Talk:Senescence

message: There's a study from Paul Nelson, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and at the University of Arizona, and Joanna Masel, a postdoc researcher from the same university, stating that mathematically, it is impossible to beat aging, and their study is titled as "Intercellular competition and the inevitability of multicellular aging"
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/49/12982
Should we add this to the article?--EPN-001GF IZEN བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས། 08:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Although I am the professor and he is the postdoc :-) Joannamasel (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aging can't be beaten? 

message: Currently the hatnote reads, This article is about the aging of whole organisms including animals. For the state of cellular growth arrest and aberrant secretory phenotype, see cellular senescence. For aging specifically in humans, see aging. For the study of aging in humans, see gerontology. For the science of the care of the elderly, see geriatrics. For experimental gerontology, see life extension. For the stress- and age-related developmental aging phenomena in plants, see plant senescence. For premature aging disorders, see Progeroid syndromes.  This seems excessive and contrary to guidelines.  MOS:HATNOTE says hatnotes are "short notes" and "limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page".  This one is eight sentences disambiguating many different topics.  Any suggestions for simplifying this?  Are the linked topics suitable for a single disambiguation page?  Deli nk (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: the hatnote is unnecessarily long and unduly separates the reader from content. Most of the hatnote references are really more suitable for the See also section, so I have added them there (if they weren't there already). Cellular senescence is mentioned early in the lead, is in the title of 2 section headings, and has a hatnote already at a section.  I have retained 2 redirects so the hatnote now reads "This article is about the aging of whole organisms including animals. For aging specifically in humans, see Aging. For aging specifically in plants, see Plant senescence.". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote 

message: User:Zefr placed a sentence on gingko that I edited to blend into the rest of the section, and then has repeatedly reverted my edits and restored that sentence without doing anything to improve it in response to in-line comments. I am moving the dispute here to talk.
The section is on variation in senescence among species. The sentence talks about senescence being slow (but positive) in ginkgo. The sentence placement was right after to a sentence on negative senescence, suggesting a link but not providing the evidence that senescence is negative. It contained non-notable information eg year of publication and place that gingkos grow, that is disproportionate with treatment of other species - this in a vital article that has repeatedly suffered from bloat. I have moved the reference and the ginkgo example to the sentence that contains other species with positive senescence, creating a direct comparison between mice, men, and gingkos, with the most words given to the last of these. 
In the last edit, details on mechanism were given. They do not belong in this section unless they are rewritten to relate to variation among species, not just to ginkgo.
Joannamasel (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence and source had been edited substantially here. I can see the reasoning for moving addition to the paragraph on the speed of aging, but am adding back information on why this occurs from a strong source: gene expression associated with adaptable defense mechanisms that would be unique to local environmental conditions, such as climate, erosion, pests, etc., so the location is notable. Further punctuation edit for the negligent editor who chooses to ignore a simple WP style rule, WP:REFPUNCT. --Zefr (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for fixing the punctuation. As for the other sentence, it does not pertain to the topic of variation among species, because it does not involve comparisons among species. I am moving the sentence to the more appropriate and specialized page negligible senescence, where it is a better fit.Joannamasel (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gingko 

message: I think it would be good to also list or mention or maybe briefly inform about the conclusions/findings from this study. It's currently included in 2022 in science like so:
A study shows the clonal diversity of stem cells that produce blood cells gets drastically reduced around age 70 , substantiating a novel theory of ageing which could enable healthy aging.
Moreover, it seems like the article needs a lot of updates / improvements beyond that. It seems to focus too much on the initial 2013 hallmarks of aging without integrating expansions/revisions of/additions to these. This doesn't mean the article should grow much larger or that sections should be long – each section should be as brief as possible and have a fitting headline, various things could be listed via brief bullet-points with further info only at the respective wikilinked article, and so on – the article just shouldn't be very incomplete and outdated. Maybe you can find some relevant info/content at Timeline of senescence research and recently expanded (imo a v1.0 now) Life extension#Strategies.
Maybe transclusions could be used in good ways with articles like Ageing so that each article is up-to-date, brief, complete and doesn't duplicate content more than needed. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update with: "Clonal dynamics of haematopoiesis across the human lifespan" & missing and/or recent findings about aging