Talk:René Auberjonois

2019 deaths category

The status quo is retaining the category, what are you talking about? There's no other stuff exists argument here, it's an objectively necessary category given he died in 2019. Just because you personally find it redundant does not make it okay for you to decide that Auberjonois should be excluded from the 2019 deaths category. If your umbridge is over the suicides category being the redundancy due to being a subcat of 2019 deaths I do not understand why it's the core deaths category you refuse to have on the page, and not remove the suicides one. It is patently ridiculous to not have a person who objectively died in 2019 in the 2019 deaths category. Anyway, let's tackle your points. 1: So then given virtually a sizeable chunk of the categories on his page are also subcategories, you'll be stripping them out due to redundancy yes? You'd wanna be consistent of course. To be straight, it's absolutely not redundant to have both categories anyway. One category is for the tallying of all deaths in a given year. The other category is tallying all suicides in a given year. Two different things being highlighted in their given contexts. 2: So you're accusing me of "sneaking" the category back on December? Which is either confusion on your end or a bold faced lie, on December 1, I added the suicides category. It was the deaths category you removed. I added the deaths category back on the thought I might've accidentally deleted it in my first edit and that the category is one necessary to have. It was not a edit I thought warranted an edit summary as I was not aware there was someone pulling it out at the time, there wasn't malice or attempts to be "sneaking" anything back in at all. 3: It's hardly an edit war when I wasn't even aware one was considered to be happening until I saw yet again today that the category was gone. I noticed your December 3 edit summary which stated it was a CCAT and to also "pick one or the other", which again, two different things being highlighted in their contexts, not redundant at all. I restored it, you reverted citing "overly categoried" which is in my opinion silly. I was the one who asked you not to continue reverting and discuss but you still chose to restore your version, so you're the one engaging in warring tactics based on a flawed sense of status quo, that being keeping an important category that is present on every deceased persons page for a given year's entry out. Except here. 4: Already addressed above. 5: Also addressed above. No RFC needed for something so obvious.

In conclusion, the onus is not on me at all to gain consensus to add in a category that is required on all applicable pages. Your beef seems to be with the existent of categories you find redundant, so perhaps look at starting an RFC to have said redundant categories deleted. So, I ask you to please restore the 2019 deaths category. If you can't see that the two categories are inherently different and not a redundancy to include both, than that discussion can be had and the suicides category removed, but please restore the deaths category. Rusted AutoParts 05:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@GenQuest: As you archived our discussion on your talk page so quickly, this is my response. Rusted AutoParts 05:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Given I’ve run into a similar situation at Cherry Valentine, I think it’s best I pull back here. I just haven’t seen until now this being applied before, having been editing deaths pages for years. I still don’t find that there’s a redundancy here but given SUBCAT, I withdraw. Rusted AutoParts 17:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Teaching at Juilliard

Oddly, when I checked the article there was no reference to his teaching at Juilliard. I added a line under "early life" with references but it might be better placed in career. 120.88.147.77 (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)