Posted message in topic title.Ryoung122 (talk) 23:05, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
7,498
pages
ALL POSTS
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)
(Edited by Ollie231213)
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)
(Edited by Ollie231213)
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)
(Edited by Ollie231213)
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)
(Edited by Ollie231213)
0
I'm in favor of "(born _)".
(Edited by Pluto2)
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.
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)
(Edited by Ryoung122)
Plan B...perhaps we could include the (xxxx-yyyy) in the title name, then use the article itself for the detailed approach. Let me know what you all this of that idea.
We actually do have that for the Grace Jones cases, since there was more than one of them.Ryoung122 (talk) 22:51, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
(Edited by Ryoung122)
0
Ryoung122 wrote: Plan B...perhaps we could include the (xxxx-yyyy) in the title name, then use the article itself for the detailed approach. Let me know what you all this of that idea.
We actually do have that for the Grace Jones cases, since there was more than one of them.Ryoung122 (talk) 22:51, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
I would actually differentiate between different supercentenarians with the same name using their maiden name - see Ida Shelvin Williams and Ida Ellington Williams.
(Edited by Pluto2)
Pluto2 wrote:
I would actually differentiate between different supercentenarians with the same name using their maiden name - see Ida Shelvin Williams and Ida Ellington Williams.
Ryoung122 wrote: Plan B...perhaps we could include the (xxxx-yyyy) in the title name, then use the article itself for the detailed approach. Let me know what you all this of that idea.
We actually do have that for the Grace Jones cases, since there was more than one of them.Ryoung122 (talk) 22:51, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
I would actually differentiate between different supercentenarians with the same name using their maiden name - see Ida Shelvin Williams and Ida Ellington Williams.
Of course, that's a rather arbitrary decision. Generally speaking, the name of the biography should be the name that the person generally went by.
I know from personal experience that using a "middle name" is a solution, though not because one wants to. "Robert Young" is a very common name.Ryoung122 (talk) 13:39, April 28, 2017 (UTC)
(Edited by Ryoung122)
Pluto2 wrote:
Ryoung122 wrote: Plan B...perhaps we could include the (xxxx-yyyy) in the title name, then use the article itself for the detailed approach. Let me know what you all this of that idea.
We actually do have that for the Grace Jones cases, since there was more than one of them.Ryoung122 (talk) 22:51, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
I would actually differentiate between different supercentenarians with the same name using their maiden name - see Ida Shelvin Williams and Ida Ellington Williams.
What if two male supercentenarians share the same name in the future? That's not impossible, considering that names like John Evans are rather common.
(Edited by Richard Monkey)