Talk:Age progression

Requested move
Move to use wikistandard capitalization. Currently Age progression is a redir to Age regression which describes a literary device. Age progression is actually also a forensics technique used by law enforcement as well. I fixed up the original Age Progression article which described a dubious porn fetish to include both of the common meanings. Quale 17:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Copied from WP:RM Alai 19:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Support'. Standard caps as per nom.  Alai 19:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Dragons flight 01:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

I'd love to see some information on how age progression techniques and software work. I have to assume that at this point software involves some interesting mathematics and would be a worthwhile topic to elaborate on. It would also be nice to have a discussion of famous cases in which age progression was used successfully. --RedIsaac (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

13 Going on 30 in wrong category
Why is this movie classed under girls swapping bodies? She didn't swap bodies, she fast-forwarded to the future where she was 30 years old. NoriMori (ノリモリ) 18:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah wait, it actually says that the girls' souls end up in the bodies of older women. In that sense I suppose this categorization is accurate, but I suggest that the words "body swap" be removed from that sentence to avoid confusion. NoriMori (ノリモリ) 18:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Lack of info regarding forensic aspects of age progression
This article seems to mention the forensic uses of age progression only briefly, and then goes into its role in TV shows and films. There should be more information on the forensic aspects, such as photo examples, when the technique was developed, etc.... NoriMori (ノリモリ) 18:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also how effective it is. That's why I looked it up.  I wanted to see how effective it really is and read about the flaws because I have a hard time believing it's not just another polygraph.  You know?  One of those things law enforcement claims works but the science doesn't support.  Of course, now I've reached a research dead end, so I have to take the default position that it doesn't work until it's proven that it does.  It'd be nice if that sort of thing and its corresponding sources were added to the article 50.130.9.4 (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Age progression software doesn't work. Age progression in forensics is an artistic guess, not a hard science. There is no evidence at all that a person can present an accurate representation of a person with age applied. On the contrary, due to an experiment using an old photo of Michael Jackson, it's pretty much been disproven, and disproving is a very hard thing to accomplish.85.237.211.76 (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)