Thread:Shabook/@comment-26838855-20180810204338/@comment-26838855-20180810205728

Shabook wrote: Having a range of dates is not a factual specific date. And factual specific dates are the only things that can be added to articles. Either a day, a month, a year, or a century, but a specific date. And a range of six months is anything but specific. OK, but this is more specific than a year. Because is "2001" not the same as saying "January 1, 2001-December 31, 2001"? You're narrowing it down from a 12-month range to a less-than-6-month, factually correct range. And how would this apply to, say, Misty Knight, where we know she was 5 on February 12, 1989, meaning she was born between February 12, 1984 and February 11, 1985? Even with 1984-1985, you're still giving a range, but it's too much information to just give no date of birth.

Shabook wrote: Also, despite I love this wiki, I doubt it is the reason for people making such convincing fake props Give it more credit! I do genuinely believe these things are based on the wiki. I see people say in comments sections on YouTube videos, "the wiki says he was born in 2001". I'm sure someone making a prop like that would look up the wiki page for the year of birth - where else would they look? They haven't worked it out themselves, because they've got it wrong. And yeah, I just worry about the influence of the wiki sometimes.

Shabook wrote: Today is my first day of holidays, so don't expect this to be high on my list of priorities. Fair enough, no particular rush, I just thought it might have been decided by now. Hope you have good holidays.