One of Wikia's incentives to drive editing is the "Lucky Edit Badge."
Typically awarded to the user who makes the 1000th, 2000th, etc. edits, this badge is the only "random" badge on the Gerontology Wiki: all other badges are awarded based on merit (achievements made).
Below is a list of the "Lucky Edit Badge" winners.
A few of the badges remain missing...can you find them?Ryoung122 (talk) 21:45, April 24, 2017 (UTC)Read more >
|Futsuko Furuie=Futsuko Furuie=F=1 January 1906===
|Mary Jorden=Mary Jorden=F=1 January 1906===
|Alice Knox=Alice Knox=F=4 January 1906===
|Elisabeth Hamm=Elisabeth Hamm=F=4 January 1906=2016=110 years, 0-362 days=
|Marjorie Cooke=Marjorie Cooke=F=5 January 1906===
|Ellen Brandenborg=Ellen Brandenborg=F=7 January 1906===
|Evelyn Vigor=Evelyn Vigor=F=9 January 1906=26 April 2016=110 years, 108 days=
|Clelia Campolongo=Clelia Campolongo=F=9 January 1906=2 March 2016=110 years, 53 days=
|Isabel Castano Restrepo=Isabel Castano Restrepo=F=11 January 1906===
|Auguste Ehard=Auguste Ehard=F=12 January 1906=22 March 2016=110 years, 70 days=
|Zhou Youguang=Zhou Youguang=M=13 January 1906=14 January 2017=111 years, 1 day=
|Yvette Mangin=Yvette Mangin=F=13 Janua…Read more >
Initially, the plan for unvalidated supercentenarian claims is to have three categories:
Unvalidated supercentenarians (110-114)
Longevity claims (115-130)
Longevity myths (130+)
We certainly don't want to, for example, categorize "Old Tom Parr" as a "supercentenarian" (when he probably was about 80 years old).
But things become more problematic for the gray area cases.
Should we go ahead and categorize someone such as Maria do Carmo Geronimo as a "unvalidated supercentenarian" as well as a "longevity claim"?
One way to do that would be to make two sub-categories for unvalidated supercentenarians: "Unvaldiated Supercentenarians (110-114)" and "Longevity Claims (115-130)". Whatever we decide, I think the rules need to be made clear and c…
Read more >
I do feel that we need more efforts for the "longevity claims" articles.
Perhaps we could also include a Longevity claims "deaths in year X" category.
Longevity claims aren't just about whether the case is true or not. It's important to show the reader that there are a lot of claims out there that can't be validated, whether they are true or not.
I would also like to see more efforts to "link" the longevity claims articles.
Ryoung122 (talk) 19:36, March 9, 2017 (UTC)Read more >
Hello. I have decided that I will create a new article every Sunday throughout 2017, instead of haphazardly creating them when I felt like it. A new article will be up today, but starting from tomorrow, I will be creating one article a week.
Any thoughts/comments on my plans?Read more >
Regarding the "articles without pictures" category: this presupposes that every article "should" have a photo.
But not every article is a biography of a person. What is a "ghost case" supposed to look like?Ryoung122 (talk) 00:37, November 24, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
In regards to the creation of new categories, please, everyone, let's give the courtesy of having a discussion before making unilateral changes. This is the place for it.Ryoung122 (talk) 22:22, November 17, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
Some of Gerontology Wiki lists are outdated in terms of updating the tables regularly.Read more >
I'm still not 100% sure how to create an article on the wiki. I'm good at editing articles, just not creating them.Read more >
Some of the Gerontology Wiki articles such as the list of Japanese supercentenarians and well basically all of the supercentenarian lists are outdated. As a gerontology wiki contributor i work and don't have time to update them when i am home since it is a lot of work for me especially since i cannot copy or paste but i can only do that at a computer with a computer mouse.Read more >
Regarding categories for WOPs/world's oldest person titleholders, please do not include original research. Only cases officially approved as WOP titleholders by GWR and/or the GRG should be included.
One issue to discuss further:
I think, in the past, there was a discussion of whether to merge "WOPs" and "World's Oldest Person titleholders". I think this needs to be looked at again...I seem to recall a reason for having separate categories but the rationale eludes me at the moment.Ryoung122 (talk) 17:24, June 30, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
Is Louis Epstein's list an RS?Read more >
A little bit of a blog...
We need an official policy on original research. What is acceptable as a source? No one's said the specifics here.
Also, another issue: If the person claimed one age, but a GRG correspondent's site lists them as a different age, should we cite the correspondent, if the GRG says age X but Andrew says age Y...that's an issue that needs addressing.Read more >
I think we should have an "Oldest Living American" titleholder template.
Someone please create.Ryoung122 (talk) 14:57, May 20, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
Regarding the bracketing of birth years/birthdates,
I prefer this style:
and for living persons:
I'm open to hearing other suggestions, however.Ryoung122 (talk) 17:45, May 5, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
Cases with issues:
- Mathew Beard
- Addie Bess
- Andrei Kuznetsoff
- Lucy Hannah
Cases which are suggested to be older by RR:
- Maggie Barnes - 116 (+1)
- Ella Miller - 115 (+4)
- Mary Bidwell - 114 (+10 days)
- Ella Gantt - 114 (+2)
- Myrtle Dorsey - 114 (+2 days)
- Mary Curley - 113 (+2)
- Clarina Ragland - 113 (+2)
- Ada Van Natta - 112 (+1)
- Mary Bodie - 112 (+1)
- Lucy Hoyle - 112 (+1)
There's a disturbing Wikipedia trend, which is bleeding over to the Gerontology Wiki, to misunderstand what the subject of an article is. The subject of an article is what the article is about, and why the subject is notable.
Roger Federer isn't notable just for being a tennis player, or for currently being #3 in the world...he's noted, first and foremost, for having 17 Grand Slam titles, and being a candidate for GOAT. There have been times in the past when an article on Wikipedia would simply say, "Person X is condition Y". But that is NOT how an article introduction in an encyclopedia should be worded. Instead, the focus should be, firstly, what the subject is mainly about.
So, there's no need to say, "person X was a verified Am…Read more >
I was thinking about creating an article where claims 110-114 that are unlikely to be verified can be put into an article, with a living cases list and a deceased cases list because we have an article with 110+ cases that are already/likely to be verified, we have Longevity Claims and Longevity Myths, but we don't have one for unlikely (but not debunked) claims 110-114.
What does everyone think of this idea?Read more >
I've noticed that there are some "superflous" categories...such as "List of supercentenarians by country" and "Lists of supercentenarians by nationality". If the category is basically the same thing with different wordings, please merge, but consider a redirect for the category that is merged.
I suggest we go with "nationality", as it sounds more formal than "country". We have the "United Nations", not the "United Countries".Ryoung122 (talk) 18:20, March 23, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
When I was asked to return to the Gerontology Wiki on August 15, 2015, it had become a place where troll-lords ruled. Extremely vulgar language was everywhere, and the material that was here wasn't reliable, as everyone carved out their own little "walled garden" and ran things on their section of the Wiki their way.
Things have changed since then.
First, I did recognize those strong, positive influences that were already here, and I reinforced their position. I also made it clear, right off the bat, that the trolls would be blocked, banned, and stopped in their tracks. And they were. I also continued to bring in more responsible, credible administrators to help run this Wiki. We also formulated rules that would help with the stand…Read more >
Deaths in 2014 vs 2014 Deaths
I had started a category, "Deaths in 2014", with the purpose of providing a super-category that would include all deaths on the Gerontology Wiki in 2014...both supercentenarians and non-supercentenarians. However, someone had already started a "2014 deaths" and populated it (although '2016 deaths" was empty). I think we need to merge these efforts. One thing to consider is which naming system would be better, and this is less a matter of tone than one of organization. "Deaths in (xxxx)" has the alphabetical advantage of listing all the "Deaths in" categories close together..."(xxxx) Deaths" has the numerical advantage, but would include, for example, 2014 births.
Before we expend a great deal of energy…
Read more >
I'm wondering if the Gerontology Wiki should track "recent deaths", as Wikipedia does?
Ryoung122 (talk) 21:41, February 17, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
I am confused by the number of edits the wiki says I have. The wiki says three different amounts. The "Local List Users" page says I have 2570, my user profile page says I have 2610, and my edit stats say I have 2663. So, which is correct?Read more >
Name Creation date
Oldest living notable people 20 December 2014
Oldest Ever Notable People 20 December 2014
List of oldest English people by county 21 December 2014
List of supercentenarians who died in 2015 1 January 2015
List of supercentenarians who died in 2016 1 January 2016
Katherine Gomery 12 January 2016
William Del Monte 12 January 2016
James Birren 25 January 2016
Maggie Renfro 2 February 2016
Philippe Vocanson 2 February 2016
Soledad Mexia 3 February 2016
Evelyn Kozak 4 February 2016
Terue Ashida 6 February 2016
Nettie Whittington 6 February 2016
Beryl Kapaun 6 February 2016
Helen Reichert 8 February 2016
Kame Nakamura 9 February 2016
Blanche Cobb 9 February 2016
Anna Stoehr 10 February 2016 Read more >
Today I noticed that a certain editor made a new category, "Lists of supercentenarians by age", when there is already a "Lists of supercentenarians" category. I'm not sure we need both of these, but if we keep the second, it should be a subcategory of the former.
Thoughts?Ryoung122 (talk) 15:40, February 9, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
It may have been assumed that categories for places of birth and death are for supercentenarians, but that's not actually so. If someone were noted for gerontology other than being a supercentenarian and were born in the same location, they would be in the same category.
This leaves us with a conundrum: if we, in fact, wish to have "categories" limited to supercentenarians only, how would we do this? Use sub-categories, or separate categories? Let's discuss this now as the growth of the Gerontology Wiki in 2016 is expected to be tremendous.Ryoung122 (talk) 22:34, February 8, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
If it hasn't been clear yet, the main purpose of the Gerontology Wiki is to allow editors to cover material on the topic of gerontology. Wikipedia initially began as a "one-size-fits-all" open-source encyclopedia, where "Wikipedia is not paper" and, as long as material is appropriately sourced and encyclopedic, coverage was allowed.
Perhaps because Wikipedia is reliant on donations and the English Wikipedia, in particular, has become overly burdened with 5+ million articles, there has been a push in many topic areas (Pokemon, beauty pageants, war veterans, etc.) to move individual biographies and lists to Wikia, a for-profit entity.
It is no coincidence that, when on August 15, 2015, it was decided on Wikipedia to begin deleting an…Read more >
As the Gerontology Wiki continues to expand, we need to alter/expand categorization in order to serve the primary purpose of categorization, which is to group similar topics/continuities.
I note that Lowell K. Bridwell died in 1986, so he's added to the "1986 deaths" category. But he died at 62.
Going forward, we need sub-categories for supercentenarian deaths, or something like "1986 supercentenarian deaths."
The Gerontology Wiki is for all facets of gerontology, and as such, the focus on supercentenarians eventually will be lost. And that's O.K. The main reason that the focus is currently on supercentenarian material is because much of that material was being recently deleted on Wikipedia.
In the long run, the Gerontology Wiki will…Read more >
The Gerontology Wiki is not going to be Wikipedia, forbidding the use of flags to indicate places of birth and death.
However, the default (standard) value should be text first, with flags added as an additional visual element.
We also need to be concerned regarding whether the person identified with the flag actually does identify with the particular flag.
Common sense should be used here.
I am recommending:
Flags for the place of birth should reflect the flag then in use at the time of the birth. Thus, Emile Fourcade was born in 1884 in French Algeria, not Algeria.
Flags for the place of death/current residence should be easier to clarify...in almost all cases, the place a supercentenarian died or resides coincides with their citizen…Read more >
In order to make it easier for admins and other established editors to identify editor contributions to the Gerontology Wiki, I encourage all editors who have created articles to list them on one's profile page (see, for example, the profile of Richard Monkey). Ryoung122 (talk) 14:50, January 30, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
The Gerontogy Wiki was founded in the USA, so we will use the American, not British, MOS. For example, "capitalization" with a "z", not an "s". Ryoung122 (talk) 14:22, January 30, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
Learning Wikia software is like learning a new language. Trying to learn everything all at once will fail. Learning a little more each day is the way to go.
In the past week, I have figured out a few things that I wasn't "getting" earlier...such as uploading photos or adding additional columns.Ryoung122 (talk) 04:58, January 30, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
For those of us used to editing using Microsoft products, WIKIA software can be a challenge. For example, the copy/paste function doesn't appear to work (at least not in "Firefox browser").
However, as we have seen with "adding gender columns," "difficult to do" is "not impossible." It just had to be done manually.
I'm also sure that multiple users may have varying experiences with figuring out what works and what doesn't.
So, let's share here software issues.Ryoung122 (talk) 19:31, January 27, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
When I was asked in mid-2015 to "help" on the Gerontology Wiki, it operated as a place where the captain had been "asleep at the wheel", sad to say. With apologizes to about four editors that had been doing a good job then, the site had degraded to a place where vandalism and vandal-warring was the order of the day, and when that wasn't occurring, much of what was being done was "original research," "fancruft material", etc....the type of things that made the "Walled Garden of Longevity" get booted from Wikipedia in the first place. Many articles were started but not finished; there were competing editing styles, overlapping and discordant information. It was, simply put, a mess.
When I decided to return to active-editor status on August 15…Read more >
I think it would be a good idea if we added a "Most-Active Editor" page (or blog entry/forum post) to the Gerontology Wiki...both to recognize the most-active editors for their contributions and to serve as a motivation for new editors to "get to work" here on improving this Wiki.
One small issue: the publicly-displayed edit count and the "total activity" edit count are NOT the same. I'm not sure why there is a discrepancy. One hypothesis is that the internal statistics include merged data from the WOP Wiki or editing across Wikia...I'm not sure which.
In any case, here are the "Top Ten" Gerontology Wiki contributors as of Jan 13 2016, as per the internal statistics:
1. AMK152 2715
2. Ozcaro …Read more >
If an article is copied directly from Wikipedia, please remove the redlinks (links that no longer work). The easiest way to do so is to simply remove the linked text and re-type it without linking.Ryoung122 (talk) 21:09, January 13, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
As with a construction project, it is important that we follow the "blueprints" for the Gerontology Wiki's construction.
At the moment, a lot of articles are beind started randomly, haphazardly, and not in conformity or consistency.
To overcome this, I'm starting this message thread/blog entry for a place to point out "projects" that have been started, but haven't been finished.
For example, "List of supercentenarians born in year X" is now formatted for 1870-1887, but for 1888-onward, we have some lists missing almost entirely (such as 1889) and others not formatted correctly (missing a gender column, for example). Also, the charts/graphs started with the earlier years haven't been finished.
Please also undo "bolding" for males. BOL…Read more >
I plan to make more supercentenarian (and some centenarian) biographies in the near future, those being:
- Iris Branch
- Dora Hand
- Ellen Johansson
- Martha Peck
- Mae Ringer
- John Quincy Post
- Hazel Campbell
- Oscar Coulembier
When they are done, I will put a link to it on my user page. I will add more people to this list when I decide who to write a biography on next.Read more >
The Gerontology Wiki is intended to be a specialist encyclopedia covering the interdisciplinary topic of gerontology, which is the study of old age, aging, and human longevity.
While the current focus of this Wikia is on the demographic records of human longevity, this is just the statistical floor upon which applied research into the genetic and environmental effects combine to modulate the maxim human lifespan may be built upon. In order for us, as humanity, to know whether humans alive today are living longer than humans in the past, we must first establish the demographic boundaries of the human cohorts over time, as established by documented systems of recordkeeping. Thus, the Gerontology Wiki is also starting with the records of human…Read more >
The Oldest Man Ever, Andrew Frank Hatch turns 117 in 7 days! So amazing! He has gotten past Capovilla, he is so amazing, who knows he might pass Jeanne Calment.But I guess thats to faar off.He dominates the list bad.
- Andrew Oct 7 1898 117
- Joao Jun 24 1899 116
- Yasutaro Mar 18 1903 112
- Tomoteru Nov 11 1904 110
- Francisco Dec 15 1904 110
- Felix May 24 1905 110
- Roger Jul 25 1905 110
- Masazou Jul 25 1905 110
- Alfred Nov 10 1905 109
- Richard May 17 1906 109
7.5 year gap between oldest man and 10th oldest man!
Simply being a "fan" doesn't make the case validated or true.Ryoung122 (talk) 20:19, January 12, 2016 (UTC)Read more >