Thread:Richard Monkey/@comment-258494-20160214203152/@comment-258494-20160218155155

We are changing the direction of the Gerontology Wiki to be more "professional."

It's not the worst category idea, but categories are generally meant for organizational utility...a category by place of birth, by year of birth, etc. helps one find similar cases from similar regions and times.

Marital status, as "married/unmarried", would be "universal": everyone is either married or unmarried. A dichotomous, near-universal status such as "gender" makes sense, because there's biological differences in lifespan due to age. However, there are no biological differences due to marital status. Even then, studies show that married men live longer, on average, yet two of the three oldest validated men on record were unmarried.

This would be better covered as an article than as a category.

Finally, I not only asked you not to use the category/not continue it, but I indicated it would be better if we deleted it. I thought I made that clear.

Editing here is part of a team effort, and a privilege.

You do well with things such as uploading photos, but your overall editing style seems to be selfish, rather than team-oriented and focused on the group goals. For example, making an article on someone in the UK turning 109 (not the UK's oldest person or man, not a twin) when we have over a thousand potential articles not yet made for persons 110+, smacks of selfishness and also is skirting the generosity of the Gerontology Wiki. I don't want to forbid someone making articles like this, but would it not be better to build the Gerontology Wiki systematically, so it continues to gain stature in the eyes of third-party observers? This is not the 110 Club. Everything here is public, and you should be editing as if you were onstage.Ryoung122 (talk) 15:51, February 18, 2016 (UTC)