Talk:List of Wikimedians by age

Presumably this will prove who are the boring old farts who know what they're talking about when they write about the Sixties! :) Arwel 18:50, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The sixties? What were those? - Raul654

Back to Wikipedians by age[edit]

Tim Starling commented about the new name for this, removed himself because of it, and I found myself agreeing with his points: Wikimedians are a group distinct from Wikipedians and others who license works to the Foundation and other people. So, back to Wikipedians and maybe we can find a name which includes licensors for all projets but doesn't inaccurately suggest that they are Wikimedia Foundation members - a group which may well need that Wikimedians by age page title for themselves. Jamesday 17:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Linking[edit]

Would anyone be offended if I added en-wikipedia links to those people who linked their signatures to meta-userpages that don't exist? Ingoolemo

No.

someone should make a distribution graph - Omegatron 14:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

13-40 seems to be most of the people. Although a more specific 13-27 demographic seems to be the dominant group listed here. Pleasingly there are a few listed as in their seventies or eighties. I worried this was solely a kid's game. Although I'm just a hair shy of being older than the main demographic.(I'm not sure how I feel about an eight year old listed, but it looks like she's a relative of another user)--T. Anthony 17:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hehe. apparently someone thinks this means "wikipedia age" and not "physical age" -Omegatron 14:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Linking[edit]

Can you try linking my user page in enWikipedia in 1923 birth date.

--Dore chakravarty 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHILD[edit]

Since en:WP:CHILD is only a proposed policy and anyone who wants to find the usernames could just look at the page, I am uncommenting 1993-2006. Also, WP:CHILD says nothing about saying you are under 13 (I am born in 1993 and 13). Eyu100 22:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add 93, 94, 95 etc[edit]

Can we add more years to the 90's section instead of just "92 and after". I was born in 92 and I dont want to be lumped in with 12 year old editors. --Candy-Panda 11:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm 14 (born in 1994), and it doesn't make sense that all the editors born in '92+ would be clumped together. While it may be appropriate if there were only a few editors in that age group, there are now many of them. SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was done because of concerns over minors (i.e. children) posting personal information, which could be problematic. It is something that should not be encouraged. I think 1992 and later is fine right now. It could depend on what age we draw a line at - I expect it was 16 last time, which is why we ended up with 1992 as the latest year, so 1993 could be added. Majorly talk 22:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, that brings up a good point. Guess we'll have to wait till we're 16 ;) Thanks, SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underage Wikimedians[edit]

I disagree with removal of them. I am myself editing since the age of 16, and I was well aware of all the risks internet poses since I started using it at the age of 13 or so. Besides they can still mention their age elsewhere, such as on a userpage, or on connected social media page, so it is quite pointless. A warning though is indeed useful. --Base (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]