| Revision as of 12:44, 27 December 2015 editBjörnBergman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,112 edits →Proposed merge with List of oldest living people← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:52, 27 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,867 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Oldest people/Archive 19) (bot | ||
| (980 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject |
||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=List| | |||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Longevity|importance=Top}} | ||
| }} | |||
| {{Copied|from=List of oldest living people|from_oldid=696430259|to=Oldest people|to_diff=696633192|to_oldid=696444175|date=2015 December 23}} | {{Copied|from=List of oldest living people|from_oldid=696430259|to=Oldest people|to_diff=696633192|to_oldid=696444175|date=2015 December 23}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 19 | ||
| |archive = Talk:Oldest people/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Oldest people/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |algo = old(60d) | |algo = old(60d) | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives|auto=short}} | |||
| ==Correct GRG list?== | |||
| Can anyone verify that the link to what is supposedly the current GRG list of oldest living people is actually correct? Until recently it linked to the list actually on grg.org. In the past month it has been switched to a link on http://supercentenarian-research-foundation.org It appears this is a separate group from GRG, or at least I'm not seeing anything saying they are one and the same. On the actual GRG website they still link to the November 2014 list. In fact on the SRF website, if you go to the home page and click the link to the list it takes you to that same Nov. 2014 list on the GRG website, not the list we are linking to. Since GRG is being considered the gold standard for supercentarian verification, shouldn't we be certain the list we use really is their list? | |||
| This ties back into my discussion above where I mistakenly thought vandalism was going. If we are going to list someone as "Anonymous" on the list of oldest living people, we should be certain this is correct. | |||
| ] (]) 23:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ::: that's just ignorant. They are the world's leader in verifying supercentarians. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==Adding of ] to the list== | |||
| Hello guys One man ] is around 118 year old runner and infact he is record holder at this age .I was thinking to add him or elese somebody add him in the list after consensus ? ] ] 15:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2015 == | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Oldest people|answered=yes}} | |||
| <!-- Begin request --> | |||
| "live longer then men" should be changed to "live longer than men" | |||
| <!-- End request --> | |||
| ] (]) 17:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|99.241.102.71}} {{done}} ''']''' ]|] 17:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I recommend that the phrasing be changed to "women live longer than men, on average".--] (]) 22:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Done}}. I agree, it also corresponds better with the section it links to. ] (]) 22:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Lucy Hannah a fraud actual age 97 == | |||
| Lucy Hannah is a complete fraud and the GRG knows it. They refuse to remove her even though there is overwhelming evidence she was an impostor who took another persons identity to claim government benefits early. Age 117 no way. Age 97 is the correct age at death. Come on GRG own up to this and remove her. It is insulting to have a fraud in the top 10. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Proposed merge with ] == | |||
| == Rewshe Qasim == | |||
| ] has long had an arbitrary Top 10 list of this article, which itself is a roughly Top 50 list of oldest people. This creates an unnecessary duplication of lists. Since the Top 10 are all women, men have been arbitrarily excluded from the ] page, which presenting the Top 50ish solves. | |||
| Rewshe Qasim, 137, was born in 1887 in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. She is considered the oldest person in the world and Iraq.I want it listed in that article. ] (]) 15:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have completed a merge of the Top 50ish list into where the Top 10 list was before in ]. No loss of data or info happens with this. Only the spinout article with just the top 50ish list turns into a redirect. | |||
| ⚫ | :Does not qualify for inclusion. Appropriate article is ]. ] <sup>(] ])</sup> 18:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ] is a more natural page title then ]. Presenting the oldest ever recorded people near the oldest living also facilitates cross checking the lists as people age or die. Naturally the List of oldest living people will become a section specific redirect. ] (]) 23:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == The oldest living man in the world is only 112 years and 83 days? == | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| *'''Support''' As I stated at the related Afd this would seem to be entirely ''consistent'' with "readability" and simplified navigation for our readers. The main article is not too big to accommodate this list as one of the centrepieces of ], and readers can find everything in one main article. Also, if the main article can accommodate a list of "100 verified oldest people" why can't it house the 50 oldest living, too? ] (]) 23:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::For that matter - if 10 oldest living were a key part of the article, why not 50? If 50 are too many we can cut the list down in either location. No one cares about the 47th tallest or fattest or fastest living person on earth for example. ] (]) 23:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' These are different - and should remain separate. ] (]) 00:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::So are you proposing to remove all the Oldest living people from the Oldest people article? ] (]) 01:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' @Shawn: In the first place I am a reader! When this article is merged it will be much more difficult to follow all the changes. I want | |||
| the oldest living people in a seperate article. And Legacypac, when you don't care about Nr. 47, what the hell are you doing here? Every time I come here I find another action from you trying to delete something and destroying structures that worked for years now. If there is something bad sourced, remember sometimes bad sources are the best to get. But Oldest living people isn't bad sourced, it's completely sourced. And it can be linked from oldest people, so your natural page title argument doesn't count. Please stop changing everything only to change anything.--] (]) 00:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Who is arguing about sources? The ArbComm case shows that there needs to be a restructure and simplification of Longevity. Join the effort instead of fighting change. ] (]) 01:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a pool of information. Why do people keep on insisting content relating to longevity be removed from Misplaced Pages? It is a never ending battle to keep these articles intact and consistent with each other. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::Well, all I'm suggesting is that where possible, information be 'pooled' in ''one place''. But again, there seems to be very strong feelings based on past Afds, I suppose. ] (]) 01:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' But there's clearly not enough support for this. Suggest putting this into an RFC and following the requirements at ] and getting broader community output. There is a few obscure topic. -- ] (]) 05:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' I've followed these lists for years, and the recent amalgamation of oldest people ever with oldest people living is confusing and unnecessary. They should remain separate articles. As stated by others above, there seems to be a recurring desire on the part of exclusionists to make sure that useful and interesting information on longevity is removed from Misplaced Pages. Can you please find something else to work on that adds useful content to Misplaced Pages? // ] (]) 05:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::You realize the Top 10 have been in the Oldest people article all along and you are fighting to keep out the next forty? If the merge is not allowed to stay, the Oldest living people will be removed completely from ] with just a link provided. ] (]) 05:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Note''' ] has been fully protected to stop the back and forth edit warring. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 05:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *The living list has been removed from ] to satisfy the people who reject that information there. I don't expect that it will be restored in whole or part as editors insist it should live on standalone page. ] (]) 06:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' User merged some lists without consensus and has no grounds for this. The lists are not the same and merging will cause loss of information. ] (]) 15:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' If it is a suggestion to merge the lists, why has the merger occurred before the suggestion was discussed? This is not a suggestion but a change forced upon the people against their will. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Merging mutiple lists into a single page would negatively affect the readability and usefulness of the list. Also, trying to merge the lists before a consensus has been reached displays a lack of respect for the policies that exist on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 17:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| So ] born on 05 October 1912 is the oldest living man on ]? That can't be right. In a remote village on the mountains of ], ], every family has at least one man older than 110. 112 years old is not that impressive really, I have a friend whose great-grandma is already 106 years old and she is still going strong. ] (]) 08:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :] and ] are full of similar ''unverified'' claims. ] <sup>(] ])</sup> 10:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 15:52, 27 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oldest people article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of List of oldest living people was copied or moved into Oldest people with this edit on 2015 December 23. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Rewshe Qasim
Rewshe Qasim, 137, was born in 1887 in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. She is considered the oldest person in the world and Iraq.I want it listed in that article. Ari Qasm (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Does not qualify for inclusion. Appropriate article is Longevity myths. DerbyCountyinNZ 18:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
The oldest living man in the world is only 112 years and 83 days?
So João Marinho Neto born on 05 October 1912 is the oldest living man on Earth? That can't be right. In a remote village on the mountains of Yunnan, China, every family has at least one man older than 110. 112 years old is not that impressive really, I have a friend whose great-grandma is already 106 years old and she is still going strong. 120.16.36.85 (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Longevity claims and Longevity myths are full of similar unverified claims. DerbyCountyinNZ 10:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)