Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-258494-20160130230527/@comment-258494-20170426163823

Ollie231213 wrote: It looks to me more like a death date is missing (unknown). At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. I simply suggest we use the same format that other online encyclopedias are using. Presumably there's a reason why it's changed over time, and usually such changes are made because it's felt that the change is an improvement. Ollie231213 (talk) 02:24, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

Here's the rationale for old, printed texts to use the format such as (1896-     ):

1. In an encyclopedia, the majority of the entries are for deceased persons. This is even more true for one that focuses on persons 110+.

2. In the World Almanac, for example, if it has a list of US presidents, there is a "death date" column, and for those not deceased, a blank space is used.

3. The Gerontology Wiki already uses the "blank space" concept for lists such as "Oldest Validated Supercentenarians All-Time."

4. The blank space makes it clear that the biography is continuing, not complete

5. We are not 100% certain that the person is still living.

The bottom line is, ultimately, it's a style issue. In some ways, I like how tombstones, for example, often emphasize the years: i.e., 1902-1986...rather than get too much into the details.Ryoung122 (talk) 16:38, April 26, 2017 (UTC)