Revision as of 16:31, 9 March 2012 editUkexpat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers115,263 editsm WPBS← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:22, 10 March 2012 edit undoDerbyCountyinNZ (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers38,786 edits →Fanboy fluffNext edit → | ||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
:Derby - making the assertion that "no-one makes top-15 lists of anything" is, at best, hard to prove, since it's a negative. At the risk of getting off the point, queries, each with multiple hits for such lists. The real point, however, is that there isn't consensus for the removal you have made repeatedly, and since the edit isn't against any policy I know of, I think your best bet is to find consensus on wording you can live with rather than edit-warring (or worse). I don't think this belongs at ANI - and said so there; hopefully we can resolve this here. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] | ]</span></small> 13:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC) | :Derby - making the assertion that "no-one makes top-15 lists of anything" is, at best, hard to prove, since it's a negative. At the risk of getting off the point, queries, each with multiple hits for such lists. The real point, however, is that there isn't consensus for the removal you have made repeatedly, and since the edit isn't against any policy I know of, I think your best bet is to find consensus on wording you can live with rather than edit-warring (or worse). I don't think this belongs at ANI - and said so there; hopefully we can resolve this here. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] | ]</span></small> 13:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
::Quite right, it is impossible to prove a negative. On the other hand it is entirely possible to prove a positive, in thsi case that making the Top 15 is notable. So, is there any citation for a Top 15 list of oldest people? Is there even a mention anywhere in a "] that "Besse Cooper is now "one of the top 15 oldest people"? Because if there isn't then it can hardly be considered notable, more a case of fanboy fluff by playing with numbers. Is there even anywhere in wikipedia that has a top 15 list of anything with the scope of oldest people (subjective, one-off/annual lists of musicians/actors can hardly be compared to an objective all-time list!)? And what about the other milestones? Did making the Top 20, a far more legitimate figue for a to plist, become redundant when she made the "Top 15"? Milestones don't cease to be milestones when another milestone is reached. The fact is that making the top 15 is NOT a milestone at all. Being the 15th oldest verified person is notable, and could/should be mentioned in the lead. Making the Top 10 would (hopefully will) be a milestone and there are even two bites at that cherry because there is a Top 10 undisputed and a Top 10 verified and the reason these can be considered milestones while Top 15 cannot is that top 10 lists are common and even wiki has a top 10 list of ]. Claiming that top 15 is notable is just a case of a few editors with an insufficent grasp of notablilty saying "Ooh, look, Besse Cooper's moved form 16th to 15th (and then 14th and back to 15th again) on the list, I think that's notable so I'll add it as a milestone". That's not notable, that's ]. <span style="background-color:red;color:lime;">DerbyCountyinNZ</span> <sup> (] ])</sup> 11:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:22, 10 March 2012
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. |
Became oldest living Georgian
She couldn't have become the "oldest living Georgian" in 2007 if someone else was older:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-21-beatrice-farve_N.htm
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2008/03/27/met_192432.shtml
Duh.Ryoung122 01:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Duh" indeed. There's certainly a ref that says she was...how about using a little WP:AGF? Ref says she was...your edit said she wasn't with no competing citation...what's an editor to do? Frank | talk 02:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Robert knows what hes doing, hes the one who studies them and therefore has all the information. 65.0.30.118 (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any disagreement on that point. Alas, that's not how Misplaced Pages works. Frank | talk 12:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- We should still let the gerontologists do their job, they know what their doing. 67.33.127.117 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Of course; nobody is stopping them from doing their jobs. But we still have policies here, which we still must follow. Frank | talk 03:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Incumbent
If there's anything in the wikipedia or wiktionary entries for "Incumbent" that suggests the use of that word in a succession box about longevity, it's exceedingly well-hidden. This is all of a piece with the deeply unencyclopedic view that old age is a contest, whose "winners," "record-holders," and "record-breakers" are inherently notable. David in DC (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
"Incumbent" shares its root with "encumber," offering the sense that an incumbent encumbers other aspiring office holders from holding a given office by occupying it. If used conversationally, referring to the "incumbent" oldest living Georgian (for example) most literate Americans would understand the phrase, and not argue the usage. If there is a guideline indicating that all syntax must be endorsed in the wiki, it's equally well-hidden.
Every one of us endeavors to live another day; the party who has done so for the longest period of time is therefore a person of note, though not in the traditionally "encyclopedic" sense; the Wiki, though often drawing its guidelines around the traditionally "encyclopedic" standards and norms, cannot and will not ever be a traditional encyclopedia.
I have missed where anyone has named any "winners," "record-holders," or "record-breakers" among those who gained notice (in reliable sources like newspapers and magazines) for their longevity. 67.236.29.150 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Washington Post article
The article which is the first ref on the page no longer seems to be on Washington Post site. Other news sites have post posted it though I note with the Washington Post byline or it's possibly archived somewhere, if someone wants to fix it appropriately. It is "Japan’s oldest person, 115-year-old Chiyono Hasegawa, dies". Washington Post, December 2, 2011.Number36 (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Please Conform to Encyclopedic Standards
Encyclopedic standards should write about a topic, even if relatively recent, as if it is not a current event, but as an encyclopedia entry. It therefore follows that writing about Ms. Cooper becoming the last verified person left from 1896 on December 2, 2011 is more encyclopedic (the date will always be the same, unless a surprise case emerges) than stating that she "is" the last person left from 1896. No need to write in the present tense.69.15.219.71 (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Fanboy fluff
In what universe is making the top 15 of anything a "Milestone"? No-one makes Top-15 lists of anything. Such lists are usually an order of magnitude (10, 100) and occasionally double/half of that (5, 20, 50). There is no justification for including this sort of non-notable. DerbyCountyinNZ 02:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- In the very small world of supercentenarians, any move up the ladder is significant. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Any move? Then where's the entry for her moving up to 14th on the list a few days ago? -- Foetusized (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's waiting to be posted. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Any move? Then where's the entry for her moving up to 14th on the list a few days ago? -- Foetusized (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- 15 is within 20, 50, or 100 (your numbers), numbers of galaxies & stars exceed 6 billion, small comparison set; likely to be noted regardless of highest position, could break into top 10 in 4 months. Dru of Id (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have raised this issue at WP:ANI, where the first respondent noted that Derby has misused tyhe rollback feature, along with the absurdity of using the term "fanboy". I don't think this article's subject is a rock star or a professional athlete. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Derby - making the assertion that "no-one makes top-15 lists of anything" is, at best, hard to prove, since it's a negative. At the risk of getting off the point, here are three queries, each with multiple hits for such lists. The real point, however, is that there isn't consensus for the removal you have made repeatedly, and since the edit isn't against any policy I know of, I think your best bet is to find consensus on wording you can live with rather than edit-warring (or worse). I don't think this belongs at ANI - and said so there; hopefully we can resolve this here. Frank | talk 13:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Quite right, it is impossible to prove a negative. On the other hand it is entirely possible to prove a positive, in thsi case that making the Top 15 is notable. So, is there any citation for a Top 15 list of oldest people? Is there even a mention anywhere in a "WP:RS that "Besse Cooper is now "one of the top 15 oldest people"? Because if there isn't then it can hardly be considered notable, more a case of fanboy fluff by playing with numbers. Is there even anywhere in wikipedia that has a top 15 list of anything with the scope of oldest people (subjective, one-off/annual lists of musicians/actors can hardly be compared to an objective all-time list!)? And what about the other milestones? Did making the Top 20, a far more legitimate figue for a to plist, become redundant when she made the "Top 15"? Milestones don't cease to be milestones when another milestone is reached. The fact is that making the top 15 is NOT a milestone at all. Being the 15th oldest verified person is notable, and could/should be mentioned in the lead. Making the Top 10 would (hopefully will) be a milestone and there are even two bites at that cherry because there is a Top 10 undisputed and a Top 10 verified and the reason these can be considered milestones while Top 15 cannot is that top 10 lists are common and even wiki has a top 10 list of Oldest people. Claiming that top 15 is notable is just a case of a few editors with an insufficent grasp of notablilty saying "Ooh, look, Besse Cooper's moved form 16th to 15th (and then 14th and back to 15th again) on the list, I think that's notable so I'll add it as a milestone". That's not notable, that's WP:OR. DerbyCountyinNZ 11:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Longevity articles
- High-importance Longevity articles
- WikiProject Longevity articles
- Start-Class Georgia (U.S. state) articles
- Unknown-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles
- WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) articles