Posted message in topic title.Ryoung122 (talk) 23:05, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
The bottom line: it's a style issue. One thing for me is there is a recognition that death will eventually occur. But I suppose in the electronic era, it's easier to edit than in the print era.
Still, I want people to think long-term here. Too much of the internet age is governed by "recentist" bias. A longer-term view is needed for the Big Picture.Ryoung122 (talk) 02:08, January 31, 2016 (UTC)
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)
Update: here's an example from the 1960 Columbia Encyclopedia:
[[1]]
You can see that it does use, for example, "1902-" for Richard Rogers, not "born 1902".
There's no space, however.Ryoung122 (talk) 03:50, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
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."
We're not talking about writing stuff in a table, though. Ollie231213 (talk) 12:28, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
4. The blank space makes it clear that the biography is continuing, not complete
It should be clear to everyone that if a person is not dead, then the biography is continuing, regardless of the format used. Ollie231213 (talk) 12:30, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
5. We are not 100% certain that the person is still living.
I don't see why your suggested format would account for this but mine wouldn't. The statement that "person X was born on date Y" is true regardless of whether the person is still alive or not. Ollie231213 (talk) 12:33, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
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)
I'm in favor of "(born _)".
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)