Talk:List of the oldest people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Consensus to merge this article

I am requesting a consensus to decide whether to merge this article with oldest people or not. Note that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that this is not a vote. Explain your reasoning, please. The question for consensus will end after five days if there is enough consensus.

  • Support. There is already a list in the article about the oldest people, but some of this article could be merged, except for the trivia and "unverified claims" section. The reason the trivia should not be merged is because lists regarding the topic should be avoided. The reason that the "unverified claims" section shouldn't be merged is obvious: the material should be attributable to a reliable source. It also sounds like speculation. Squirepants101 19:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. As per the initiator and previous voter: indeed. Extremely sexy 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This article should be entirely merged with the oldest people article. I see this article as simply redundant. The oldest people article is also a list -- how many lists of the same thing are needed? -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I was about to propose the same thing myself just before I saw this. (Matt) 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually, both articles are lists. My suggestion is to merge the content and name the article list of the oldest people -AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 21:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The oldest people article itself was created to split the lists out of the Supercentenarian article [1]. This article is not necessary and oldest people should be reverted to the way it was before. An oldest people article without the oldest people just doesn't make sense. 192.75.88.231 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Full marks for you. Extremely sexy 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm going to close this very soon and merge this, now that there is more consensus. I have re-opened this consensus because of User:Ryoung122. Squirepants101 22:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment

Before we all like sheep run off a cliff supporting this merger, I must say I disagree and have several points to consider:

A. This article was originally started as a longer explication of the "Oldest People of All Time" list on the "Oldest People" page. Please note that the "Oldest People" article is NOT a list. It is a COLLECTION OF LISTS along with explanatory texts. Thus, we have:

--World's Oldest Person --Oldest Living Man

--Oldest of all Time (nearly all women) --Oldest Men of All Time --Nationality records

Further, there needs to be an explanation of methodologies, which is why a mere 'list' is not appropriate. Why aren't we including the longevity claims here? What does it take to qualify?

B. It seems the author started the "List of the oldest people" as a one-list, longer version of "Oldest of All Time". Note for sake of brevity and summary, the list on the "Oldest People" page only goes down to age 115 years 0 days. Clearly, we could use a longer version, perhaps a 'top 100' in a separate article. We could link the 'main article.' Note that 'main articles's are NOT an excuse for total deletion. Check out an article such as WWI, there is always a summary of the main article on the linking page.

Note that we already have a situation with a 'main article' for 'oldest by nationality' with a short, table-ized summary on the main page. This strategy would make sense, as it would allow the user looking for a quick answer to find it on the main page, and those interested in a little more detail can click on the extra link.

C. Since the data is less than 20% duplicative, I see no reason for a merger or a deletion.

D. However, should one advocate a merger, we need to discuss 'which way' the merger should go. Again, I prefer 'Oldest People' over 'List of the Oldest People' because it is not one list, and we have in-text explanations, so 'Oldest People' is more than a mere list. → R Young {yakłtalk} 00:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


→ R Young {yakłtalk} 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Here is an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front

The article gives a brief summary and a link to a longer article. We should use the same format here. The main article, "Oldest People," would be the only "Master" article, making it easier to find additional articles with longer lists.

Sincerely, Robert Young Senior Consultant for Gerontology Guinness World Records → R Young {yakłtalk} 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Again below, we see a short summary of 'gas warfare' with a link to "main article: poison gas." An additional article is never a reason to delete the first one, or to delete the summary on the first one.

[edit] Gas warfare

An artist's rendition of Canadian troops at the Second Battle of Ypres.Main article: Poison gas in World War I Despite the German plans to maintain the stalemate with the French and British, German commanders planned an offensive at the Belgian town of Ypres, which the British had captured in November 1914 during the First Battle of Ypres. This was in order to divert attention away from major offensives in the Eastern Front while disrupting Franco-British planning and to test a new weapon. After a two-day bombardment, on 22 April, the Germans released chlorine gas onto the battlefield which drifted into the British trenches.[14] The green-yellow cloud asphyxiated the defenders and those in the rear fled in panic creating an undefended four-mile-wide gap in the Allied line. However, the Germans were unprepared for the level of their success and lacked sufficient reserves to exploit the opening. Canadian troops quickly arrived and drove back the German advance. This Second Battle of Ypres marked the first large-scale use of chemical weapons, where 170 tonnes were dropped on the allied lines, resulting in the deaths of 5,000 men within minutes, despite being prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1899.

The gas attack was repeated two days later and caused a three-mile withdrawal of the Franco-British line. But the opportunity had been lost. The success of this attack would not be repeated, as the Allies countered by introducing gas masks and other countermeasures. An example of the success of these measures came a year later, on 27 April, when 25 miles (40 km) to the south of Ypres, at the Battle of Hulluch, the 16th (Irish) Division's troops were able to withstand determined German gas attacks.


Sincerely Robert Young → R Young {yakłtalk} 00:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. My opinion is:
  • Rgarding the Oldest people article, merge section By nation of death or current residence into article National longevity recordholders. Maybe merge section Emigrant records into tha article to, but it is unlikely.
  • Merge sections Among the oldest ever, The oldest men ever, The oldest people currently living, and The oldest men currently living. (Living people on the listed can be Italic and Bold
  • The section Official oldest living person should be kept, but I'm not sure what to do with Official oldest living man section (To be fair would we have to put "offical oldest women section too? This would create to many lists).

Then after this, we would have three lists: A list to show how the title of "current oldest person" was passed, a National longevity recordholders which has its own article, and a list of the oldest people. Or, perhaps an article entitled List of supercentenarians since there is an article called List of centenarians.

I think it is better to have quick, table-ized answers all in one place. The extra articles are of lesser importance, but there for those who care for more detailed info. As I have shown with the WWI articles, it is always important to have a master, summaritive article with all the most-important information, with links to the smaller articles (i.e. individual battles). Most people know about WWI, but how many have heard of f.e. Chemin des Dames? Thus, to 'grow' the data must be organized from the most basic to the most detailed. We have it that way now, and it's been like this over a year. I see no need to change it. R Young {yakłtalk} 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expand to Top 100

I'd like to see someone expand the list to a "Top 100".R Young {yakłtalk} 03:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay: I will do so, Robert. Extremely sexy 15:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be missing loads of people who have reached 113. If we are to include ALL people who have lived to 113, then the list should be 120+ people long, not about 100. See here, and here (half way down the page). Rrsmac 18:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, but I have to delete a lot of your additions, and swap them for other people who were older. Extremely sexy 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elena Slough birthdate

Elena Slough's birthdate should be July 4, and her age four days older: July 8 was a newspaper reporting error. R Young {yakłtalk} 00:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you now found definite proof for this, since both you and Louis Epstein always stated "July 8th" instead of "July 4th", my dear friend? Extremely sexy 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USA 53 of top 100 (or 55 of top 102)

I wonder if a 'top 100' is enough, or 113+? If we go too low, the list loses some effect...hmmm....R Young {yakłtalk} 03:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think 113+ should be the marker perhaps. It makes no sense at the moment with 102 in the list, and roughly 113 and a half as the minimum age. Either that, or cut it back. Rrsmac 14:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just brought it back to a literal top 100, but Kott isn't in Louis Epstein's list at all, and Chatmon was a year younger according to him: any comments on this from you, Robert? Extremely sexy 23:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_the_oldest_people_ca07.html"