I believe the 'default value' for this template should be 'show,' not 'hide'.Ryoung122 06:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In this edit I grouped similar lists - e.g., take the two similar, long names National longevity recordholders · Living national longevity recordholders and condense them to National longevity recordholders (living)

Which has the advantage of making it clear what the distinction between the two lists is (one is all record holders, the other is for those currently living - don't have to read a bunch of duplicate words to figure that out). Reducing the wordieness and grouping similar items helps make the template shorter, easier to read, and easier to distinguish items. The edit was reverted, but the explanation wasn't clear. Zodon (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edits because it is NOT AT ALL CLEAR with your merging that there are two separate articles. The whole point of the template is to make it easy to find similar articles...NOT to have a most-condensed template possible.Ryoung122 09:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Should not the interventions concerning longevity, such as CR, CRON be added to this template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stenemo (talk • contribs) 17:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that we should include those. There are a lot of allegedly life extending or anti-aging interventions, the merits of which are often dubious at best. Suspect including these might make template target for lots of poorly supported claims. If considering including, should assemble the whole group here to see how to organize that it makes sense. Zodon (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a valid addition. There are many self-described longevity diets and such, whether they actually work or not is not for us to decide. Substances and techniques such as the Vitamin C megadose, Antioxidant#Disease prevention, Polyphenols, Quercetin, and Calorie restriction all claim to prolong life or prevent cancer and are very popular and widely used. Most of these have at least a modicum of merit, which again, is not for us to decide. I agree no good would come of cluttering this template with dubious life-extending diets and such, but at the very least Vitamin C, Calorie restriction, and Antioxidants should be included. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But where then does one stop? Is a template a reasonable way to cover articles about longevity interventions (as compared to List or category)? WP:CLN

There are already several categories that cover this area Category:anti-aging, Category:Life extension. Lists such as the Index of life extension-related articles indicate that there are a lot of articles in this area. If include extending average age, the list of interventions could easily expand to much of preventive medicine.

For a navigation template to be useful it needs to cover a relatively small group of closely related articles. So far the focus of this template is essentially those who are long lived.

So if think this should be extended - what is the logical cutoff?

Also, since this topic has a high "flake factor", using a list has the advantage of allowing citations to sources - easier to verify that adequate citations given. (Whereas templates typically rely on the underlying articles for citations.) Zodon (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so how about a link to category:anti-aging? That way we can at least include them without there being too many additions to the list. Or, another idea would be to create a template navbox just for this issue, unless there already is one, in which case this whole conversation is moot. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:navigation templates, navigate among articles. (i.e. shouldn't mix navigation templates and categories - each have their place, and can get to category:anti-aging from any of the relevant articles). Most of the relevant articles will be in category:anti-aging or appropriate subcategories already, so readers of the articles can find other such articles using the category link.

Of course folks might come up with other subarea that is defined enough and large enough for a template. Zodon (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing "myths" to "traditions" per WP:RNPOV, as there are zero sources using "myths" in its technical sense in this field. This should be a no-brainer given the policy, but respondents are free to use WP:BRD to explain below why NPOV should not be enforced here. JJB 18:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why has the Japanese article been removed and merged with Asia? This proposed change was never flagged, nor was the community given the opportunity to discuss the merits of the proposed change. It appears somebody has decided to make the change by themselves to the detriment of Wikipedia and its users.

Because the Japan and the Asia article were 99% the same. We don't need redundant pages here. Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)