I'm surprised nobody has mentioned The Picture Of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde.
- This article is not about immortality or eternal youth, but about ambiguous appearance and timelessness. Pictureuploader 08:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I cannot see the justification for Unageing as an independent entitiy. It seems to me that the subject is covered better in Ageless and that any relevant material that is there could be moved to Ageless. --GirlForLife 16:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think they might be better off as separate pages, or having Unageing merged into a separate section of Ageless. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
She does not seem to have aged since her debut. According to a tv doc I watched once, she works out a lot, and stays slim. Either that, or its a pact with the devil. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see the justification for this page as an independent entitiy. It seems to me that the subject is covered better in Ageless and that any relevant material that is here could be moved to Ageless. --GirlForLife 16:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. I'd be happy to do this if there are no objections. This article and the target section are overloaded with excessively detailed examples, so I would trim about 2/3 of Ageless#Media_and_fiction and 1/3 of Unaging. If someone objects to the loss of this information, a list article could be made, but I don't think it would be necessary. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's been a year. Yes, please merge away! Thanks! Radagast83 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, a merge is in order. If I get bored later I might do it myself if no one else has. Nanobri (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The article seemed to be saying that big named superheroes every once in a while get a huge decrease in age, that, for example, Spider-Man ends up back at the age of fifteen every once in a while. This just plain isn't true at all, that is why I made the changes I did. Lots42 (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Placement in Category:Continuity errors
I disagree with the assertion in the summary of this edit: Given the current lack of a supplied definition of Category:Continuity errors (and the small number of articles currently in the category), I think the best solution is to include anything that could reasonably be referred to as a continuity error. Also, not all cases of Unageing are necessarily deliberate. Any other opinions? --DocumentN (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to merge in yet another article
It has also been proposed that floating timeline be merged in here.
- Oppose. This one should focus on the real life aspects of "unageing" and have a see also to "floating timeline." Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose as well. There are three related issues that are all getting jumbled up here: Immortal characters who actually do not age (due to magic or whatnot), characters who theoretically should age but do not because the authors choose not to address the passage of time, and real life people who appear young even though they are getting old. The ageless article addresses all three, whereas the floating timeline article only addresses the second. Since the floating timeline article is pretty long, I think merging it here would unbalance the article. Nanobri (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)