Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ningauble (talk | contribs) at 20:58, 3 November 2015 (→Discussion: it's not a title). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:58, 3 November 2015 by Ningauble (talk | contribs) (→Discussion: it's not a title)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Error: The code letter old for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

WikiProject iconLongevity NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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
NAThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used


Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Assessments

I'm a little confused about Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Assessment for the 370 or so articles at Category:WikiProject World's Oldest People articles. We have a Top/High/Mid/Low structure. I'm most curious about the individual biographies. There's no right or wrong answer here so I'm just throwing out a starting flag. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I've included the basic suggested assessments from the Wikiproject priority assessnents in each section below to help figure out which articles go where. These can be adapted specifically for this project, which is something other projects have done. Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Top importance

I think this should be limited to Template:Longevity and the whole issues and records lines, along with Supercentenarian. Portal:Supercentenarians could use some work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia.
In this case, I'm thinking the template, Longevity, Gerontology, Supercentenarian, and Centenarian, the Terminology and Issues lines in the template, as well as the List of the verified oldest people, List of the verified oldest men, and List of the verified oldest women articles belong here. These form the core of the articles in this project, and I'd expect the descriptive articles in this category as well as these particular records and issues in a print encyclopaedia. Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

High importance

I think we can put the birth and death and the births and deaths by year articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
I disagree that that the births and deaths by year articles belong here; I think they're more Low importance. In this category, I'd put the remainder of the Records line and the Non-human line from the Template. I'd also put biographies of any world's oldest person recordholders here. Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
we are the World's oldest ***People***. Dogs aren't people.
Interesting. Psychology Today seems to support your claim: Gap9551 (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Mid importance

I think we can put the continent and individual countries articles here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Subject fills in more minor details
Agree. Also the War-related lists and Centenarian lines from the template. I'd also put regional/country oldest person recordholder bios here, if there are any. Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Low importance

I think we can put the historical country and macroregion ones here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Subject is mainly of specialist interest.
Agree, but I also think the Births in year and Deaths in year articles, as well as List of last survivors of historical events can go here. I think these articles tend to be more trivia than encyclopaedic, since the names are included in other articles. Any remaining bios would go here. Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessments discussion

Let's try to have a single organized discussion place. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone at all care to discuss this? Is there any actual interest in improving these articles or just in having lists when possible? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Longevity_claims

Can anyone explain why this isn't all SYNTH/OR i.e. "Here's a newspaper report claiming this man is 115, but he's not listed in Authority A's tables, so his claim is bogus"? EEng (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Because the most ridiculous claims used to be at "unverified" claims or "incomplete" claims or "myths" or other places. That should be claims where it has explicitly been debunked by a reliable source, not nonsense claims that aren't good enough for the other lists. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the citations for the debunkings. EEng (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The tables in the article are problematic because the assumption is that these people are not the age they say they are; in other words, Misplaced Pages is implying that they're lying about their age because the GRG hasn't validated the age. I understand that the oldest documented person was 122 so it's unlikely that claims of older ages are true, but I don't think it's encyclopaedic to list those claims here and I'm concerned there's a BLP or BDP violation; therefore, I'd like to see them removed.
The non-table part of the article has potential (as long as it doesn't become a WP:COATRACK for the now-redirected Extreme longevity tracking) but is problematic because it's poorly-referenced. It also isn't clear that the article reflects knowledge on the subject and appears to be SYNTH. I'd expect an article on longevity claims to define what they are, talk about their history, have a section on why such claims exist and how they're identified, discuss historical and modern validation procedures, and possibly list a few notable claims that have received much study and press. It would be easier to write this article if there was a few books/papers that covered all this so that we knew we were giving everything the correct weight. Ca2james (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Possible merge with Longevity_myths too. EEng (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that would be a good idea. I don't think myths is the best descriptor so I think the articles should merged into Longevity claims or a third title. Ca2james (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Longevity_myths/Archive_3#Discussion_moved_from_Talk:_List_of_the_verified_oldest_people (and the rest of that archive) is worth taking a look at for how we got into this mess of articles. Good points are made there which somehow got lost. EEng (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
There's more history with Longevity myths. It first showed up at FTN, then it went to mediation that a notice about mediation appeared at FTN. Things went downhill into the Arbitration case from there. From what I can tell, it was called Longevity Myths, then Longevity Traditions, and now Longevity Myths, but may not be using "myths" in an encyclopaedic way (although I think the editor that argued that interpreted Myths in a very specific way), and Longevity myths/traditions is not a separate field of study (except perhaps for Robert Young's master's thesis).
I think it was recommended that Longevity myths be merged back into Longevity. I'd suggest merging the text part of Longevity claims and any truly notable false claims - as in have received significant mainstream media coverage of the false claim - into Longevity. Longevity myths is just long lists of religious, ancient, and some modern supercentenarian/extreme longevity claims with a couple of definitions at the top. I suggest it stand alone as its own article but be renamed to Longevity claims or something similar. Which would be confusing, I guess, but to me the myths article really is just a list of claims, some of whom happen to be some religious myths (I don't see any Norse, Roman, or Greek myths there, but maybe they didn't claim that people lived a long time in those traditions). Ca2james (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A test case for discussion

Longevity_myths#Afghanistan lists (without further comment):

  • Khanum Hasno (1877 - 12 January 2013)

with citation to .

What is the point of including this (or any of these)? Obviously the claim to age isn't true. Is there a secondary source commenting on this claim having some significance, thus making it of interest to our readers? How is this whole section anything more than an indiscriminate list of obviously false claims? EEng (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I can see a good reason to include these claims: undoubtedly people will come across them, and compare them with Misplaced Pages. If they are uncritical and do not find them here, they may well embark upon a fruitless task of updating Oldest person in the world or some such.
Secondly showing the extent of such claims is useful.
Thirdly providing links to "further reading" helps readers who want to look in more depth to understand the uncritical acceptance of these claims in the reporting media, and examples of the typical elements of the claims.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC).
I see your point, but nonetheless without a secondary source commenting on the individual claim I don't see how we can include it; otherwise it's just a jumble of internet-trawled OR. It may, however, make sense for the preamble to the table of cases we do include to explain why it is that one finds claims out in the wild that don't qualify for listing. EEng (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The sober GRG

A peek at "Listing of Incomplete, Exaggerated, or Fraudulent Cases" is a real eye-opener as regards this sober scientific organization. EEng (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant material in longevity biographies

Interested parties may wish to contribute to this discussion. DerbyCountyinNZ 03:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Plethora of redundant lists

What function is served by List_of_the_verified_oldest_people, List_of_the_verified_oldest_women, List_of_the_verified_oldest_men, List_of_European_supercentenarians, List_of_Japanese_supercentenarians, List_of_oldest_people_by_country, List_of_oldest_living_people_by_country, etc etc and so on and so forth? Why not just one List of supercentenarians (I see little reason to list those < 110, even if they're oldest in an arbitrary geographical region or country), living and dead, and be done with it? People can sort it to get the equivalent of everything above. 20 lists could be replaced by one. What am I not seeing? EEng (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Fanfluff listcruft. DerbyCountyinNZ 09:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's not forget Misplaced Pages:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians as well. Propose merging them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict, later comment) And oh yeah, why the mishmash of little tables with strangely specific titles ("Chronological list of the verified oldest living person since 1955" -- how did 1955 get into the act?) at Oldest_people, referring to bigger tables elsewhere? What a mess. (I do like the graphs though -- they pack a lot of information in a small space.)
Looking at these, BTW, makes me realize how questionable some of this information is. For example, a lot of effort is expended on saying who was the oldest person/man/woman/European/WW1 vet/left-handed Episcopalian/accordian-playing clown at any given moment. Who cares? Why does it matter that Henri Pérignon was (apparently) the oldest person alive from 10 - 18 June 1990? As abundantly discussed elsewhere, it's clear that there were probably something like 10 other people as old, somewhere, who we just don't know about. I guess if RSes reported him as a "titleholder" at the time, we might consider that worth noting, but if not, and this "titleholder" status is just something WP editors are filling in by connecting the dots from other known oldsters, then we shouldn't be saying anything about it. It's not our job to construct an unbroken timeline.
Further, even taking for granted that we're accepting GRG's Table E as reliable, I'm not sure the same status should be accorded their Table M, which appears to be the basis for (e.g.) Oldest_people#Chronological_list_of_the_verified_oldest_living_men_since_1973, since as mentioned elsewhere GRG has its own criteria which should not be considered controlling -- other sources may accept other people GRG doesn't. To the extent that's true, we shouldn't use Table M for this purpose (and there's probably nothing else we can use either). This brings us back to: we should just have the one giant list of very old people, and skip the shaky sublists and subcategorizations. EEng (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Straight away you can see List of oldest people by country is redundant because it's available in the oldest people article. Any missing countries can be inserted into the table at "Oldest people" and the other article can be deleted/redirected. The country lists should remain since they serve as a dumping ground for all the supercentenarians that aren't notable for an individual article. However, there are some (Lithuania and Jamaica once you remove the pending names) where you only have a list of one name so not too sure on what to do with those countries. Not 100% sure we need the continent, macroregion or historical country lists since they seem to duplicate existing country lists and there's not any source (not even the GRG) that discusses "supercentenarians by continent". CommanderLinx (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Not sure we should have any "dumping grounds", but that aside, why not just have all those people in the contemplated single giant list of oldsters? EEng (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
That would not only be largely a copy of a GRG list but also unfeasibly large. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
How many entries would it have? A quick look at the various "Deaths in Prior Years" links at suggests there might be some 1500 known living and dead supercentenarians. I'm not sure that's an unfeasible table. Also, what planet are these GRG people from: "Race: W = White; B = Black; H = Hispanic; O = Oriental; I = Indian"??? EEng (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
As of January 1, 2014 the GRG listed 1627 "verified" supercentenarians. DerbyCountyinNZ 01:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm coming in late to this discussion as I've been sick. I actually nominated the List of verified oldest person/man/woman for deletion and they were snow kept. Thinking about it, it was a mistake to nominate the oldest person article for deletion as that is a subject that clearly passes WP:NLIST. However, I don't think the oldest man/woman articles are necessarily encyclopaedic. The oldest man list existed for the longest time (presumably because there are fewer men supercentenarians) and the list of oldest women was created for balance. The list of oldest women pretty much duplicates the oldest person list so I do think it (the oldest women list) should be deleted.
I think the region/continent lists should be deleted because much of what is in them is duplicated in the country lists.
Within the country lists there are lists of all oldest people ever and lists of currently living people "from" that country (meaning they were born in, are living in, or died in that country), along with lists of living and dead supercentenarians that emigrated from the country. There's much duplication in these tables. I'd prefer to see the current oldest supercentenarian from the country, along with the oldest supercentenarian ever, noted in the lede. I'd like to see the emigrated tables deleted as the information is elsewhere.
With respect to the chronological lists of oldest people since 1955 (or whatever year; it varies), the year appears to be the year these records are kept. These tables are a compilation of information that are almost invariably completely unsourced. I think these tables are fancruft and are better suited for a wikia. In some articles there's also a graph of the ages of the oldest person and their sex over time. These graphs also appear to be OR, and have no explanations for them, but they are much more useful than the corresponding tables.
I think it might be possible to put all the information in one giant table.... But a table with more than about 50 entries is a pain to edit, so some subdivision would be helpful. EEng, you might find it hilarious that the Race column made it into many of the articles on Misplaced Pages, but without the benefit of explaining what the abbreviations meant. Ca2james (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts on the subject:

  1. As has been suggested here, the lists by continent are redundant and arguably do not pass WP:N (there are lots of reliable sources that demonstrate that knowing about the oldest individuals in a country is a notable topic, but the same does not appear true for continents) and should be deleted. A closer look would be needed for the "macroregion" and "historical country" ones, but I suspect that the same would be true in these cases.
  2. Individual country lists should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis based on having enough material to meet Misplaced Pages's requirements for a stand-alone list and for the being covered enough in reliable, third-party sources to meet WP:N (e.g. Japan's coverage of Respect for the Aged Day suggests List of Japanese supercentenarians is a notable topic, while I don't see anything comperable for List of Lithuanian supercentenarians).
  3. I don't think that List of the verified oldest women passes WP:N as an independent topic (there's plenty of third-party coverage to demonstrate that the oldest people ever and the oldest men ever are notable topics, but none that ask "Hey, what if we took the men out of the top 100 and rewrote the list? What seven women would we add?", which is not surprising because women make up the vast majority of the oldest people) and thus should also be deleted.
  4. The "Lists of supercentenarians who died in..." seem like WP:LISTCRUFT to me - most, of course, do receive obituaries of some type, but lies far outside of the idea of counting how many died within a particular cycle of 365 days. Supercentenarians who are notable for their coverage will appear in the respective "Deaths in...." article, the rest who did not meet the criteria for some other list fall under WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
  5. A closer look should be taken at the war-related lists. I'm not certain that articles such as List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War and List of surviving veterans of World War II are appropriate for inclusion at this point. Unlike the last surviving World War I veterans, where there was clear evidence of notability based on reliable sources, I don't think we're there yet for these topics (although I haven't really looked into it, so I could certainly be wrong).
These should be nominated for deletion ASAP. The Spanish CW article was created too early and appears to be little more than a fan page. The WWII article must violate any number of policies, it's not only clearly misnamed but conservatively contains less than 0.1% of actual veterans. It should be put on hold for at least 15 years, probably 20 before it becomes viable. DerbyCountyinNZ 22:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  1. Finally, based on the fact that "List of African supercentenarians" and similar articles were not renamed "List of oldest Africans" etc. after discussion, I think that List of oldest living people should be restored to its original name of List of living supercentenarians based on the reasons I mentioned in my comments opposing the other move.

Canadian Paul 16:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Why we "should"? I see no reason whatsover. The list would be overly large, would grow ad nauseum and if all "RS" are going to be treated equally would be too big by a factor of 10 immediately (note that List of supercentenarians from the United States was 130k before I trimmed it to 100 oldest). I'm beginning to think the 10 oldest per country would be sufficient, if we are to retain such articles. DerbyCountyinNZ 22:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Ooops. I meant to ask why we shouldn't (sorry). The motivation would be simplicity. But if your size data is right then yes, it would be too big. So my next suggestion would be to partition it in some sensible way. Most of all, the idea would be that every person ends up on just one list, in general -- not one person showing but simultaneously on lists of oldest on earth, oldest in Germany, oldest in Europe, etc etc. EEng (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Dramatizing how silly are all the redundancy is

One person dies, 5 pages have to be updated:

Oops, I spoke to soon. TEN pages (so far) -- see EEng (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And all based on facebook post as a "reliable" source. Part of me wants to revert them all until an actual reliable source makes a comment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
All of me wanted to revert them all, and I did. However, this post is by a family member, so while it needs a lot of fixing, please let's be gentle. I'm afraid I have to go to bed right now, so can someone else open the lines of communication? EEng (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Succession boxes for longevity biographies

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines does not include any category which might cover "Oldest person..." etc. I propose that they be deleted from all longevity bios. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Longevity fans see the "title" of the oldest person for a country/region/world as something that is passed down from one person to the next, which is probably why the boxes were added in the first place. The fact that there are no reliable sources supporting this interpretation suggests that Misplaced Pages shouldn't be including these succession boxes. Ca2james (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Except it is an official "title" awarded by Guinness World Records. And it is effectively "passed on" from one person to another, so what's your point? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree. EEng (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC) but I think the first order of business is the AfDs/redirects. That will leave a much smaller population of articles to tinker with. EEng (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines says that succession boxes can be used for "awards, records, and miscellaneous achievements that merit a succession chain". It then goes on to say "Simply because a record has been earned does not merit a succession box for that record. Succession boxes for records should only regard records that are part of a series (for example, not all Guinness Book records deserve a succession box)." Well guess what, the world's oldest person titleholders ARE part of a series, so succession boxes in this case are justified. But you've already gone and removed these boxes from a large number of articles without having a proper discussion first. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
You have on multiple occasions whined about a lack of consensus before I removed these boxes. At the time I removed them there was consensus, it having been 4 days since I started the discussion and no-one who is supposedly a member of this project who opposed this removal bothering to contribute to this discussion. I also note that you have reverted my edits entirely (now who's violating WP:OWN, fully 8 days after you knew about it (violating WP:EW?) despite giving no justification for the inclusion of the "Oldest in Country" successions despite providing no argument whatsoever that they are valid. DerbyCountyinNZ 19:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I did? Anyway, if Guinness explicitly recognizes the "title" and explicitly provides a chain of succession in each edition (not just one name disappearing and a different one appearing) then I guess that might "merit" a box. Which longevity "records" does Guinness cover? EEng (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to Derby, not you. A couple of points: every time a new GWR world's oldest person titleholder is announced, the previous titleholder is usually mentioned, so it should be clear that there is a "succession" for the title. Secondly, the GRG has table of chronological list of W.O.P.s, so that should clear up any confusion. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Being the oldest living person isn't a "record". DerbyCountyinNZ 03:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Being the oldest at this moment is nothing like being the oldest man/woman/person ever. EEng (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you take that up with Guinness World Records then. Being the oldest LIVING person is a record for LIVING people. Is that your justification for making disruptive edits before consensus was reached? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Does Guinness have a listing for people like Emma Tillman, who was the oldest living person for five days? Or is their publication just an annual one? Besides, it's not like Oldest_people#Chronological_list_of_the_verified_oldest_living_person_since_1955 or frankly most article even cite Guinness. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Succession boxes for longevity biographies just seems wrong. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. There is an official title. Guiness World Records have been internationally recognized since 1955 and give out the WOP title every single year. It isnt your job or right to deny that fact. So in my opinion these Succession Boxes should be there. Also editing articles already before a decision has been made is in violation of the Misplaced Pages rules. So leave them be until a decision has been made. Petervermaelen (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
But the articles here aren't solely on a yearly basis based on Guinness (most don't even cite Guinness), they are largely based on the GRG. In fact, Oldest_people#Chronological_list_of_the_verified_oldest_living_person_since_1955 is only based on the GRG table and that should ideally match whatever succession boxes there are. Since Guiness isn't updating them for people like Emma Tillman (the oldest living person for five days), it's probably only the GRG. Then you also have the fact that there are people added years if not decades after their death (or people removed). It's not like we're discussing a list of Popes and pretenders fall as anti-Popes, it's a series of claims with various levels of reliable sources over time that changes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Guinness World Records and the GRG are closely associated. If you buy a recent addition of GWR you will see that they have listed the top ten oldest living people in the world and cited the GRG as the source. And Guinness go by "titleholders keep the title until otherwise proven". If a retrospective change is made it's not difficult to edit Misplaced Pages. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a title in only the same way Major League Eating has a title. It's either the Guinness title we're parroting (and the GRG doesn't matter) or it's the title based on reliable sources. Calling it a title based on Guinness when it's convenient and based on the GRG when it's convenient is just nonsense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, since there's a dispute about it and no consensus, I say we formulate an RFC on the matter and get more perspectives here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Oldest men notice

I've listed Template:Oldest men for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 11. My concerns are expressed there but I think listification via List of the verified oldest men is sufficient given that List of the verified oldest men only has a source for one name anyways. I'm putting the notice here as the project doesn't have WP:ALERTS set up (which maybe we should consider). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely set up alerts. EEng (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
It'll appear when Misplaced Pages:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts is blue I think. I'll unhide this comment so it's on the front page as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Not tagged with WOP so it wouldn't appear. We need to do a few runs through our templates here and catch all of these pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC) On the front page now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Article alerts

In case the front page wasn't clear, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts is set up. Please see WP:ALERTS if anyone has any suggestions or wants to revise it. It's largely deletion discussions since there's very little interest here in actually making these articles move to C, B, A, GA and FA classes in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

For those who are dense like me, the idea is that you watchlist that alerts page, and thereby learn of AfDs and stuff. Now a note: I wonder if many of these AfDs shouldn't be batched into combined discussions. Canadian Paul? EEng (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Well watching the page will give you a once a day update. I wouldn't batch the discussions as the pages are different. Frankly, they could all be made into redirects without AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The reason that I nominated them individually is that, had I nominated them as a batch, the discussion almost certainly would have been hijacked around the issue of differences between the pages and how they should not have been nominated that way etc. etc. This way we can focus on the actual issue, which is their lack of meeting WP:N, and establish a clear and explicit consensus that these articles are not appropriate for Misplaced Pages, which will (hopefully) prevent us from ever having to deal with this issue again. Canadian Paul 21:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess I envisioned batching two or more that are similar enough that one discussion could apply to all of them. Having said that, I'm not sure how one would go about finding them. However, I really think we should pursue the redirect idea. If they're uncontroversial (which I think most would be, now that the editor population seems to have come to understand the appropriate criteria) they could be handled without slogging through an AfD discussion. And even if there's discussion to had, it can happen on the article's talk page -- simple. EEng (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any objection in theory to just redirecting, but it seems to leave room open for individuals to say "no consensus was achieved!", which leads to reverts, edit wars, etc. etc. Once the AfDs reach their conclusion, consensus is established and they can be speedily deleted (or re-redirected) without question if they come back. Canadian Paul 23:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
OK. But I think Misplaced Pages should buy a new delete key for my computer. EEng (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects!

That's a brilliant idea! EEng (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Classes for WOP projects

Currently, Category:World's Oldest People articles by quality allows only the basic categories but I think we should allow for Draft, Category, File, Template and Redirect classes. Those can all be found at Category:NA-Class World's Oldest People articles at the moment. Draft, Category, File and Template are obvious but Redirect-class will likely be very populated for us given the number of possible singular articles about individuals being redirected/merged to their various country or whatever articles (plus pages like Talk:Unverified longevity claims). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in this? The links from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Oldest_people show that there's quite a large number of individual articles out there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what's at stake, but as with so many other things, it seems to me the decision might be easier after the current culling-of-the-herd is over. EEng (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The request is to change to the template so that there are more classes than at Category:NA-Class World's Oldest People articles. The only thing left would be project pages and errors or typos. For example, if we added redirect class, Talk:Grace Nelsen Jones would be in a separate redirect class (like at Category:Redirect-Class biography articles) rather than NA. I suspect a draft-class would be helpful as I can see some borderline cases moving to become a draft rather than deleted outright. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Shivakumara Swamiji

Hi,

Dr.Shivakumara Swamiji from India is still living. His age is 107 years 196 days as of now. The link for it in wiki is http://en.wikipedia.org/Shivakumara_Swamiji.

Please update the list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.235.255 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2014

Which list? The lists start at age 110 normally and he wouldn't pass List of the verified oldest men but we don't have a List of Indian supercentenarians but that's where he would go I imagine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kay Kāvus

This edit adds your WikiProject to the talk page for a mythological figure. I gather from the Arbcom warnings plastered around this is a bit of a ball of snakes, but I'm guessing that was not a sensible edit and am coming here for advice. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It probably got tagged because it's listed at Longevity_myths#Persian_empire. It's been a decade-long struggle to clean up this "ball of snakes" (great phrasing, I must say) so there might be overcaution at work. It's an interesting question how to find and remove such warnings after they're no longer needed -- should that day even come, God willing. EEng (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Correct. It was in Category:Longevity traditions which includes Longevity myths and is a part of Template:Longevity. I'm wondering if we should rename the project to WikiProject Longevity for some reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Gerontology Wiki

I just want to note that it looks like there is a Gerontology wiki which can be used to store some of the content lost here. I believe the Wikia license allows us to transfer content from here so if anyone wants the contents of any article they can ask any admin (I'm one) and we can copy and paste it over there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Carrie C. White

Is there any reason why Carrie C. White isn't included at Template:Oldest people or at List of the verified oldest people or anywhere else? She was listed by Guinness. The article just states "Since 2012, her claim has been considered invalid" without a citation so unless we have proof that her claim was "invalid" (I don't know what that means and by who, I presume Guinness), I don't see a reason to not include her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The book that is referenced under her page, Supercentenarians, appears to make the case that subsequent research after Guinness has recently brought up evidence that Carrie White only lived up to 102 years of age. Given that a source does, in fact, exist, someone should note that with another citation. Yiosie 00:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about whether there should be such a template at all. A template is useful as a kind of prepackaged "See also" for a set of related articles. But such a template only makes sense when it stimulates the reader to think, "Oh yes, I'd like to know more about " -- for example, see Template:Dartmouth_College. But this is just a jumble of names, no more useful than a category would be, and less useful than a list. I suggest this and similar templates be deleted. EEng (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
As someone put it well at the TfD for Oldest men:
Other navboxes serve a useful purpose with a clear link holding all their subjects together. Albums by a recording artist. Books by an author. Notable figures of a historical event. I could go on, but such a thread of consistency does not and cannot exist in this particular navbox. Other than being record holders for oldest people in the world, the navbox does nothing to inform the user of whom these people actually are. They more than likely have nothing to do with each other.
EEng (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm waiting on the results for Template:Oldest men first. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes

"As guidelines and actual practice change, this page should be updated to reflect current outcomes." Maybe we should add a section, since AfDs are getting stuff like . EEng (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Having a centralized location to point to that demonstrates past outcomes of these AfDs (i.e. most are deleted unless there are sufficient reliable sources, there being no consensus that being the oldest anything in inherently notable etc. etc.) would be very useful. For most individuals who wander into these discussions unaware, it is not unreasonable that they assume that being the oldest X must be notable, for whatever reason, so it would be good to have a link that contains comprehensive evidence that this is not the case and demonstrates the current consensus. There are literally hundreds of these articles out there and it does not benefit the project to reinvent the wheel for every PROD/AfD. Canadian Paul 02:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Except a flood of "oldest X must be notable" comments results in a keep close (or even a speedy keep close), making that the expected common outcome in the future. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts shows that consensus went from deletes to redirects to now keeps (in part because the latest nominators didn't put much effort into their nominations). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
All that's needed is a statement that longevity (of any kind) does not raise a presumption of notability, so that GNG is always the touchstone. To support that, it doesn't matter how many recent longevity AfDs ended in Keep -- all that matters is that many have ended in Delete, showing that longevity isn't enough. EEng (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
That's fine and all but the people who believe it does won't agree on that. I'm not sure what they believe as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ferdinand Ashmall shows that unsourced claims of "the second person verified to reach the age of 100" or "the first person known to reach the age of 103" seem to work even. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that a number of Afds have been closed as keep on the basis of votes (largely by SPAs who come out of the woodwork too often for it too be chance) rather than policy. DerbyCountyinNZ 22:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Again, as I noted, there's a trend from mass deleting to a mix of votes and redirects to now being mass kept based on these individuals coming out of the woodwork. It's clear that the various forums and other websites watching us are active again. I also revised Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Biographies to remove the claim that people are notable for their age. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
In all fairness though, those that are being kept at least have enough sources to meet WP:N (WP:NOPAGE and other arguments, of course, are still valid for deletion). If there is a truly egregious keep, there's always WP:DRV. Canadian Paul 05:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
As we have seen with many AfD's, there is an interest in human longevity from the general public. And as we have seen several times, old age can make you notable. Would Jeanne Calment be known by so many people if she didn't live to be 122? I doubt it. And if we are going to make assumptions that only the same people vote "Keep" in the AfD's then we can as well say that it is the same people who nominate the articles for deletion over and over again. Having the same people do this all the time might be a violation of WP:Battleground. 930310 (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Beat you to it. Once it's added to Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people) you people can finally quit your hated of old people and move on to something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.78 (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

NOPAGE

I remind my esteemed fellow editors that WP:NOPAGE is often the most appropriate argument to be made for merging (and most deletes are really merges anyway, since most of these people do belong in some list.) I counsel concentrating on that argument, rather than on notability, in most cases. EEng (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC result

I have closed the RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People/Archive_6#RFC:_Should_the_world.27s_oldest_living_people_tables_identify_that_their_claim_has_been_validated.3F. The result was: There should be no greater weight given to one reliable source over another. If it's reliable enough for inclusion, then no special designation is needed beyond that. If the source is not reliable enough to count as verified, then its information should not be included in the article.--Aervanath (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't realize we let it archive before a resolution was done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Group leader

Why do people keep removing Dr Young from this project? He is the world's leading expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.56.176 (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Dr." Young removed himself via his relentless self-promotion, bizarre attacks on other editors, and finally blatant sockpuppetry. EEng (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not engage with this IP editor. He has been posting about and impersonating a currently blocked but in this case blameless editor. I have advised the victim to file an OTRS ticketDavid in DC (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Imposter

A vandal has been on this page impersonating a currently blocked editor. He has contacted me directly and I believe him. I am advising him to file an OTRS ticket, as he believes he knows who the imposter is.David in DC (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC) David in DC (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should longevity biographies have succession boxes

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should longevity biographies about individuals such as the "Oldest person in the world", "Oldest man/woman" or even the "Oldest person in nation" or within nation categorization ("Oldest person born in Scotland" or "Oldest person born in the British raj" period of India) have succession boxes? Let's try for a single yes/no voting section with a single discussion section. Any discussion about the levels of succession boxes can be done afterwards.

Yes to succession boxes

No succession boxes

  • No DerbyCountyinNZ 03:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC).
  • No - Ricky81682 (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Succession boxes make even less sense than navboxes that list names. (Cf. recent consensus to delete a navbox.) Succession boxes only make sense when there is a clear line of succession to a position of such prominent influence that there should virtually always be an article about each individual in that role even if they are not otherwise notable. As discussed by others below, there is no definitive and enduring line of succession, and navigating sequentially does not work when many or most of the successors do not or should not have individual articles. (With reference to WP:ANYBIO: being a statistical outlier is not a "significant award or honor", and a record of being alive for a long time does not constitute a "contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field".) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No Longevity is not a contest. The world's oldest people are not contestants in a competition to achieve some sort of title, let alone to become an "incumbent" or to "lose" the title to a successor by shuffling off this mortal coil. David in DC (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No The classic examples of succession are in politics or monarchy‍—‌the thread of succession takes one through political and social changes over time. Longevity "successions" reflect nothing more than stochastic variation in who keeps breathing longer. There's no relationship whatsoever between "successors". It's pointless and ridiculous. EEng (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Again, WP:SBSGUIDE clearly allows for Guinness Record holders to have succession boxes there is a thread of succession, which there is. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

None of these is ever "awarded" except the world's oldest living person/man/woman but such awards are neither definitive nor permanent and therefore bear no relation to the intent of succession boxes as defined by WP:SBSGUIDE. DerbyCountyinNZ 03:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC).

First, it's also confusing as these boxes don't always match the articles as the articles just reflect a single source, the GRG which is incomplete. Further, it's a bit confusing as we're going by a number of sources (presumably reliable ones) to designate the "titleholder". Certain claims have been classified as Longevity claims or Longevity myths without a reliable source that debunks them which I find problematic and WP:OR. Otherwise, we only have to go by perhaps the Guinness World Records which is an annual print publication and thus individuals like a Emma Tillman who was allegedly the world's oldest for five days wouldn't be there. In contrast, we could be including the GRG as the sole source but that's completely ridiculous for other reasons. As I've said, this is like having "World's most beautiful woman" and making a single "list" of the "titleholders" based on the timeline of the Miss World, Miss Universe, Maxim Top 100, and other charts as each source makes its own choice based on its own criteria for reliability is just more likely to be chaotic. And that's just for the world's person or singular oldest male or female. Once you start getting into country or further breakdown, it's difficult to ascertain what is a "recorded" or "verified" or whatever made up categorization is being used now versus claims that aren't included in these things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Without a source that has proven a person's age, it's not WP:OR to list someone as a "longevity claim", and it's certainly not OR to list Methuselah as "longevity myth". On the other hand, we have Guinness World Records and the Gerontology Research who are both widely-recognised organisations, and they work together (see "Besse was first certified as the world's oldest person by Guinness World Records, in conjunction with The Gerontology Research Group, in January 2011"). I can't see a situation where the two of them would disagree. If there is, we can worry about that at the time. Furthermore, GWR is now online and not just a print publication, so that's not much of an issue. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
What is a source that has "proven" their age? We have sources about their ages. How does Guinness or the GRG or whatever source you're imaging "prove" an age and what evidence do you have that they actually do "prove" ages? This is just circular arguing that only some sources are qualified to "prove" or "certify" ages and other sources are just "reporting" ages or whatever terms you want to use. This is where it gets into complete OR nonsense trying to distinguish which are real and which are not as we're playing round and round with "reliable sources" and "really reliable sources". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
No, the original research is already being done by the outside sources. Maybe if you could actually be bothered to do a tiny amount of research in to the subject before starting a campaign on Misplaced Pages to delete as much content as possible, you might realise this. "oldest AUTHENTICATED age", "VERFIED Supercentenarians", and so on. It's a very simple concept to understand: just saying "I'm 120!" doesn't prove that you're 120, so Guinness World Records insist that proof of age (birth certificates, marriage records, etc) must be shown in order to be officially recognised as the world's oldest person/woman/man/whatever. For example: "Bolivian man claims to be 123", reported by what are generally considered to be reliablesources. But then in the same sources it says "To claim the title, Mr Laura’s documents must be verified by a Guinness World Records official". So, clearly reliable outside sources: 1. Recognise Guinness as an authority 2. Understand the difference between an unverified claim and a verified claim. It's absolutely nothing to do with "reliable sources" and "really reliable sources", it's about recognising that the concept of age verification exists and there is a difference between was is verifiable and what is not. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not a title, and a free tabloid saying it does not make it so. Guinness and Gerontology Research Group do not bestow titles. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:SBSGUIDE says "Simply because a record has been earned does not merit a succession box for that record. Succession boxes for records should only regard records that are part of a series (for example, not all Guinness Book records deserve a succession box)." --> That would suggest that Guinness World Records titleholders can have succession boxes as long as they are part of a series, which the "world's oldest titleholders" are. Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia, so if there are any changes, it's quite simple to edit Misplaced Pages to reflect the most up to date information. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Are we discussing the Guinness titleholder alone or whatever is claimed to be the "titleholder" on Misplaced Pages? If it's only Guinness, then every source that isn't a direct citation to an edition of Guinness should be removed (and no, the "GRG is really the same as Guinness" nonsense doesn't fly then). But it's not. It's a game of cobbling together sources from (largely) the GRG and other sources to make it look like there's title holders. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't even know what your point is. And again, why don't you try educating yourself on the subject at hand. "The research group, accepted as a global authority on the super-elderly by Guinness World Records"... "Gerontology Research Group, the company which verifies age information for Guinness World Records"... "Besse, from Monroe, Georgia, USA, was first certified as the world's oldest person by Guinness World Records, in conjunction with The Gerontology Research Group, in January 2011." -----> Oh look, the GRG and GWR work together. So they are "really the same as Guinness" when it comes to things like the world's oldest person. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes for World's oldest person/man/woman titleholders as they are part of a series which merit a succession box, as per WP:SBSGUIDE. No for national recordholders as many don't have their own articles and the sourcing isn't as clear. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Zelda McCague

This article has only one source, and that source says that, lacking a birth certificate, her lifespan was uncertain, Guinness never recognized her lifespan. Why is she notable as that term is defined on Misplaced Pages? David in DC (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

She's likely not but don't worry, any AFD discussion will be flooded with keep votes on various bases I'm certain. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
None of which will have a basis in Wiki policy/guidelines. DerbyCountyinNZ 09:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
And the anticipation of none of which should prevent an effort to continue pruning. I was mostly looking for a reality check. I'm not real good at setting up AfD's, but when I get some time, I may try. In the meantime, I'd really like to hear from WOP project members who think this article DOES cover a notable subject about why. If you can, please stick to the Misplaced Pages definition of notability, and not the more common everyday usage.
Who knows, maybe we can figure out a better paradigm for resolving these issues than the one that's frustrating so many of us right now.
Anybody? Bueller, Bueller? David in DC (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
For AfDs what we need are closers who understand how to close based on policy, though I'm not sure how to get such people into position. Zelda has no coverage I can see other than her death, and (I repeat at the risk of boring everyone) NOPAGE applies here as usual. She was born, got married, and died, and near the end remembered some things. EEng (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
REVDEL is the place to go if one thinks a close was incorrect. David in DC (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
This reflects another successful approach to the problem you identify David in DC (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
This approach was also successful. It led to this. David in DC (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
We should be prepared to use all such tools, but my point was aimed at getting correct closes in the first place. Certainly there should be no NACs. EEng (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Categories: