Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-258494-20160130230527/@comment-258494-20170427224921

Ollie231213 wrote: Firstly, let's not kid ourselves: an open-source encyclopedia hosted by Wikia ("the home of fandom"), in 2017, is not on the same level as a 1960 print version of a professionally-written Encyclopedia. They're not quite the same and don't necessarily have to follow traditional style formats.

Secondly, a lot of modern online Encyclopedias seem to use the "born _" format:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump https://www.britannica.com/biography/Theresa-May http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/justin-trudeau/

So, this seems to be the standard format for modern (or at least, modern online) Encyclopedias.

Thirdly, having a large gap, to me, just looks ugly, and looks like something is missing or the information is unknown.

I'd prefer it if we could reach consensus with other editors, and then use the same format for each article, so that we have a consistent format across the wiki. Ollie231213 (talk) 12:33, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

Ok, one compromise idea is (1903-) with no gap.

The thing is, though, there is a larger issue here: "recentist" bias, an especial problem with online "encyclopedias" such as Wikipedia. Whereas "Old Guard" encyclopedias such as the Britannica actually have the opposite problem...too much focus on the past and not enough on the present...this one has issues of "recentism". Most of us "run" to make an article on a "living" supercentenarian...but several thousand have already passed away in the past decades, yet many have no article. We need a balance here. The (1903-    ) style helps focus the reader more on the biography and less on recent-itis.Ryoung122 (talk) 22:49, April 27, 2017 (UTC)