Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:47, 21 October 2009

Biology B‑class

Ageing is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Longevity B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Nicholson Baker (March 20, 2008). ""The Charms of Misplaced Pages"". The New York Review of Books.

Would Suggest Major Rewrite and Conceptual Overhaul

This is perhaps one of the hottest topics in biological science. There is just a ton of fascinating work going on in aging that is not unfortunately represented or even minimally discussed or referenced. I don't really have the time unfortunately to pitch in and help with a re-write myself (I certainly would like to contribute), but could suggest some good sources. Unfortunately, there is much more discussion about the spelling of aging vs ageing than about these underrepresented sources.

First would have to come an acknowledgment that despite a lot of study the ultimate basis for aging remains a mystery. However, increasing and convergent evidence suggests that aging appears to be due to the 'wages' of metabolism (which generates oxidative stress) and organism defense (inflammation). There is also evidence that glycation of proteins and insulin resistance both may play a central role in aging as well. Not surprisingly, these four factors (oxidative stress, inflammation, insulin resistance, and glycation) appear all deeply interactive. For example, glycation of proteins produces advanced glycation end products (acronym: AGE!) which interestingly promote inflammation through receptors for advanced glycation end products. Inflammatory signaling, particularly up-regulation of nuclear factor kappa B, promotes insulin resistance, and inflammation of course generates more oxidative stress (the immune system overwhelms invaders in part by oxidative stress), and oxidative stress itself appears to up-regulate inflammatory signaling.

One might think of these four factors as the "four Horsemen of Aging" and also of the diseases of aging. For reviews, I would consult for example the work of Leonard Guarente (MIT) who just wrote a great piece on the mitochondria and aging, as well as the work of Douglas Wallace (also an expert on the mitochondria -- out at University of California at Irvine) and I might try to get the recent executive summary by the Kronos Longevity Institute, which offers a great basic overview that is not too technical. I would also consult the work of Stig Bengmark, in Great Britain, who has written on inflammatory signaling and diet, including very interesting work on the protective effects of curcuminoids. There is tons of interesting work on resveratrol as a partial calorie restriction mimetic (providing some but probably not all of the benefits of calorie restriction). This is just a very partial list obviously.

Although the piece references some of the recent theoretical work on 'mis-repair' as a cause of aging, it does not link this to the central process responsible for agreat deal of misrepair, namely inflammation. For example the interesting work on NF kappa B referenced in the piece is relevant, as this is a transcription factor implicated in inflammatory signaling, and in long term relationships for example between diseases of aging and inflammation.

Additionally, the piece does not adequately address the evidence that the mitochondria, as a cellular compartment where oxidative stress is typically the highest, are perhaps a nexus for age-related change, even though the precise molecular details have yet to be worked out in terms of what happens over the long-term. Directly related to this, there is simply not an adequate treatment of calorie restriction (which appears to have a hugely protective effect in terms of slowing mitochondrial degradation), as calorie restriction is clearly the gold standard for reducing aging and diseases of aging. I believe that there is now enough evidence to conclude that least in a preliminary fashion, that the protective effects of calorie restriction extend into primates and humans, in other words that these are totally conserved phylogenetically. as just a small example of the deficiencies on this point, the discussion of recent findings that rapamycin extends lifespan in rodents omits reference to the evidence that blocking TOR (target of rapamycin) signaling is a calorie restriction mimetic. No one reading the discussion however would have any sense that there is any relationship between the referenced rapamycin work and basic calorie restriction work, despite the fact that almost the entire field agrees that calorie restriction is intimately related to the effects of TOR. In other words, the discussion of all these issues is fragmented, incomplete, and needs a conceptual overhaul and a lot of tightening up.

The piece does not address how aging mechanisms lead potentially into the diseases of aging, as age-related damage (or increasing misrepair) eventually drive organ systems and tissues past a threshold where they can sustain adequate physiologic function. Lastly, there is little summary of other interventions that can slow aging and diseases of aging, particularly those related to lifestyle. There is enormous evidence for example that aging in Okinowa is significantly delayed relative to aging in the United States. Some of this is probably related calorie restriction (Okinawans eat roughly 30 to 40% less than Americans in terms of total calories), some of it to exercise, some of it to a higher ingestion of protective phytochemicals (they eat lots of soy and vegetables), and some of it probably to a more supportive social milieu (chronic stress probably increases inflammation and probably deteriorates aging organisms faster).

In general, I would say that this topic is very, very important, particularly in the context of our health care system breaking down as our culture is creating a virtual tsunami of diseases of aging in an aging population. Calorie restriction mimetics (again a very hot topic) may be one of the most important ways of mitigating some of this, particularly since Americans seem incredibly reluctant to give up our sedentary, high calorie, and overstressed, sleep-deprived lifestyles.

67.110.143.19 (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC) DFWatt, Harvard Medical School

I kindly and respectfully suggest you stop making speeches here on this talk page, and instead, be bold and edit the article!  :-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Misplaced Pages 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") Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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)

I clicked on the link to this article only cause of the misspelled title. Umm Idk, that breaks one of the few spelling conventions there are, plus it looks completely stupid. And I'm from Europe for that matter. 354d 16:09, 20 August 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

The Misplaced Pages:Manual of Styling (Spelling) lists either way for both British and American. So just simply leave it as it is, and avoid hassle.Shaizakopf 21:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's all good and fine... But Ageing looks ridiculous. Make it Aging. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josh.norlander (talk • contribs) 23:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm going to assume that you're not trolling. "Aging" looks wrong to me. To me it sounds like "hag-ing". Just realise that there's two ways to spell this word and neither is right nor wrong. They just are. Spelling difference discussions are a scourge of Misplaced Pages. They sap productivity due to ignorance. --Monotonehell 10:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Um you're wrong Agging sounds like hag-ing, but Aging def sounds like ayjing. 354d 16:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on the link to this article only cause of the misspelled title. Umm Idk, that breaks one of the few spelling conventions there are, plus it looks completely stupid. And I'm from Europe for that matter. 354d 16:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it not ironic to have some complain about "impropper (sic.) spelling? ! ACEOREVIVED 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you to some one who, during March 2007, removed that section on usage of gold in India. This was the unsourced claim that concerned me, so I wonder whether this can now be removed from the category of "Articles with unsourced statements from March 2007"? However, maybe people have noticed that other unsourced claims in this article. ACEOREVIVED 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This article reads like a personal essay.

IMHO.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

List of theories too brief

I think that the section on list of theories such as disengagement theories is far too list-like. More substantive notes are needed on these theories. ACEOREVIVED 20:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC) I have now extended the notes on disengagement and activity theories. However, there is a lot more literature on disengagement theory which could go here. Could some one with expertise in this area and the other theories listed here please extend the notes here? It seems a shame to have an important section here that reads as a list of bullet points. ACEOREVIVED 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambig

I was expecting an article about the heat treatment "aging". Does anybody have an idea where to find it? SietskeEN 13:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Maturity?

Where does the continuing process of wisdom development and maturation fit into the underlying developmental cycle? It seems to me that in human societies, the lessons of age are often highly valued. --NealMcB 03:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey I found this really cool equation for calculating how many days old you are that even includes leap years: +(-a+b) y is the amount of years old you are, a is the amount of days into the year to reach your birthday (negative), and b is the number of days into the year to reach the current date —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.232.32 (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Need for telomeres to be referred to in article

The concept of telomeres has been big in the study of ageing, yet is not mentioned here. ACEOREVIVED 20:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned on the current article. But I recall reading some stuff that had refuted the theories about telomeres. Unfortunately, I can't find it now. Anyone want to take this on? Cazort (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The scientific community is in unanimous or near-unanimous agreement that telomere length is strongly correlated with age. As to the hypothesis that telomere shortening is a primary cause of aging, there's some controversy, but certainly no clear "refutation." The same goes for the hypothesis that lengthening telomeres could prevent or reverse aging: it's an unproven theory, but there's absolutely nothing in the literature that refutes it. As it stands, both of the last two hypotheses look very plausible to a large number of scientists. I could cite at least several dozen peer-reviewed publications in support of this: the question is how much space in the article we want to dedicate to the telomere theory of aging. SierraSciSPA (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Personality

There are a lot of data on personality changes with age, suggesting that, for example, psychoticism tends to decline with age. Do we need a sub-section on "Ageing and Personality"? ACEOREVIVED 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-rated health needs attention

There is a considerable literature on Self-Rated Health (SRH) in the elderly, and the journal "The Gerontologist" made this a special feature in one of their 2003 editions. Should this receive more attention in this article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now added reference to this topic in the section "Coping with demands of later life". I shall put the full references at the end when I have had time to check them. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC) The references to Bath, and to the other authors listed in this section, are now at the end of the article. Does any one consider this is enough to warrant its own section? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Making this article more comprehensive

This article, as the top of this page indicates, is part of http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biology, but the study of aging is not simply the study of a biological phenomenon. Psychological and social aspects of aging should be considered in this article, and gerontology is certainly an interdisciplinary field. Can I suggest that perhaps some one ought to start "WikiProject Gerontology" in the interests of producing a comprehensive article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now made a plea at http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:COUNCIL/P#Gerontology; we will need five to ten Wikipedians who are interested to make this viable, so can you please spread the word! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes made to Article by Lauren Epstein

I copy edited this article by adding spelling changes and grammar changes. I also noticed the difference between aging and ageing in the article and feel that the entire article should be changed so that is says aging the entire time.

Aging is not always 'old'

Here's another suggestion for those who would improve the article -- as it stands now, it speaks of aging as though only old people do it. When you think about it, though, given that all humans (and all life forms) age from the get-go, it would be far more illuminating for an image (or images) to show multiple stages of human life, from infancy to old age, and for the article to discuss the significance to all of these in a psychological/socialogical context. 71.58.111.148 (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with that; I'm not sure about whoever created this article, but seeing how aging means the process of getting older, I've been doing it since before I was born! There are already pages on human development, however; I think the problem is just with this article's name. Just "aging" (or "ageing") is too broad a term; it needs to be more specific about what kind of aging it's referring to. 68.205.85.43 (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsensical redirect

This article is currently redirecting to itself. I'm not sure where the article has been moved to so I can't fix it myself. Anyone who is able to: please do. I'll look into this further myseslf later tonight. If I get anywehere I'll correct the problem, score this message out, and give an update of the situation below. SuperlativeHors (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this, too, and alerted the two admins who performed a simultaneous redirect. Here's the amusing exchange that resolved the problem from the Admin board:

Need help on restoring Aging

While doing backlog clearing at CAT:CSD, I performed a housekeeping move from Aging (life cycle) to Aging. It appears that Jmlk17 and I had done it simultaneously, creating an endless chain of redirects. I got a notice on my user talk page notifying me, but my attempts to restore the history are futile. I really need help, please, restoring. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 22:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Nousernamesleft 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I could use some help restoring aging as well. Start with the grey hair, yes? Guy (Help!) 23:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  

 Declined - If I can’t have my hair back, you’ll have to live with your gray. :P —Travis 00:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

--Yamara ✉ 12:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, that's a good one. Glad to see everything's been sorted. Thanks SuperlativeHors (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Poor quality

There is a profound amount of bullshit and speculative theories presented as fact in this article. Any cleanup by someone with a science degree would be much appreciated. I'll take a pass if I stumble upon some time... Thanks! --Xris0 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• The demographic aspects need to be kept here, and the general biological aspects sent off to Senescence. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference for personality and aging

A section on personality changes with age is needed in this article, and the following referece:

Rushton, J.P., Fulker, D.W., Neale, M.C., Nias, D.K et al. (1989) Ageing and the relation of aggression, altruism and assertivenss scales to the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire" Personality and Individual Differences, 10 (2) 261-263

goes some way to providing a reference for how attributes associated with psychoticism may decline with age. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Polymer degradation

Possible a great deal since skin and most tissue are polymeric, and is attacked by free radicals just like polymers. The term is also used to describe the degardation of polymers so the article needs a header. Peterlewis (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peterlewis. I'm not stalking you (I was just looking at your history to see what subjects you're expert in) but where's the independent reputable source for connecting Polymer degradation to Ageing? We have to have that, even for "See also" links, otherwise it is just WP:OR/WP:SYNTH etc. - Pointillist (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you aren't a stalker. The term is used widely in technology, and I will refer to it explicitly in polymer degradation. Peterlewis (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Started a disambiguation page for aging (disambiguation). Not clear that humans is the overwhelmingly most frequent use for the term - think should change so disambiguation page is what Ageing/Aging points to, with this article moved to Ageing (Human). Zodon (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Good news. The term is widely used in materials technology, such as hardening Al alloys as well as polymer degradation. The generic term applies to any material which changes with time. Human ageing is just one facet. Peterlewis (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

External Link Request

I would like to request to have an external link to our website www.ConcerningAging.com be added to this page. Our site is all about helping seniors and their loved ones make informed decisions about Eldercare and getting older. Thank you for your consideration. Clayton.65.248.184.124 (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Aging Images

Aging is not a subject bias to elderly humans, it is a process of life for the young and the old of not just humans but all life around us. I propose different images, if possible, which would perhaps show the process of aging from a zygote (or more reasonable a baby) to a toddler, to a teen, to an adult, to an elderly person. This would take away the article's bias view that aging somehow is only applied to the elderly. Perhaps aging fruit as well or plants of some type.

If my suggestion is in anyway in err then I do apologize. But please let me know why it is so. DiscoElf (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In biology, physical growth, the biological process that leads to maturity and adulthood, is distinguished from biological aging, the accumulation of tissue dammage that leads to disability and death in old age. --Green06 (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, it's possible to undergo development and aging at the same time, as seen in children with progeria. SierraSciSPA (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Somethings" redirects

Per the discussion on Twentysomething (term), I am redirecting the various "somethings" to Dividing the lifespan. Vicenarian (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling consistency

I count, not including references 81 instances of "aging" and 13 instances of "ageing". For article named "ageing", we have an awful lot more "aging"'s. We should either make all instances into "ageing" or move the article and change them all to "aging". May I suggest we follow the way of:

1. Aging of Europe
2. Aging of Japan
3. Aging Research Centre
4. Alliance for Aging Research
5. Anti-aging
6. Memory and aging
7. Rejuvenation (aging)
8. Rejuvenation (aging)
9. Memory and aging
10. Aging of wine
11. Aging (material science)
12. Aging (file system)
13. Aging (task scheduling)

And just move this article to Aging?--Loodog (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages needs to sort out the English spelling problem at a global level. Personally I favour/favor a Standardised/Standardized English emerging by consensus which will reunit all variants of the language. In this particular case I'd say "aging" has won. Darmot and gilad (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Before moving please see Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. The page when created used 'Ageing' and should stay that way -- Paul foord (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Except there is nothing on that guideline that suggests articles should stay with their current spelling by fiat. In fact, everything I can find on that page says the opposite, including

1. "Spell a name consistently in the title and within the article"
2. "Consistency within articles"

Thanks Paul, we now have more reason to move the article.--Louiedog (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And just to throw in a appeal to google to boot, "aging" is 5X more abundant than "ageing".--Louiedog (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Prevention and Reversal

I am considering writing a section on the prevention and reversal of biological aging since there are now a lot of drugs which have been shown to be effective in mouse/rat/worm models, although not currently licensed for human use. Would this be appropriate? Darmot and gilad (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And now I've done it. Darmot and gilad (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Debt

May I add a link to Debt which causes depression, suicide and aging? Stars4change (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ageing → aging — Statements above. Consistency within articles (see above) and greater prevalence of "aging" than "ageing" per above in this article before global spelling swaps were done. Google also has 5X as many "aging"'s as "ageing"'s.Louiedog (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, when you google search for "ageing", some of the results returned are actually for "aging", when the opposite is not true when you google "aging".--Louiedog (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. "Ageing" is standard in British English, and Misplaced Pages doesn't give preference to any particular dialect. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. Without an actual reason to move it, it's really got to stay put.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:ENGVAR. Black Kite 13:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - WP:ENGVAR. --Louiedog (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Per WP:RETAIN, as the article was created using ageing it stays in British English. The policy is very clear on this: the article stays in whichever variety of English the article was created in.

Skinsmoke (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, as per below, article was originally created as aging (life cycle), so it should be kept in "aging".--Louiedog (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:RETAIN would support a move considering the existing variety being more numerous for "aging":

1. Aging of Europe
2. Aging of Japan
3. Aging Research Centre
4. Alliance for Aging Research
5. Anti-aging
6. Memory and aging
7. Rejuvenation (aging)
8. Rejuvenation (aging)
9. Memory and aging
10. Aging of wine
11. Aging (material science)
12. Aging (file system)
13. Aging (task scheduling)

• • --Louiedog (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  Which part of WP:RETAIN don't you understand? It is quite clear: If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor. None of your list above has the least bit of relevance to WP:RETAIN. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  It makes more sense to me to retain consistency within the entire encyclopedia than arbitrarily keep whatever was originally created against the grain.--Louiedog (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  Especially when the outside source commenting on this article eschews the spelling it uses.

  • AND, article was moved from aging (life cycle) which renders everyone's adherence to WP:RETAIN the equivalent of now agreeing to the move.--Louiedog (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - article originally used ageing. - SimonP (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ageing&diff=52493929&oldid=51510529. It originally used "aging (life cycle).--Louiedog (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    • No, see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ageing&diff=50933742&oldid=50933631. That was my reverting a move from a month earlier. - SimonP (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Much ado about an "e"? Seriously? Simply not necessary and contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:ENGVAR. The spirit of ENGVAR is the avoidance of conflicts over variations in English, recognizing that there are far more important things to be done than argue about whether it should be "color" or "colour" or "traveling" or "travelling." The V-Man 18:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the rule has little grounding anyway when this article seems to naturally fill up with "aging"'s. But, if we are going by the rule, it gets moved anyway. Since everyone here gives no reasons other than guideline following, it seems these are the only terms anyone will play on.--Louiedog (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that it's not a problem. Either spelling works and is easily understood; redirects handle anyone typing a different spelling. I don't care what the rules say; until it's a problem, arguing about UK/US spelling differences is WP:LAME. Less time defending regional spellings and more time working on the article content, please. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Then don't argue with a common sense change and we'll waste less time on it.--Louiedog (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Let me get this straight: Your argument is I shouldn't argue because it's not an issue, but you want to change it because not only is it an issue, it's such a clear and obvious issue that it falls under the heading of "common sense". Do I have that right? If you don't agree with me, fine, but you don't get to then take my argument and have it both ways. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I never asserted this is not a serious issue. I was taking your idea about this being a silly thing to argue about and applying it logically, negating your need to argue seriously about it. Since you're bothering to argue with me, you're not following through on your own point. Either you take the stand that it's worth arguing about and we'll discuss it or you take the stand that it's not worth arguing about, in which case, you accede because the only thing that matters is moving on.--Louiedog (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose article was created on 31 March 2002 apparently as 'Ageing', at 06:47, 13 August 2002 'Ageing (also spelt aging)' was put in the lede -- Paul foord (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• B-Class Biology articles
• Unknown-importance Biology articles
• WikiProject Biology articles
• B-Class Longevity articles
• Low-importance Longevity articles
• WikiProject Longevity articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press