All posts by Ryoung122

Thanks for the help, Stefan!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm going to block you for being:

1. Overly litigious. You seem to be pushing an agenda, not having a constructive conservation here. Even repeated explanations are ignored and then you want to argue about it.

2. Disrespect. I've made it overly clear what the situation is, yet you continue to claim that I'm not. You also don't seem to acknowledge my position, as usual.

Please take a week off and consider the above issues.Ryoung122 (talk) 01:45, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

This place is easy to find. If I see an editor not following the rules, I'll give them a talk-page notice.Ryoung122 (talk) 15:59, January 26, 2017 (UTC)

It's really amazing that you still don't (choose to?) understand after all this time and repeated explanations.

Aside from the fact that the above tables are "as of" Jan 1 2015 (which predates my Feb 12 2015 promotion to Director of the GRG Supercentenarian Research and Database Division), what the GRG does isn't the issue here: the issue is what the Gerontology Wiki does. And, even though both terms are used interchangeably, they really do not mean the same thing.

As I have pointed out, repeatedly: "validated" is a subset of "verified". "Verified" is a broader term. As I pointed out, I could say that "I verified that the validated supercentenarian Meta Dishman passed away January 20, 2017". In that example, "verified" isn't about the validation status, but about the fact that the person's death date has been checked--a subcomponent of validation, but also a broader use of the term. Hence, it's similar, but it's not the same.Ryoung122 (talk) 03:57, January 26, 2017 (UTC)

The GRG also uses "validated".

Is there any reason that you are arguing this? Please explain how making this easier for everyone (using one term consistently instead of two) is not helpful?Ryoung122 (talk) 02:56, January 23, 2017 (UTC)

Greetings,

I think the Infoboxes are fine as they are for the moment, save that we want to switch "unverified" status to "unvalidated" status.

For the "Categories", I believe that more discussion is needed.

One issue is that of "subcategorization". For example, someone born in Georgia was also born in the USA, so "Georgia births" should be a "subcategory" of "USA births".Ryoung122 (talk) 17:52, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

930310JL: Please note that it is not "some users". This isn't a "push." This executive decision has already been made at the highest levels. While scientists have sometimes used the words "interchangeably", this has led to confusion. For example, one could say, "I verified that validated supercentenarian XYZ died on Day Q." With the word "verified" being a broader umbrella term, we are now clarifying that we are using the "validated" concept, which is from science and has a more narrow definition. The GRG had already started making the change as early as 2004 (go to grg.org and click on "Publications").Ryoung122 (talk) 17:50, January 19, 2017 (UTC)