDT)