Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

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 (Talk Contribs) 09:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's not forget Wikipedia: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 (Talk Contribs) 23:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
How many entries would it have? A quick look at the various "Deaths in Prior Years" links at [1] 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 (Talk Contribs) 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia'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 (Talk Contribs) 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 (Talk Contribs) 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 [7] 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 [8] 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)

Article alerts

In case the front page wasn't clear, Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/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)

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 2356 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 [such and such related thing]" -- 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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia: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 [9]. 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. Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 (Talk Contribs) 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)

Succession boxes for longevity biographies

Wikipedia: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 (Talk Contribs) 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 Wikipedia 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)
Wikipedia: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 (Talk Contribs) 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 (Talk Contribs) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. -- 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)

ANI

As a result of persistently disruptive behavior by User:Legacypac I have initiated a ANI discussion. Posting here and other relevant talk pages in the hopes of getting a balanced response. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:03, 29 December 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 Wikipedia? 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 (Talk Contribs) 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 Wikipedia 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)
Looks like a worthy nom to me. I understand the general concerns about closes but, in terms of keep votes and proper closes for nominating individual articles, I think we're still at a point where we can deal with problems as they arise. Canadian Paul 04:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Nominate away. If we don't challenge these, they will remain. The discussions that did result in deletions and redirect do provide actual discussions and evidence. There hasn't been a keep that isn't either "oldest = notable" or "lots of sources = GRG passed." These will come in rounds, I give it six months until another set of articles have been built up and are listed for deletion and then the various forums and the like will take notice and the cycle will continue. It took years to get all the individual Pokemon character articles merged together and I see no difference here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that you won't have to wait six months. Canadian Paul 04:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@David in DC I'm not going to argue that this particular person is notable. I don't mindlessly vote "keep" on every single supercentenarian biography. But I am of the opinion that world's oldest people/men ARE, for pretty obvious reasons, let's be honest. Being the oldest person out of several billion is something unique and the typical press coverage reflects this. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Nor do I mindlessly vote "delete" in all cases. Happily, we've resolved that question already.
"Something unique" is one-of-a-kind. That's what unique means.
Typical press coverage does not reflect anything of the sort. Typical press coverage is yearly WP:ROUTINE birthday acknowledgements and an obituary. Taken together, these rarely establish notability as that term is defined on Wikipedia. Three happy birthdays and an obit are not significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. David in DC (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC).
The presumption being that these actually are the world's oldest people. My annoyance is that some people who are allegedly 110 years old or whatever are supposedly worthy of articles because some organizations have given them the "title" while other people get shuffled to Longevity claims or to this subpage or ignored entirely based entirely on whether or not some group of people think their claims are valid. To me, that's hubris. Ashmall will likely be restored, I can live with it as a WP:GNG based on the number of sources but I still find the first "verified" or "known" statement to be full of privilege as to the quality of sources that fall to the longevity "claims" listings. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. To repeat what I said elsewhere today, neither GRG nor Guinness nor anyone else is the "official" arbiter of these "records". Furthermore, GRG and Guinness can make and have made mistakes. There are other sources, and for these reasons they have a say as well. EEng (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

permastubs

A good adjunct to WP:NOPAGE is the WP:PERMASTUB essay, which is worth quoting at length:

A permastub is an article that is currently a stub and has no reasonable prospect for expansion. There can be many reasons for this. These include:
  • There is little verifiable information to be found on the subject
  • All or most aspects of the subject are already covered in other articles
  • There is little important to say about the subject
  • The article is about a subject that was briefly notable, but no longer receives any coverage
  • The subject is about or is notable for a single event, after which there will never likely be any future coverage
Permastubs are unsatisfying articles – they leave little potential for future editing, and by their nature are not very informative. Where possible, they should be merged to larger articles and redirected there.

So many longevity articles fit that description to a T, and the bolded advice applies well. EEng (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources for exclusion of claim

What sources do we have for excluding a particular claim from our longevity tables? Javier Pereira has numerous reliable sources about his claim but has been put in Category:Longevity traditions rather than treated as a valid claim. The only prior discussion was at Talk:Longevity_myths/Archive_1#Javier_Pereira which just evidences the concerns that got this mess to ARBCOM before. There is this GRG page on frauds but other than the title, there are no actual facts or discussion stating anything about it and I don't think this page (with nothing for Pereira) could be reliable source. I guess we could state that the GRG considers this an "incomplete or fraudulent case" but those are two different issues: incomplete means that we can fall to the other sources which seem reliable while fraudulent means that the other sources were mistaken. I think we need a reliable source that states that the claim isn't true, rather than going by WP:SYNTHESIS and presuming from the lack of inclusion that they don't support the claim, especially since we don't have an idea about why they reject the fact here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sources. It's well know that the oldest accepted claim of longevity is 122 years, so yes, to present as fact anything significantly beyond that, sources would have to be especially solid. We don't need GRG to falsify or question it to keep it out of the factual tables, just the lack of solid, "exceptional" sources supporting it. EEng (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm not talking about biblical myths. That page at least has a source providing some explanation. I wonder if we should switch our tone entirely and change the tone of all to "claimants". I use the term pretender for the questionable ones. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we should use pretender because it has a distinctly unpleasant implication, especially for living (or recently living) persons.
I'm not just talking about biblical-type claims. Anything over 110 years can be considered an exceptional claim, I think. EEng (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
There's also a time element. A lot of longevity claims are decades if not centuries old. A 100 year claim from the 17th century is the same issue as a modern one (especially if the GRG is making statements about people like Ferdinand Ashmall). If they want to move into that realm of issues, we need better organization to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Javier Pereira can be excluded from and list on the basis that the year of death is disputed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
But under all three dates, he'd still be the oldest person in the world by decades. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm asking this wrong, but should we include as a "source" the fact that a GRG isn't including an individual to assert that the claim hasn't been verified? The problem is, other than the random "fraud or incomplete" page, there's no page of "there are claims that the GRG has explicitly rejected" based on X, Y or Z. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/123-year-old-bolivian-man-oldest-living-person-ever-documented-f6C10934840 What about this guy? Older then the oldest. Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

So should he be at the top? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should longevity biographies have succession boxes

Consensus against longevity succession boxes.

Given the history of ARBCOM sanctions on the topic of longevity, I have taken extra care in considering the !votes.

Many offer no rationale at all, offer a marginal rationale, or show limited/single-purpose experience. Longevity succession boxes might be plausible under Succession Box Guidelines section 4.4.1.c or 4.4.1.d, however other arguments are presented that it would be poor and problematical fit. I find a consensus of a predominant number of responsible Wikipedians that Succession Box Guidelines are not intended to include this sort of use, and should not be extended to this sort of use.

Alsee (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

FRS

Hello Zppix from feedback request service here. As long as it doesnt get to long of a BOX i don't see why not. Also I recommend next time to possibly explain more in detail on what all it could be used for not just "World's Oldest People". Thanks Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Zppix: Boxes would like those at Maria de Jesus for the oldest living person/European/Portuguese person. As I stated above, the first level discussion is whether any are appropriate given the concerns below. The second issue is what level of detail these boxes should include. There is obviously the oldest person and then oldest man/woman, and then by continent and then nation. It can go further as the US has breakdowns by state and Japan has prefectures, etc. I note that both the oldest men and oldest people template which would connect these pages were both deleted here and here for what I consider the same issues as here (namely there exists conflicts in sources as to the voracity of these claims making this distinct from say Academy Award winners or royalty or presidents or whatever). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes to succession boxes

Identifying SPAs (such as yourself) in discussions where formal comment is requested (such as RfCs and AfDs) is standard practice, and is especially important in the present topic area, in which historically discussions have been overrun by hordes of externally recruited meatpuppets. (An example might be an IP who shows up out of nowhere to argue specifically and only on the specific point of succession boxes.) In this particular discussion, the tagging makes clear that those desiring succession boxes all edit on this topic only, whereas those opposing them are experienced editors from all over the project. EEng (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • YES Agree with Ollie, Inception and Fiskje. this template is needed. Succession box is used for more than 11 years in the oldest people article of Wikipedia.([10]) I don't understand why to abolish it.--182.170.205.177 (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC) — 182.170.205.177 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Yes Of course succession boxes are needed here. Partly for people to be able to track the successors of the titles as the World's Oldest Verified Living Person and partly to show the age differences between the previous titleholder and the following titleholder. Some people have gained the title at the age of 112 (Jeanne Calment) and others at age 117 (Sarah Knauss), what is clear however is that the threshold for being the absolutely oldest is increasing. In the past you could gain the title at age 111/112 but nowadays you have to be at least 114+. Just because someone might be retroactively verified as having been the oldest at a certain time does not mean that succession boxes display inaccurate information. As with all fields within science, you constantly learn new things. So the succession boxes are for the people who are currently considered to have been the oldest at the time and not for the ones who certainly were the oldest. But there is a high likelihood that they were the oldest at the time or, at the very least, the oldest who could prove their age. And this is not a competition between people for the title as the oldest. 930310 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Yes. No problem.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC) — 153.151.83.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Yes. - this navbox serves to aid navigation between related articles, as navboxes on wikipedia are supposed to do; there is no clear reason to remove this particular navbox. Many "no" votes have been given without reason and seem like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Chessrat (talk,contributions) 04:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

* Yes 166.170.50.122 (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes and we should expand to include not just the top but the second, third and so on people. Articles should reflect people who were the fifth, fourth, third, second and then top titleholders as the others died off. There's so many details that we can include. 166.170.48.18 (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • yes because these titles are critical to keeping these biographies in perspective. Why is George Washington's succession boxes more implement than these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.123.233 (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice of you three to join us. Couldn't even wait a few minutes, could we? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but one of the puppets raises an interesting question... why is George Washington's succession box more implement? EEng (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No succession boxes

  • No DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 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)
Not IDONTLIKEIT, but rather ITMAKESUSLOOKLIKEFOOLSWHOSTUFFNONSENSE,WITHNOCOHERENTMEANING,INTOARTICLES. What SBSGUIDE says, more fully, is
This header ['Awards and achievements'] is used for awards, records, and miscellaneous achievements that merit a succession chain 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).
I added the underlining -- note the words merit and chain. It's a matter of editorial judgment, and four out of five editors agree that there's no merit here, because there's no chain -- someone in Indiana dies; then, randomly six months later, someone in Japan dies. There's no relationship. No one's working to beat the other guy's pole-vault, build a taller building, or take a longer space-walk. It's just people randomly dying.
One particularly significant point is that, generally, chains of "records" form an increasing series -- the tallest building in the world is displaced by an even taller building, and so on. In this stupid oldest-living-person "chain", a 116-year-old dies and is replaced by a 112-year-old who dies at age 114 -- not even as old as the previous record-holder. God, the more I think about it, the stupider and trivial-er it sounds.
EEng (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
One person dies, and then someone else becomes the world's oldest. That's quite obviously a chain and "oldest living person" is a record that's recognised by Guinness World Records. Your personal opinion that it's "stupid" is utterly irrelevant (again, WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and just demonstrates further that you are more interested in pushing your own personal point of view on to Wikipedia instead of following policy and looking at what the consensus in outside sources is. It's a record, recognised by reputable, widely-known organisation, which is held by one person at a time and hence there is a continuing series of record-holders, and the amount of coverage the world's oldest people typically get is an indication that such a record is more than trivial. Oh, and how about we get some input from more users from NEUTRAL editors who aren't involved in this project and don't have their own points of view to push. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
My reasoning, and that of others -- based on policy, guidelines, and commons sense -- is clearly on laid out, and is no more a "personal point of view" than is anyone else's reasoned contribution. My use of the word stupid emphasizes the years of exasperation with editors who chant snippets of guidelines, unembarrassed by the fact that those guidelines' premises don't at all fit the facts at hand.
And BTW, if what we want to recognize is a "record", then there should be one, and only one, longevity article: that on Jean Calment, since she holds the record. Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea. When someone lives to 123, then we can add a second article. EEng (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
'There's no relationship whatsoever between "successors".' Except there is: scientists are studying why these people follow up on each other as the WOP - what is it that makes these people live longer than anyone else, and what could society gain from that?
'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.' This is clearly blatant POV-spreading that is completely wrong; had you actually studied supercentenarians more closely, you'd have noticed they do more than "breathe". Jeralean Talley, for instance, was reported fishing at the age of 114 [11] and able to walk unassistedly at the age of 116 [12]. Your comment clearly shows you cannot objectively look at the topic. Fiskje88 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Scientists are not using Wikipedia to get data for their studies, and anyway nothing in their studies relates to the fact that Jim was the oldest for 5 days, followed by Bob for 2 months, followed by Alice...
  • That these people do more than breathe longer than others may be true, but has nothing to do with it. You want to list them only because of their prolonged breathing, whether or not they did anything else during that time.
And please cut out the huffing and puffing about "POV-spreading" and whathaveyou -- if you had more than 170 edits, or ever edited anything other than longevity-related nonsense, you'd know how ridiculous it sounds. EEng (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. Succession boxes aren't for competitions. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
That's entirely your opinion. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a requirement of WP:SBSGUIDE. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:01, 19 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 (Talk Contribs) 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 [13] "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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so if there are any changes, it's quite simple to edit Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia? 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. [14] [15] [16] [17] "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)
Except you can want to use Guinness "titleholder" when it's convenient but when it comes to actual sources, it falls to the GRG. There are literally zero citation to Guinness itself on the oldest people page. And there is a difference between "verifies Guinness" and "reports the exact same thing as Guinness." It's this constantly shifting series of arguments that tire everyone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:21, 4 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)

I'm of the opinion that it would be useful to be able to find who was the oldest living person (oldest living male, female, etc.) at any given time, but how many of these people would be independently notable and have their own articles? If few, then a list of oldest living people by date might be a better way of presenting the information than a navbox that mostly navigates to nowhere. If most of the people in the succession box actually have articles, then succession boxes would make sense.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus?

Do we have a consensus yet? So far we have:

Yes: 8 votes, 7 by SPAs No: 10 votes, no SPAs identified, several users with no apparent interest in longevity articles.

If this were a simple vote (it is not) it would place consensus against succession boxes in longevity relate articles. The fact that almost all Yes votes are from longevity SPAs and that a number of No votes are from disinterested parties would also seem to lean towards a No consensus. Is this sufficient or do we need to drag this to DRN? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Let someone else close this or else I'm sure someone can find a few new SPAs to have an opinion here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I've listed it at AN etc etc. Will probably take a while. EEng (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Let me just add here that I think it's inefficient to systematically remove these boxes just now -- as with so many other things, that effort will be much easier after the walled garden is pruned back via AfD and so on. EEng (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I've already reverted all the ones I found previously which were reverted by another user. I'm quite prepared to remove any I find on sight but won't bother hunting them out for a while yet. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like the right approach. EEng (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"Low-profile individuals"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At WP:Articles_for_deletion/Alexina_Calvert, a participant introduced the concept of an "LPI" (Low-Profile Individual). I think this is a concept with wide narrow applicability to individuals whose only claim to notability is their longevity. EEng (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That related only to biographies for living people. Those people's profiles are relevant to whether or not their names should be provided. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, so it has narrow applicability... EEng (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

...but still some applicability. EEng (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Typical disruption

Editors unfamiliar with the long history of longevity-related disruption will better understand what's going on after reviewing:

EEng (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Persistent restoration of content not source to an RS

We're having a problem at Yukichi_Chuganji with two editors repeatedly restoring content sourced only to GRG's "Table C", which itself carries no references or citations (the same reason that Table EE was rejected as an RS here [25]). One of the two editors received a DS notification some time ago, and I've just notified the other here [26]. Assistance will be appreciated. EEng (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not every bit of information in every source has to have citations. The original research has to be done somewhere. This is a list of VERIFIED people, just like table E, and to quote that discussion, "Table E is reliable for claims about age because it has a fact checking process". Same applies to table C. No reason to consider it unreliable. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually the WP:BURDEN for statements is on the person arguing for its inclusion. I have no idea what "original research" you think should be done here (WP:OR states essentially zero). The issue is whether Table C is a reliable source. Whatever it is, it can be discussed here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
What Ollie means is that the secondary sources we rely on are allowed to (in fact, must do, if they are to be useful) the OR/SYNTH we WP editors are forbidden to indulge in. That's true, but there's no reason that such sources, in doing their OR, can't cite the sources (primary or secondary) that they're relying on, to give an added level of confidence. In fact, sources that cite their own sources are preferred to those who don't (I forget where the guidelines say that), and for extraordinary claims like "no one else in the world is as old as X", it seems reasonable to required such transparency. EEng (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

GRG Table C

Rather than at Talk:Yukichi Chuganji, let's discuss Table C here. Is it a list of claims that the GRG has verified or not? Can someone please comment and the comment should not be "it is because I know it is" as that's not particularly helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

At Yukichi Chuganji, Table C is being used for footnote 7 within it which stated that "Guinness World Records support for the Kamato Hongo claim (Sept 16 1887?-Oct 31 2003), initially accepted in 2002, withdrawn in 2012, effective Sept 13." The issue is not whether or not the GRG has verified the claim but whether the GRG's claim about Guinness' claim is reliable. I'm starting to second-guess whether a discussion here makes sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The same problem has arisen in another article [27]. Though the citation is to a different GRG page [28], the problem is the same: these statements about who was "the titleholder" (unsavory as they are) assert a negative no one, including GRG, can possibly support unless we accept GRG as some kind of super-source trumping all other sources.

Table E was found to be reliable based on evidence that each person listed as being born on Date X and still alive on Date Y is backed up by GRG's checking that those assertions are true, as to that person; and one can believe that a small group of dedicated amateurs with limited resources can make such a check reliably, according to a level of proof they've spelled out for all to see. Table C, however, purports to list "World's Oldest Person Titleholders Since 1955" i.e. that not only had Person P achieved a certain age on a certain date, but (the assertion is) no one else had also. Table C asserts a negative that GRG has no way of backing up, because obviously there's no way for GRG to know that, and even if we agree to interpret "World's Oldest Person" as "World's Oldest Known/Verified Person", that simply leads to the question, Known to whom? As discussed at length elsewhere, GRG has no corner on the "ago verification" market (what its aficionados would like us to believe notwithstanding) and while it's fine for them to hold up their favorite very old oldsters for admiration, they're in position to say that no one else might compete with them. Other authorities may have other standards of verification which are just as valid as GRG's.

Essentially the fanboys want to us agree that "Oldest known to GRG (according to GRG's particular standards)" is that same as "Oldest know period", and that's never going to happen, obviously. Thus statements like "Chuganji was not recognized as the world's oldest person during his lifetime; back then, the case of Kamato Hongo was still recognized and considered valid by the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) and Guinness World Records, who both withdrew their previous acceptance of Hongo's case in 2012" [29], sourced to GRG alone, have no place in this (or any other) article. It's part of the continuing effort to have GRG occupy an anointed place as a source for longevity material.
EEng (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
It's quite clear from looking at outside sources (and just using common sense) that the GRG and Guinness World Records are the established authorities when it comes to determining who the world's oldest man/woman is. Disagree? Then that's a separate discussion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with including such statements if appropriately sourced. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Table C asserts a negative that GRG has no way of backing up, because obviously there's no way for GRG to know that, and even if we agree to interpret "World's Oldest Person" as "World's Oldest Known/Verified Person", that simply leads to the question, Known to whom? As discussed at length elsewhere, GRG has no corner on the "ago verification" market (what its aficionados would like us to believe notwithstanding) and while it's fine for them to hold up their favorite very old oldsters for admiration, they're in position to say that no one else might compete with them. Other authorities may have other standards of verification which are just as valid as GRG's. ----> Back to the very basics: how does Wikipedia work? Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources (not original research) making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). In this situation, we have two reliable sources dealing with world's oldest person recordholders (GRG and GWR) who are widely considered authorities on the subject. Notice that virtually all media articles on the subject (even those reporting on claimants older than the GRG/GWR-recognised oldest person) quote the GRG and/or GWR, not any other hypothetical sources which you only speculate about.
If another source DOES come along and says "we recognise Person X as the world's oldest", then assess how reliable/reputable the source is. Contrary to what Ricky and EEng often claim, not all sources have to be given equal weight as per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. If the source in question is not as reputable, then its claims should not be presented alongside those of the GRG/GWR as if equally valid. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes but we have two reliable sources that state they recognized Person X as the world's oldest at that time and a Table C which claims that at that time Guinness and the GRG would not have claimed that (created years later), which then makes me question whether that is true or not. I mean either the newspapers didn't bother to consider Guinness or the GRG a source or they did and Table C may be inaccurate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Quite right. EEng (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Ollie, you're not addressing the actual argument. I'd the be the last person to claim all sources get equal weight. It's not that. It's just that GRG isn't in a position to to know about even all oldsters who have the right paperwork. They're not some master, official clearinghouse everyone has to go through. The person they call "the oldest in the world" isn't even "the oldest in the world reliably known" -- he/she is just the oldest who has bothered to send to their paperwork to GRG. It's like if Joe collects widgets -- he's got a huge collection, and he advertises aggressively. But there's no reason to think that the oldest widget Joe has is the oldest widget anywhere, or even the oldest widget in captivity: Joe has some pretty rigid rules by which he only allows ultaperfect, purebred widgets into his collection, and there are other widget collectors out there who follow different rules who may very well have older widgets. Some widget collections are publicly cataloged, but many are not, and anyway when Joe announces the "oldest widget" he ignores any he hasn't personally inspected.

So it's not that there are competing sources on what the oldest widget is -- it's that there's no source in a position to make the claim at all. EEng (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, there's an obvious difference between "oldest person" and "oldest documented person". Neither the GRG or GWR are claiming, definitively, that any given person is definitely the world's oldest. Secondly, it's not up to Wikipedia editors to overrule reliable sources. What you're doing is engaging in WP:OR. Most, if not all, outside sources recognise the GRG and GWR as the leading authorities in this subject area, so Wikipedia should too. That's all that needs to be said. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You're still missing the point. GRG isn't the only "documenter". Meanwhile, a source is not 100% or 0% reliable -- it can be reliable for some claims, and not for others e.g. Table E is considered RS, table EE not. It's our job to make these evaluations, it isn't done in a vacuum, and doing so isn't OR. EEng (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
What other "documenters" do you see then? And yeah, of course its our job to make these evaluations, and if you take the time to do so, you will see that both the GRG and GWR are the organisations quoted almost universally by outside sources as the official arbiters of human longevity. Do you not accept that, or do you not like that? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
That you connect the word "official" to GRG / Guinness shows you don't understand the meaning of the word. EEng (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Table C cannot possibly be considered reliable to source any fact. The only possible thing that could be said from Table C is that "X is the oldest person from Y that has submitted their materials to the GRG." But that fact is fairly arbitrary. Why should people who have submitted documents to the GRG be considered more significant than those who have not? Still, a discussion here is not going to be productive. I recommend the reliable sources noticeboard. Please ping me if such a noticeboard discussion is created, as well as everyone else involved in the discussion here, so we can all say our piece. ~ RobTalk 04:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
BU Rob13 Are you arguing to throw out Table E and the GRG overall then for anything beyond "the GRG has confirmed the following birth and death date"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: Table E is alright for age, DOB, DOD, birthplace, residence, and all other facts listed. Inferring from the list that someone is actually the oldest living person in X place, or similar, is likely to be wildly inaccurate. It's attempting to source a negative, essentially (i.e. "There exists no person older than Y in location X"), which is impossible to do. Qualifying them as the oldest known person is better, but that means oldest known to the GRG, which is fairly arbitrary. I absolutely would consider the GRG's rankings on their tables to be inaccurate and unreliable when stated as fact. That includes all of Table C's ranks as the "oldest" within a location. ~ RobTalk 17:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Proof that all supercentenarians are notable

We proceed by contradiction. Let S be the set of nonnotable supercentenarians, and suppose S is nonempty. Then S has an oldest member Y i.e. Y is the oldest person who is nonnotable. Ah, but that makes Y notable! Therefore Y is not in S, a contradiction. Thus S is empty i.e. there are no nonnotable supercentenarians. EEng (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC) ;)

As a math major, the logical gaps are atrocious there but I think we should cut down on the comedy here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
As an English major, let me point out that the logical gaps can't be a math major. EEng (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Just kidding -- math major here too. But what comedy are you talking about?
I think you've gone insane. Take a few weeks off. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, the doctors say I'm not dangerous anymore, if that's what you're worried about. EEng (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Or conversely and perversely, applying your proposals, there are no notable supercentarians. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but no, that's not true. As long as the universe under consideration (all supercents) is subject to selection of some extreme member under some attribute (e.g. oldest, youngest) then the proof only works in the direction of all-are-interesting/notable. You can't use it to show all are uninteresting/nonnotable. EEng (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
EEng I was talking about your course of conduct and its effects, not the proof. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Then you really haven't been paying attention. Most of my AfD nominations here have been based on NOPAGE, which has nothing to do with notability. EEng (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People/Archive_7&oldid=1116076157"