Talk:Ageing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	To-do list for Ageing:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Discuss evolution of ageing
Priority 2

}

Contents 1 Spelling 2 Spelling of article (as opposed to title) 3 images 4 Whats in a Name? 5 Evolution of ageing 6 Page move 7 Merging age and senescence 8 Alternative to merge: expand "biology" section 9 Need for section on Successful Aging 10 Claim at end of the article

[edit] Spelling

I find it bad practice to have a page named with impropper spelling. Perhaps this could be moved to Aging (life cycle) instead? A simple redirect can then be used on this title so the links on other pages won't be broken. (Lady Serena 04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

Ageing is a perfectly valid spelling in Commonwealth English. - SimonP 17:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

it's an american website. anyway, more people use the american spelling than the commonwealth spelling. i'm moving it.Joeyramoney 20:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you people really love to complain, don't you?! The current setup is fine, with redirects and that, so it doesn't matter how you spell it. Both spellings seem perfectly valid to me. It's not really a question of whether "more people" use one spelling, making that the right one, is it?!Crunchysaviour 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Impropper" spelling, Ms Serena? SpNeo 16:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the American was joking. Both spellings are of course correct, but, unlike other differences between Commonwealth and American English, this is one where the American spelling is much more widely used. Having the article about humor being called "humour" (even though it was originally spelled "humor...") is fine. But this article should be "Aging." Foreigners will get confused by all the articles and books with the "aging" spelling. WikiFair1 08:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is quite clear, all varieties of English are equally acceptable. Ageing is no less common than any other Commonwealth English spelling. A Google search shows that the aging/ageing ratio is similar to the the humor/humour ration, for instance. - SimonP 15:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The "aging" / "ageing" spelling ratio is, precisely, 217,000,000 to 35,100,000, i.e., about 7 to 1. How did you conduct your Google search? You obviously did it incorrectly. Again: this will be confusing (not "confuseing") to the many non-native speakers who are using (not "useing") Wikipedia to try to learn about both aging and English. Noah Webster had some flaky proposals. "Aging" wasn't one of them. WikiFair1 08:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And humor/humour is 256,000,000 to 64,000,000, licorice/liquorice is 5,200,000 to 1,500,000, yogurt/yoghurt is 4,700,000 to 17,400,000. International English terms are generally less popular than American English, but Wikipedia has a longstanding rule that we don't pick the most popular spelling. Instead we use the first spelling used for the article. If we adopted your system, Wikipedia would use nothing but American English. Also it should be noted that most people in the world are taught International English, so if anything this spelling benefits ESL learners. - SimonP 16:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

1) My point about the ratio wasn't an argument, I was correcting your research. (And my question wasn't rhetorical: how did you conduct your Google search?) I agree using the most popular spelling in general is a bad idea. 2) "International English" doesn't mean British or Commonwealth English. 3) Most people in the world are actually taught American English (Mexico and most of South America, most of Eastern Europe, most of China -- though not Hong Kong -- all of Japan). The "ageing" spelling harms ESL users, since A) it's one of the Commonwealth spellings that is particularly inconsistent with other -ing spellings. (Plenty of American spellings are illogical as well, though, to be sure!) B) it is the spelling used by most of the research community, even many people in England, such as Aubrey de Grey. And just look at the errors in the reference section (which I'm now going to correct, though someone will likely change them back). Names of books are incorrectly spelled with the "ageing" spelling. This will make it hard for people to track down the references. WikiFair1 07:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Your wrong with that, American English is only really taugh in the United States and some parts of South America. There is a reason Commonwealth English is also called International English. Almost all the countries with a huge number of ESL learners, such as those in South Asia, Africa, and Western Europe are all taught British English. Also please understand there was nothing wrong with my Google searches. I did not say aging and ageing are equal, I stated that they are only as unequal as any International/American spellings. - SimonP 17:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not wrong. Do some research. British English is taught lots of places, American English is also taught lots of places. In part because of China and Japan, the total number of ESL learners who are taught American English is higher. About "International English" -- that sometimes refers to American English, sometimes to British English, sometimes to something else entirely. In any event, I gather you have no interest in improving Wikipedia, but would rather promote your favorite variety of English. WikiFair1 05:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Try to cut down on the personal attacks, WikiFair. And I'm not going to take sides in this debate, but I'd just like to comment that 'aging' is the spelling I, personally, use (I'm Canadian). CameoAppearance 18:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to point up the fact that, to linguists,

1. "International English" *never* means British English or American English. It means "English as a global communication language."

2. "Commonweath English" doesn't mean really much.

As for the spelling thing, do as you please, I frankly don't give a damn. If you are interested in this topic, I suggest you read Pam Peters's "Cambridge Guide to English Usage."

JackLumber. 12:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)—— TWIMC, humour/humor, licorice/liquorice, and yogurt/yoghurt have VERY, _*VERY*_, VERY, V_E_R_Y different backgrounds _*and*_ distributions. See American and British English spelling differences. JackLumber.

[edit] Spelling of article (as opposed to title)

SimonP wrote: "The rule is that the first spelling used should be used throughout, and ageing was the original spelling." For the record, that is not the rule, it is one of several rules. Another is the one I cited: "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another." Throquzum violated the rule I cited, and provoked conflict. However, as I recall, you were the actual author of the first non-stub version, so I think your wishes should be respected, if it really matters to you that much. I reverted the changes for the simple reason that it is indeed a violation of policy, and did indeed seem likely to be provocative. But, again, I feel original non-stub authors should have a larger "vote" in these matters than others, even if that's just my feeling, not policy. Best, --Cultural Freedom talk 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The spelling was ageing until an anon IP changed it to aging in May. Since then it has alternated between the two forms every few days. - SimonP 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah... I see that. The spelling should remain ageing throughoutt; sorry for my hastiness. --Cultural Freedom talk 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I only switched it back after seeing the original spelling throughout had been changed. This left the unusual situation of the title contradicting the entire article. -Throquzum 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I was in mindless bot-mode, and had recently immersed myself in Wikipolicy readings, without having synthesized it all very well... :) --Cultural Freedom talk 19:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] images

i couldn't help but notice that all of the photos on here are of women. maybe one of a man might be helpful. Joeyramoney 20:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whats in a Name?

Why must you use such long names just to describe our elderly people. Most of the old people i know just like being called old people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chad wolfe (talk • contribs).

[edit] Evolution of ageing

Peter Medawar has written on this subject, but I think there are earlier sources, too. Absolutely must be included. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Which consensus is this based on? We had discussed this previously and come to the consensus that no action needed be taken. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll revert since you destroyed the edit history. I'm not convinced you're quite up to using the tools. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging age and senescence

Senescence is just at the first physical level expanded to the next psychological an social levels of "ageing". As psychiatrist, I act in task force with social workers too.

Takima 19:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging them is a good idea, but ag(e)ing should be merged into senescence, not the other way around. BrianinStockholm 07:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

People are more likely to look up ageing than senescence and may get confused. I also like the principle of using anglosaxon short words where possible. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The subject of Ageing is a Gerontology issue, whereas the Senescence article deals more with Biogerontology. Because biogerontology is a subcategory of gerontology, ie, senescence is a subcategory of ageing, it makes more sense to merge senescence into ageing rather than the other way around. Senescence would be a section in the ageing article. Both articles are already of reasonable length, however, and are easily found, so I see no great urgency for this merger, although I do not greatly oppose it either. --Ben Best 15:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Benbest, senescence is a subtopic of ageing. Since both articles are already quite substantial, the best idea is to have a brief summary of the senescence article here with a link to the full length article. - SimonP 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As the saying goes, two are better than one. Do not merge either way (linking works just fine).

I agree that the 2 articles should be kept separate. Due to each article's substantial size, and due to the likelihood of the articles growing still larger. --Transhumanist 11:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

oppose merger these topics are huge and need expanding more. senescence is a natural sub article to aging. Anlace 02:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative to merge: expand "biology" section

Especially with a view to evolution of ageing. Clearly, the question why ageing occurs at all must be covered by the article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need for section on Successful Aging

Since Rowe and Kahn (1987) have distinguished between successful aging and normal aging, should there not be a sub-heading for "Successful aging"?ACEO 18:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What is successful aging?? Georgia guy 18:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The distinction goes back to an article published by Rowe and Kahn, in 1987, in the journal "Science" (their 1997 publication was in "The Gerontologist"). The title of this paper implied an attempt to distinguish "normal" ageing - where people suffer the detrimental effects of ageing, especially extrinsic factors - from "successful ageing" where extrinsic and detrimental factors play only a minimal function. ACEO 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now put in the Rowe and Kahn references. They occur at the end of the article. ACEO 18:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claim at end of the article

The claim at the end of the article about usage of gold in India read rather as a tag-on after the section on successful ageing, so I have moved it to its own section. Can I please urge that some one finds a source for this claim and cites it? I have added how Aldwin and Gilmer prefer the term "optimal ageing" to successful ageing, and in my section on this, note some cultural variations in fear of death. This may go some way to rectification of an earlier concern about this article - that its views were not pancultural. ACEOREVIVED 09:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No one has, as yet, added a source citation for that claim, so I have categorised this article accordingly. ACEOREVIVED 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)