Talk:List of Wikimedians by age

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)


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


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)

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


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

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


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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)