Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:44, 27 December 2015

Longevity B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

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.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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.

Mantisia (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is their new link. I have to say that their website and publication of updates is generally very poor. DerbyCountyinNZ 05:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

that's just ignorant. They are the world's leader in verifying supercentarians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.75 (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding of Dharampal singh Gudha to the list

Hello guys One man Dharampal singh Gudha 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 ? Honi02 talk 15:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"live longer then men" should be changed to "live longer than men"

99.241.102.71 (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@99.241.102.71:  Done NottNott talk|contrib 17:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that the phrasing be changed to "women live longer than men, on average".--184.58.31.41 (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I agree, it also corresponds better with the section it links to. Gap9551 (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.49.5 (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of oldest living people

Oldest people 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 Oldest people page, which presenting the Top 50ish solves.

I have completed a merge of the Top 50ish list into where the Top 10 list was before in Oldest people. No loss of data or info happens with this. Only the spinout article with just the top 50ish list turns into a redirect.

Oldest people is a more natural page title then List of oldest living people. 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. Legacypac (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose This obsession with merging everything into one list, or even one article, is counter-productive to readability. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• 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 Oldest people, 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? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 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. Legacypac (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose These are different - and should remain separate. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

So are you proposing to remove all the Oldest living people from the Oldest people article? Legacypac (talk) 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.--Dangermouse600 (talk) 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. Legacypac (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crveni5 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 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 WP:RFC and getting broader community output. There is a few obscure topic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 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? // Internet Esquire (talk) 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 Oldest people with just a link provided. Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note List of oldest living people has been fully protected to stop the back and forth edit warring. --kelapstick 05:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• The living list has been removed from Oldest people 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. Legacypac (talk) 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. 930310 (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crveni5 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• 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. Bodgey5 (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• There is no need to have several articles where oldest living people are listed. Listing them in the article Oldest people is enough, that's why I'm trying to blank this article and redirect it to Oldest people, why do other users always revert me? No need to revert me! BjörnBergman 12:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• B-Class Longevity articles
• Top-importance Longevity articles
• WikiProject Longevity articles