Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Colour in tables

• The use of colour in tables goes against MOS:COLOUR. Currently many of the tables use colour to denote verified/pending/other cases and this must be changed. Since pending will no longer be a designation, colours really aren't necessary. However, I do think it's valuable to note which of the entries in a table have been verified by the GRG; it just can't be done by colour. I can think of two solutions: split up the tables into verified and other cases, or denote verified cases with an asterisk instead of another column. Which do the members of this project prefer? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ollie231213, per [1], I've removed all pending entries from List of supercentenarians who died in 2014 and List of supercentenarians who died in 2015 - even those sourced to newspapers and obituaries.

I don't think removing the entries is the best thing to do but reverting the changes without an edit summary, as TFBCT1 has done, is not acceptable. Personally, I'd rather keep entries sourced to newspapers and obituaries because those are considered reliable sources whereas the GRG pending table is not. Newspapers are generally considered reliable because they usually engage in fact-checking whereas GRG table EE is a user-created list of entries that has not been fact-checked. Also, I think using primarily table E as a source for these articles is too much like the GRG using Wikipedia as a webhost. Therefore, I'm going to rework those pages to remove all entries sourced only to pending tables and the colours. Ca2james (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reworked List of supercentenarians who died in 2015 to remove colour, to remove anything sourced only to table ee, and to add a note showing which entries have been verified by the GRG. I'm not sure about the note being called GRG but I couldn't think of anything better; if someone wants to change its name or move it to a different place that's fine. However, please don't just revert the changes because you want things to be the way they were. The use of colour in that table and the use of table ee is not supported by the broader wikipedia community. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

....and it's been reverted without discussion. Honestly, I thought my new version of deaths in 2015 was much better than my first try, where I took out half of the article: only one entry was removed because it had no other source (which, since table ee is not considered a reliable source, that's what has to happen), all the inappropriate colour was removed, and there was still a way to see which entries were verified by the GRG. So 166.171.121.17, why did you revert my changes? What is your objection? Ca2james (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the GRG should have a separate tag but at the very least the tag should link to the reference and include the date of the reference (see here). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I see your point. I like the reference to the footnote. An alternative would be to just refer all verified listings to Table E and skip the footnote altogether. However, I do see some value in differentiating verified from non-verified listings - it's just that the extra column and use of colour create an UNDUE weight problem, in my mind. Ca2james (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Table E is what they are doing right now. It's a bizarre way to do because they seem to post updated spreadsheets and no archives (rather than say actual like papers or something) but we don't want to ignore it in case they change it and we need to use archive.org for some reason (for example, the GRG in 2007 included Thomas Peters as a verified claim but removed him by the 2014 version). No one has offered any explanation for that. There's no reason to care about non-GRG verified listings. It's not like we're just listing nonsense if the GRG doesn't agree. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

And where exactly did you guys gain consensus to make all these changes? Ollie231213 (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the current version violates the MOS doesn't matter? WP:BOLD then to fix these articles to fit in line with policy (actual policy not just what the WOP thinks of as policy). The consensus across all of Wikipedia is that color alone isn't a way to do things and local consensus here ignoring that doesn't change the matter. Are you just being argumentative now? Care to offer an opinion on how it should be done that does solve the MOS issues? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No one cares that you think the GRG isn't reliable. The GRG is the world's leading expert in longevity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Striking troll. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Please explain how any of these articles violate MOS:COLOUR. Let's actually quote the relevant guideline: "Do not use color alone to mark differences in text: they may be invisible to people with color blindness." It does NOT say that colour can't be used at all. Previously we've had articles like List of supercentenarians who died in 2015 colour-code verified and pending cases, but with a separate column stating whether cases are verified or pending. That doesn't violate MOS:COLOUR. Likewise, at List of the verified oldest people, living cases are colour-coded green, but the word "living" is included, so it's clear to everyone that they are still living. Using colour in these ways makes information more accessible to most users but does not prevent colour-blind users from accessing it.

So let me make it clear: it is a totally false assertion and misrepresentation of MOS:COLOUR to say colour can't be used in the way it currently is. Ollie231213 (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

MOS:COLOUR also says: Even for readers with unimpaired color vision, excessive background shading of table entries impedes readability and recognition of Wikilinks. Background color should be used only as a supplementary visual cue, and should be subtle (consider using lighter, less-dominant pastel hues) rather than a glaring spotlight. The use of colour in the tables is not at all subtle and is definitely a glaring spotlight - especially since the colours of the pending/verified/whatever cell are different than the background colour of the row. The fact that the colour didn't display properly when the table was sorted is also a problem. Finally, while I could see why colour might have been used when there were "verified", "pending", "not verified" entries, we will now only have to differentiate between "verified" and "not verified" so colour isn't needed for that.

The article List of the verified oldest people doesn't need colour, either (which again is not subtle, and which again does not display properly when the table is resorted), because the entry already says the person is living. Ca2james (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• What you consider "subtle" is a matter of opinion.
• I haven't noticed any issues when sorting tables but if there are I'm sure they can be fixed.
• Colour may not be "needed" (i.e. vital) but I find it helpful when reading the articles to see things colour-coded. Ollie231213 (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. I can think of uglier colour combinations but honestly, the colouring used on the tables is not what most would call subtle. If the articles were for the GRG then I could see why you'd want to keep the colour as the colour makes it easier to see the which entries need action or need to be followed in the article. However, these articles aren't for the GRG, and encyclopaedia readers don't need to take action or keep track of who is living or validated or whatever. Ca2james (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• May I suggest something? How about we italicize the names that are living? We can keep the color if people want but I think that's a better to distinguish the living from the dead names. See these edits. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Italics works for me as long as it's ok from an accessibility standpoint. Ca2james (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note that all of the articles in Category:Lists of supercentenarians by country, Category:Lists of supercentenarians by continent, and lists by historical country and macroregion use colour only to define verified/pending/unverified as well as living/deceased. These articles need a significant amount of work to bring them up to WP standard. Ca2james (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The macro and historical ones are probably the worst offenders. Their "introductions" alone all need a massive re-write. CommanderLinx (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is plenty of work to do. It seems like each article has a bit of edit warring, then possible protection and then some silence. Let's see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Hi all, I have semi-protected the project page and the talk page for a month after the 166.X.X.X IP (previously blocked) started re-editing the main page. Hopefully this will not prevent many useful edits here; it appears that most of the regular users are autoconfirmed. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Race column

Some articles, such as List of North American supercentenarians, include a race column with unlabelled abbreviations B, W, O, etc. I'm thinking we should remove the race column because reliable sources may not include it and guessing is WP:OR. Thoughts? Ca2james (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No one said anything so I removed the race column from the above article to align it with the other region articles, which don't have a race column. Ca2james (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

List of African supercentenarians listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of African supercentenarians to be moved to List of oldest African people. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

This project has been mentioned at ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption at WOP AFDs. There is also a complaint at WP:ARCA asking Arbcom to restore the discretionary sanctions for Longevity. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The ARCA page is not limited to the named parties there but I'd ask that anyone who wishes to comment there review Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity in full first and understand that the request is related to the reinstatement of Remedy 4.3.1 from then. If someone thinks that the problems from then have been resolved (or that editors such as myself coming into the pictures are creating the problems), just say so there. Better to speak now than try to argue it later. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed table structure

moved from User talk:Ca2james#Proposed table structure Ca2james (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a proposed table structure for articles with tables to avoid the use of colour and to convey which organization has validated the entry. Ca2james (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that he validation of exceptional longevity is so much a scientific concept as a sociological one, but that's just me. According to the RSN discussion which refers to MOS, we have to note when the birth date is unconfirmed, which isn't the same thing as saying that an entry is unverified. So that's got to be inlcuded as well. So what about this:

Name	Sex	Birth date	Death date	Age	Place of death	Verified by
Gertrude Weaver	F	4 July 1898	6 April 2015	116 years, 276 days	United States	GWR
Anna De Guchtenaere	F	10 April 1904	6 April 2015	110 years, 361 days	Belgium	—
Orma Slack	F	19 February 1903	13 April 2015	112 years, 53 days	Canada	GRG
Made-up name	F	19 February 1900	11 April 2014	114 years, 51 days	New Zealand	My site
Another name	F	19 February 1903[n.c.]	13 April 2015	112 years, 53 days	Canada	—

• n.c.^ Birth date is unconfirmed

References

I don't know if the "n.c" note is sufficient or the best choice. This version of the table allows sorting based on who has verified the information and allows for the possibility that other groups may verify the information. I personally like leaving the entry blank if it's unverified (or just using an emdash as I've used above) so that it's clear that no one has verified it. What do you think? Ca2james (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"According to the RSN discussion which refers to MOS, we have to note when the birth date is unconfirmed, which isn't the same thing as saying that an entry is unverified." ---> Why not, what's the difference? It's not a bad idea to have a "verified by" column, although if we have a potentially dodgy source (like "my site" or whatever) then it will need to be discussed further and/or taken to RSN to establish if it's a reliable enough source for age verification. Alternatively, we could separate verified and unverified cases in to two separate tables - one with a "verified by" column giving the verifying body, and another which says "the ages of all the people in this table have not been verified by an international body". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Because verifying an entry involves more than just the birth date. It is true that an unconfirmed person-given birth date implies that the person's age is unverified; however, the opposite is not necessarily true as the person's birth date may be confirmed but their age may not be verified due to, say, a marriage certificate not yet being verified. Also, saying that a birth date is unconfirmed relates to the reference giving that birth date while saying that the person's age is verified relates to an external check. Therefore, marking unconfirmed birth dates as unverified does not reflect the true nature of the situation and is a form of WP:OR.

I don't think splitting the tables into verified and unverified is the right thing to do. Moreover, I think it's WP:OR to say that en entry is unverified just because neither the GRG nor the GWR has verified it, because that situation excludes the possibility that another organization has verified it and we just don't know that they've verified the age. Moreover, if another organization does verify ages (and it looks like they're out there), we can't definitively say that it'll be necessary to discuss their reliability at RSN. For example, at one point Boston University had a list of current authenticated supercentenarians (under See also). If that pdf was still available, we could certainly use it as a reference. If there's a disagreement between the GRG and this other organization, then that can be noted. Ca2james (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• "It is true that an unconfirmed person-given birth date implies that the person's age is unverified; however, the opposite is not necessarily true as the person's birth date may be confirmed but their age may not be verified due to, say, a marriage certificate not yet being verified." ---> I don't understand what you mean here. When you say "confirmed", do you mean "true"? Because yes, it's fair to say that just because someone doesn't have the documents to verify their age, it doesn't necessarily mean that their claim is false. But, without evidence, there's no way of being sure.

• I also don't understand what you mean when you say "Therefore, marking unconfirmed birth dates as unverified does not reflect the true nature of the situation and is a form of WP:OR." But if the birth date is unconfirmed, then they aren't verified, and vice versa.

• "I think it's WP:OR to say that en entry is unverified just because neither the GRG nor the GWR has verified it..." ---> If we can't any source saying they're verified then I think we have to assume they aren't. I think it's a greater violation of WP:OR to speculate otherwise. And to be honest, I don't think there are many organisations other than the GRG, GWR, and the IDL that deal with supercentenarian verification. None that I know of certainly. The link you gave above was only a one-off study by the looks of it.

• To be honest, before we take this discussion any further, I'm wondering whether to nominate this article for deletion (along with all other "list of supercentenarians who died in year X" articles) and see if the wider community is in favour of keeping them. The reason for this is that I am questioning the value of such articles... they seem to be little more than directories of news reports and are quite trivial. I could see a little more value if only validated cases were included... you could discern data such as mortality rate, growth of numbers over time, etc. But including unvalidated cases changes that. Again, this kind of article seems something of greater interest to supercentenarian "fans" than the general public. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It isn't only the "Deaths in" articles that need restructuring: all of the tables in the List of articles need restructuring. The table I've proposed will work for all of them, including the country- and region-specific articles and the overall "oldest people" "oldest living people" etc tables. Therefore, I see no reason to pause this discussion.

I guess I didn't explain very well why "unverified" can't be used instead of noting that the birth date is unconfirmed. If there is an unconfirmed birth date, then the person's age is unverified. That's a true statement, right? A person's age can't be verified if the birth date is unconfirmed. So now let's represent the statement logically. Let A represent the statement "there is an unconfirmed birth date" and let B represent the statement "the person's age is unverified". We can now represent the words with If A, then B, or even more succinctly, A → B. When you say But if the birth date is unconfirmed, then they aren't verified, and vice versa, the "vice versa" part is represented by If B, then A, or B → A, which is a logical fallacy. A listing can be unverified for several reasons, not just the birth date, and so saying that the listing is unverified does not accurately show that the birth date is uncertain. If we know that the birth date is uncertain because the person said it themselves in their obit, then we need to say that instead of just saying that the listing is unverified.

And as I've said above, I prefer that entries not verified by the grg or gwr be left blank or with an emdash instead of saying they're unverified. Ca2james (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• But in this context, "unverifed" is only referring to the birth date/age, not any other aspect of the listing, and we could make it clear as such. Alternatively, we could use the term "validated" which is often used interchangeably with "verified" in this field, but has a different meaning on Wikipedia. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just remember that the reliable sources discussion deemed obituaries as unreliable sources for birth dates/ages. And news reports should be the same. Therefore, if you're going to list someone who is not known to be verified by an internationally recognised body with only an obituary/news report as a citation, then you need to make it clear that their age is not confirmed (or they are not validated), and I think it's clearer to explicitly state "not validated" than to just put a dash. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Unverified means that the documents have not been checked. An unconfirmed birth date means that the person-supplied birth date may not be reliable. They are different things we cannot use "not verified" to mean "the birth date may not be reliable" as it's logically false and misleading to equate the two.

What RSN discussion are you reading? The discussion I opened regarding family- or person-written obituaries has deemed that these obituaries are reliable for death dates and may be used for birth dates provided that a note is made indicating that the birth date is unconfirmed or unattested. That's quite different than saying that obituaries are unreliable for birth and death dates. The same situation is probably true for newspaper-written obituaries but I'd rather see the uninvolved community make that decision.

The reason I think it's better to put a dash or leave a blank space is that there's no source for saying that a person's age has not been verified (or validated or whatever). Just because the GRG or GWR hasn't verified an age doesn't mean that the age hasn't been verified by another organization. Just remember that it's better to have no information in a table than incorrect or misleading information. Leaving it blank (or an emdash just to put something in the cell) makes it clear that the age has not been validated by an organization. Ca2james (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• If someone's age is "verified" (by definition, confirmed to be true) then their birth date is confirmed... and vice versa. So I'm failing to understand what your point is here.
• "...deemed that these obituaries are reliable for death dates and may be used for birth dates provided that a note is made indicating that the birth date is unconfirmed or unattested. That's quite different than saying that obituaries are unreliable for birth and death dates." ---> Again, I don't understand what your point is. I never said anything about death dates (there's no reason to think they would be wrong) but if a note needs to put next to a birth date taken from an obituary to say "this birth date is unconfirmed" then then how can that obituary be considered a reliable source for that birth date?
• Ok, I understand your third point...but again, this makes me wonder why we don't either keep validated and unvalidated cases separate, or not include any cases that aren't known to be validated by any major body. Because let me ask you this: what's the upper limit for unvalidated claims? Do we add in someone who dies at the claimed age of 170, even though they clearly aren't that old? Because even though their claim is clearly false, at the end of the day, there's no less evidence supporting a claim like that than an unvalidated claim to 110. How do you decide, arbitrarily, which claims to let through and which to reject, without engaging in WP:OR? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving this discussion to the WOP talk page or at least making sure there's a link to the history here in case people need to refer to it later. Just a small suggestion but I would use "Sources" for the final column than "Verified". Verified has little meaning here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; as you can see, I've moved this sub-section in its entirety to WT:WOP so that all members of this project and other interested editors are aware of the discussion and can comment.

I agree that "Verified by" isn't the best column header but I'm not sure about "Sources", either, since to me, "sources" are references, and the purpose of that column is to indicate which organization has validated the person's age. However, I can't think of a better header. Something with "Validated" in it, maybe? Something like "Validating agency?" I'm all ears. Ca2james (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: I've already made it clear above that the validation of exceptional longevity is a scientific concept accepted for 140+ years, and that there are several organisations (not just the GRG) that validate longevity claims. You're failing to understand Wikipedia's core policies, which forbid original research and require Wikipedia to reflect the mainstream consensus outside Wikipedia. The mainstream consensus for both the scientific view and the "sociological" view (you could argue that GWR is a culturally accepted arbiter of human longevity) is that extraordinary age claims require age verification/validation. So, you can't continue to insist that age validation/verification doesn't mean much on Wikipedia. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is there are no "levels" of sources. There are reliable sources and there aren't. The fact that the GRG has verified them is expressed in that the GRG's sources are listed as a citation. I don't see what is gained by a separate "verified" column other than treating the GRG (and Guiness or whoever) as somehow a "better" level of sources than most sources. Let's just host a RFC on the formatting since it's probably something that could use some outside eyes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It's completely wrong to say that all sources carry equal weight. Read WP:QUESTIONABLE. "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." ---> So, Wikipedia policy says that extraordinary claims require stronger sources. It's clear when it says "reliable sources must be strong enough" that, no, reliable sources are not all the same weight in value. And again, to completely disregard the need for age validation is to not show appreciation for scientific consensus outside of Wikipedia. Read this 1919 article by Alexander Graham Bell. What does this say? "Ann Pouder...the oldest human being of whose birth we have authentic record." ---> Even in 1919 - that is 96 years ago - experts in human longevity spoke of authentic proof of birth, and recognised the need for age validation. Wikipedia should reflect this. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Verified by column

I've been thinking that a "Verified by" table column isn't needed. My reasoning is this: the latest comment on the self- or family-written obituaries at RSN says that they're not reliable for birth dates. Previous comments indicated that if these obits were used for birth dates (and therefore ages) we'd have to note that the date is unconfirmed or unattested.. which is also an indication that they are not reliable for birth dates. Therefore, anything sourced to these obits should be removed from the tables, which means that very few entries that have not been verified by some agency (whether that's the GRG or some country- or study-specific agency, which is how things were done before the GRG was set up) will be in the tables. Anything that has been verified by an agency will be referenced to that agency's verified list and I think that'll be enough.It's possible that news-written obituaries or articles might end up in the tables but without a corresponding verification agency reference, it should be clear that these entries have not been verified by an agency. Thoughts? Ca2james (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that proposal. But to clarify, only those sources such as a verification agency should be listed for ranked, validated data... an "other" list could be used for people who aren't validated by an agency, and for whom the only sources that exist are newspaper reports and/or obituaries. Otherwise there will be some issues. For example, 112 year old Yasutaro Koide is verified as being the world's oldest living man by Guinness World Records, but then there's a story about a man named Bernando LaPallo who claims to be 114. If he is ranked #1 above Yasutaro Koide, then Wikipedia is effectively deciding who the world's oldest man is and ignoring reputable sources like GWR, which is a blatant violation of WP:OR. (Note: my last comment is particularly directed at Ricky who still insists that "all reliable sources are equal"). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not every article table should be a ranked list, as only validated entries can be ranked and we will be including non-validated entries, if they're reliably-sourced. For lists of ranked ages, we have the List of verified oldest people/men/women articles which includes only agency-validated entries. Just because the GRG's Table E includes a List of Validated Living Supercentenarians doesn't mean that Wikipedia can only include that information. Wikipedia is more than the GRG. Moreover, why would Wikipedia be ranking living supercentenarians? That's for the GRG and similar agencies to do so that when the oldest one dies, the next one in line should be named. Not everything included in a GRG table needs to be included in Wikipedia; if data isn't included at GWR and other, similar agencies, then that's an argument not to include it on Wikipedia as WP:UNDUE.

With respect to your example, we wouldn't use that article as a source; we'd use the the story it's referring to, which in turn links back to this story from 2011; the source stories do appear to be reliable and they are valid sources. And so what if his age appears to be older than someone else's? If the reliable sources say that's his age, then the entry is included. That's how WP:RS and WP:V works, and it means that sometimes, articles are incorrect. Wikipedia isn't deciding anything: the reliable sources are making the decisions, and in this article the GWR-validated entry will be referenced to the GWR. Ca2james (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

And what about this article, this article, and this article where experts state that documents show he was born in 1910, not 1901? Oh, now what do we do? Well obviously the documentary evidence and opinion of experts should take precedent, in accordance with WP:UNDUE.

And maybe you aren't understanding: my example shows why you can't rank a mixture of validated and unvalidated cases. If Guinness World Records says the world's oldest man is Yasutaro Koide and have validated his age, then Wikipedia should reflect this. But you can't have Wikipedia saying that Bernando LaPallo is the world's oldest man because a newspaper article says that he was born in 1901, because that's a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR because Wikipedia is ignoring what GWR says. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

What about those sources? They don't support that he's a supercentenarian since they're reporting that some claim is false. Moreover, two of the sources - a blog on yahoo and the Daily Mail - are not considered reliable sources for anything related to BLPs, and certainly not for anything controversial.

On the region and country lists, the oldest verified supercentenarian is named in the lede. I don't see the problem in including someone whose age hasn't been verified by the GRG or GWR or another agency, even if that age is older than the oldest person, provided that the sources supporting that age are reliable according to Wikipedia's definition. Ca2james (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Why would Wikipedia be ranking living supercentenarians?" --> Because it's of encyclopedic interest to know who the oldest people in the world are. As such, validated cases should be ranked if the rankings can be attributed to a reliable source. But it's WP:OR for Wikipedia to bundle together a load of unvalidated longevity claimants (sourced to individual newspaper articles), along with validated cases, and rank them. At the same time, we can't have tables like this one where validated and unvalidated cases are mixed with no mention of their validation status, for all of the reasons I've explained above. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The tables are sortable and people can sort them according to longest life, which accomplishes the same goal as ranking. Not every site ranks the oldest people beyond stating who is the oldest and the country/region articles separately state that information in the lede. It is not WP:OR to not state something that appears on only one site and is not referenced anywhere.

You keep bringing up this "mixing of verified and unverified information". The tables previously mixed them - the difference now is that colour and the rank is removed, along with entries that insufficient sources - and the tables are going to go on mixing them. Ca2james (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the tables DID NOT mix verified and unverified cases - they were separated by rank, colour, and a "verified" column. The point is that you CANNOT treat verified and unverified cases as equal in the same way that you can't treat evolution and creationism as equal. I thought we'd established this.

The tables may be sortable but what if people want to see the "top ten", "top twenty", or whatever? Not ranking them makes that difficult. If the entries are verified there's no reason not to rank them. It becomes original research if Wikipedia creates the ranking itself without sourcing it to anything. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you are actually saying that you want to differentiate verified entries from unverified entries included in the same table - ie you want it made obvious whether an entry is verified or not. This is quite different from not wanting to mix entries, as mixing entries means to include both verified and unverified entries in the same table. Previous versions of some tables, like this one, most definitely mixed entries in the table.

Verified entries are referenced to the agency that verified the entry. I'd thought about putting in an agency-named note instead of a reference, but that won't work when the GRG uses different tables with different update dates. I suppose we could instead include the GRG table reference as-is and also create an agency-specific note for all pages associated with that agency. So anything verified by the GRG on any of its verified tables would have a GRG note. Anything verified on any GWR page would receive a GWR note. Would that work?

The point is that only the actual Verified articles will contain only verified entries. In all of the other articles, we can and must include any entries for which there are reliable sources, whether they're verified or not. That's how Wikipedia works. Ca2james (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The mainstream scientific view is that longevity claims require verification before being considered to be true. If not, then there are no limits to how great a person might exaggerate his/her age. These agencies that have validated the ages are internationally recognized and considered reliable. A newspaper report from a poorly developed country featuring a supposedly 160-year-old person without any proof of their age whatsoever is not reliable. 930310 (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You mean the scientific community believes that things should be based on reliable sources? Well same here. Does anyone disagree with that? I sure wasn't arguing to keep the 170 year old random Nigerian man nonsense at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unverified longevity claims. The options are not "GRG only or all nonsense". There are plenty of newspapers (even the New York Times at times) that aren't considered reliable sources. Rather than repetitive circular arguing here, can you point to a particular person that someone is suggesting that should be kept that is disagreed upon? The only arguments and edit warring I see are rounds and rounds of "why can't we keep our list of pending and unverified claims by the GRG up anyways"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The only reason that repetitive circular arguments are going on is because you keep making straw man arguments.

1. The scientific community's definition of "reliable source" is a little more than just "it says so in a newspaper".

2. No one is saying "GRG only or all nonsense", I'm saying make the distinction between verified and unverified cases to reflect scientific consensus and make Wikipedia as informative as possible for readers. You either haven't bothered to pay attention to what I've said above or are deliberately misrepresenting my point of view.

3. We've already established that Table EE is not reliable and I'm not arguing in favour of keeping lists of pending cases.

Look at Typologies of Extreme Longevity Myths. Note this line in particular: "Invalid age claim rates increase with age from 65% at age 110-111 to 98% by age 115 to 100% for 120+ years." ---> This shows why Wikipedia articles need to make the distinction between people whose ages have been validated by a recognised body and those who have not. Someone being reported on by newspaper does not mean their ages have been validated. A newspaper report is proof of the claim, not that they are the age claimed (in the same way that the Bible is not proof of God's existence, only of the claim).

But it seems to me, Ricky (based on your comment "I sure wasn't arguing to keep the 170 year old random Nigerian man nonsense at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unverified longevity claims" among others) that you seem to be arbitrarily deciding which cases you want to include and which not to. How do you decide if a claim is "nonsense" without engaging in WP:OR? Sure, it's obvious to everyone that that man isn't 170, but there's a 98% chance that a claim to 115 is complete nonsense also. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ollie231213, quoting a paper by Robert Young that says that many supercentenarian cases are false does not actually imply that Wikipedia articles need to make the distinction between people whose ages have been validated by a recognised body and those who have not. The number of false claims has no bearing on how Wikipedia displays the data. Wikipedia articles already make the distinction between verified and unverified by the reference, and I've offered up a solution to differentiate verified and unverified cases, above. You've ignored that, and I'm starting to think that you're not actually interested in finding a way forward but only in trying to go back to the way things were. If that's the case, just tell me and I'll stop wasting my time trying to work with you to find a way forward. (Adding: To clarify, I'm not saying that this discussion is necessarily a waste of my time; I'm saying that if one of the parties isn't coming to the discussion with the goal of moving forward, then the discussion uses up time and energy that could be more productively spent elsewhere. Apologies for the confusion. Ca2james (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC))

You are also misunderstanding the way reliable sourcing and original research work when you accuse Ricky81682 of arbitrarily deciding which cases you want to include and which not to. WP:OR regards writing unsourced content, not evaluating reliable sources. You and other GRG-supporters seem to be operating on the assumption that if something appears in a newspaper, it's automatically a WP:RS and that is most definitely not the case: Wikipedia's definition of reliable source is not "it says so in a newspaper". In the 170 year old Nigerian man case, the source is not reliable for such an extraordinary claim and so would not be included. Ca2james (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

1. The Typologies of Extreme Longevity myths article had a lot of co-authors, not just Robert Young. Why no mention of them?

2. You've gone back to calling me a "GRG-supporter". Why's that?

3. "The number of false claims has no bearing on how Wikipedia displays the data." ---> Not true. It does have a bearing because the more extraordinary the claim is, the higher the standards for sourcing...as per WP:UNDUE.

4. I've tried to propose solutions, but you keep changing your mind. Yes, I want to differentiate verified entries from unverified entries included in the same table. But I'm still not totally sure how you are suggesting the tables are laid out. I'm then also having to respond to Ricky's comments which are straw man arguments, forcing me to have to repeat myself.

5. The pending cases issue has been dropped, so things won't be going back to the way things were. But that doesn't mean that further changes to the way things currently stand aren't needed. And the RSN discussion only decided that Tables E and I were reliable and Table EE was not...it said nothing about whether to list validated data with unvalidated data or whether Wikipedia should be ranking unvalidated cases, or listing unvalidated cases with validated cases. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I named Robert Young because his name was listed first in the author list; since in an alphabetical listing his name would go last, he's clearly the primary author. I included you with GRG-supporters because GRG supporters have had a tendency to consider Robert Young to be the first and last name in gerontology and that his word should go unchallenged. When you cited a paper whose primary author was Robert Young, it seemed to me that you felt the same way. I apologize if I erred.

The solutions you've proposed have been to return to the use of colour, which is going back to the way things were from a display perspective, or to separate validated from unvalidated entries. Neither solution will work: a) colour goes against MOS:COLOUR, and b) from Wikipedia's perspective, any entry that is reliably sourced can be included in the table. Separating the entries implies that some are more reliable than others when we're actually talking about requiring a high level of reliable sources because they're extraordinary claims.

Speaking of extraordinary claims, claiming to be 110+ is an extraordinary claim regardless of how many such claims are false. Moreover, an extraordinary claim is a reliable sourcing issue, not a display issue, which means that the extraordinary claim itself - let alone the number of false claims - has no bearing on how Wikipedia displays data. Ca2james (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:COLOR does NOT prohibit the use of colour. Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. ---> As long as the relevant information is displayed in the table, it can be colour coded. The advantages of colour coding is that it helps to communicate information more easily to most people.

As for your point b, I'm not totally sure what you mean. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Second point: If you're saying that 110+ claims are extraordinary, then normal sourcing alone won't do for "extraordinary" claims. The issue now is how "extraordinary" is "extraordinary"? If you say 110+, then you could argue that newspaper citations alone may not be enough to support the "extraordinary" claim, especially if it is presented as if it were true. No one is saying that we can't report unbelievable/unrealistic longevity claims/myths - only that they need to be separated from real ones. Note, for example, the separation of zoology from cyptozoology. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Notes indicating Validation

I've made a change to List of North American supercentenarians to make a note (attached to the birth date) that the entry has been validated by the GRG. I'd already made a change to this article to combine all the notes, number them automatically, and keep the note with the text it's noting so the "Validated by GRG" note is going in the same place. What do you think? Ca2james (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ollie231213 and Canadian Paul, what do you think of the GRG tag to indicate an entry validated by the GRG over at List of North American supercentenarians? Ca2james (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not a bad version, as it does at least indicate validation status. However, a couple of things I would say:

1. The current "GRG tag" system isn't sortable, so doesn't allow users to sort the people in the list by validation status (thus seeing validated cases on their own). If validated cases are not ranked, then I think this should be an option. As per your previous suggestion, I don't think we unvalidated cases should be labelled as such - so the validated column would only positively identify validated cases.

2. With a more clearly identified "tag" for validation, the need for the use of colour becomes a moot point. Colour or no colour would be a matter of style, not substance, as the information is conveyed in the data list itself. Note that WP:COLOUR does not prohibit the use of colour in tables, and as long as the colour contrasts are not going to cause a problem for colour-blind readers, colour coding verified and unverified entries makes the table more accessible to the reader. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why the "GRG" needs to be treated as some "super source" that separately validates claims. It's a source and absent a dispute between reliable sources, it should be treated as any other source. The New England Journal of Medicine is one of the most well-respected medical journals. Our medical articles don't have "this claim was validated by the NEJM" to distinguish claims that refers to it as a source from claims that don't. We seem to be going in circles around this issue so I'm starting an RFC on the very topic itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about this while I was walking my dog this afternoon. I realized that this wouldn't be an issue if we were dealing with secondary sources; although the GRG validated tables are reliable sources, they're reliable primary sources. If we had secondary sources for the verified data (note that the published tables are still primary sources) we could set things up the way they do and there would be no question. (As an aside, the fact that there's a lack of secondary sources for pretty much all of the tables suggests that many of the articles associated with this project might not meet WP:GNG, but that's something to consider later). Since we don't have secondary sources, we go with what Wikipedia does elsewhere. As Ricky81682 points out, Wikipedia doesn't state who validated claims in other areas beyond having a reference, which is a strong indicator for not explicitly stating that the data is validated and by which group in these articles. Ca2james (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We can take it to the RFC where I see Ollie has already started. Remember that the 2010 Arbcom case that got Robert Young banned had already had maybe two to three years of antics of his prior to that including massive, massive sockpuppetry to get the GRG plastered everywhere (and purely for professional COI interests) so I've never been one to be a big believer in the whole "this is for science" bit here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made some comments there. I've been reading through the original arbitration case and some of the history to get a sense of how things have gone before and it's unfortunate that so little has changed. I also take the "but this is science!!!!" claim with a rather large grain of salt. It's clear to me that Robert Young and the GRG think very highly of themselves and that their supporters think the sun rises and sets on them. It's odd because their behaviour and unquestioning belief in the awesomeness of Robert Young and the GRG are more akin to religious than scientific beliefs.

There are organisations that are studying the very old, and they've published quite a lot of research, but they don't have much to do with the GRG. There's so much more to gerontology studies than the GRG - like social and financial impacts, actuarial interests, genome research, and so on - but the focus of all these articles is just displaying the record-keeping that the GRG has done. Record-keeping is important and has a place but I think that, absent independent external validation of the notability of that record-keeping, the articles could use a change in focus (or deletion). Ca2james (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place for red-herring personal attacks on a long-blocked member unable to respond. And I will make this same point AGAIN: You are failing to understand the difference between the GRG's interests and those of "fans". There's no "GRG fan club" on the GRG website. Much of the issue here really isn't about the GRG, it's about "fancruft". The 166 IP is NOT a GRG member of even a WOP project member. This kind of "fan" behaviour is being stamped out. Most of the people from the 2010 ArbCom case have moved on. I wasn't even on Wikipedia until 2013. We should be discussing what is happening NOW, not on what happened five years ago. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In my comment I think I made it quite clear that I was distinguishing between GRG supporters and the GRG. There is no GRG fan club on the GRG site but there are two other forums - the yahoo forum, which is still active, and the 110 club on invisionfree, which is also still active - where GRG members, supporters, and fans of the GRG/supercentenarians/longevity gather and talk amongst themselves.

During the original case, it came to light that there was extensive off-wiki coordination and meatpuppery (primarily on the yahoo group) with respect to these articles that was led by that long-blocked editor. Even though some of the editors from the original case are longer here, the fact that the current editors hold the same views and make the same arguments as the editors from that case suggests that the coordination may still be happening. I hope that no such off-wiki discussion and coordination is happening and that the similarity in argument and behaviour is the result of some other cause. Ca2james (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally I don't even think that this article should exist. It's a trivial intersection of information that is borderline original research since it hasn't been engaged in multiple, reliable third-party sources. I'd personally qualify this one as an indiscriminate collection of information and suggest deletion, but that's just me. Canadian Paul 18:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and think that the other "List of" region-specific and country-specific articles have the same issues, as do the "Deaths in" year articles. Ca2james (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Please note that discretionary sanctions now apply to all longevity-related pages per this motion. Editors of such pages can be informed of the sanctions by placing {{subst:alert|old}} on their talk page. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Project pages

One question: what is the point of Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians and Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians/Incomplete cases in terms of this project? If people only want to include listings by the three or so "super reliable sources" (for lack of a better term) with the GRG being one, what are those pages for? There are hundreds of listings all over the place and if we are supposed to be only including the GRG listing when they become verified, the pages do nothing for Wikipedia. Literally nothing other than a potential storehouse of additional sources for a potential article about a notable supercentarian (should that person become one) that is also verified by the GRG. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a potential future supercentenarian so I want to be listed too. EEng (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Can I be on the list too even though there's zero chance I'll live that long? After all, until I actually die I'm still technically a potential future supercentenarian. Ca2james (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a time and a place, EEng... ~ Rob^Talk 15:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I swear to God it just came out that way.EEng (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, why aren't the people who are 110+ included in the various List of articles instead of being listed on these two pages? Ca2james (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I imagine it's due to lack of reliable sources (or sources that certain editors see as reliable, see above discussion). ~ Rob^Talk 14:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Because they're fanfluff listcruft. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Standard for mini-bios

I redirected Olympe Amaury to List of French supercentenarians because the subject isn't notable and there's nothing to the article. Another editor created a "mini-bio" for this person at List of French supercentenarians#Olympe Amaury by copying (without attribution) the article before it was redirected. There are other examples of this kind of thing; some of the mini-bios at the bottom of the French list are little more than the information in the table. Also, in this AfD some editors are suggesting a mini-bio and I'm not sure that's warranted.

Is there any kind of standard for determining when and how to create one of these mini-bios in these List of articles? If not, I suggest that for consistency and ease for the reader and for other editors, some kind of standard be developed. I think that anyone who is notable only for being a supercentenarian should not have a mini-bio. I also think some of these mini-bios are being created because the person was the second oldest in this region or something, but that can be taken care of in footnotes to the main table. Thoughts? Ca2james (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's something I posted long ago [2]:

It seems to me that all or almost all of the info in [these mini-bios] is either already in the tables (e.g. birthdate) or could be represented (and more usefully at that) by careful extension of the tables and templates already in use: when she became the oldest, "predecessor/successor" for this and that record, cause of death, birthplace. That makes even these minibios unnecessary as well. Of course, if there's something really worth saying about the person's life, which can't be fit into the tables and yet doesn't lend notability for a separate article (though I predict there will be very few cases of this) then the table can #anchorlink to a minibio below. Or where there's a photo available the table can #anchorlink to that too, and the bottom of the article can have a nice gallery of pictures, each caption carrying one or two interesting facts that don't fit in the tables e.g. Fred Flintstone, a WWI veteran[1] and lifelong stamp collector,[2] hang-gliding at 108.

I might add that even if the subject is notable for some unusual reason, in many cases a standalone page would still not be the best way to present him or her -- WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Your long-ago self made good points there. I agree that the mini-bios are not needed. Even if some (most? all?) of them weren't being kept as a way of keeping deleted/merged articles, they aren't giving any additional information that couldn't be otherwise represented. With respect to record-holders - "second oldest in this country, tenth oldest in that region" - if that needed to be included, I think the table could be extended. However, I'm not sure we want to include any ranking information except for those people who are or were oldest in a country/region/world because those are designated solely by the GRG. Even then I'm not sure whether anything other than the oldest in the world as certified by Guinness/the GRG should be included, based on your (thoughtful) take here.

I do love the idea of a gallery of people in the tables that include additional interesting points (like "cultivated and sold fruits and vegetables" or "has 100 grandchildren") because I think that would be more meaningful plus it would be a way to humanise and personalise these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca2james (talk • contribs)

I'll pass on the compliment to my long-ago self. Hey, long-ago self‍—‌this gent says you made some good points! It's a shame there are no supercentenarians who were (say) serial killers, because that'd make a really gripping minibio! EEng (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I support the removal of all mini-bios, and I'm weighing over whether I should just boldly do such a removal myself. MOS:SAL states a stand-alone list consists of a lead and list content. This is an entire article-length section of prose outside of the lead, which is clearly not meant to be part of a stand-alone list. Additionally, if an AfD closes without consensus to merge the information anywhere, then taking the content of the subject that has been deemed non-notable and pasting the full article within another article is clearly a circumvention of consensus. This is pretty cut-and-dry to me. A mini-bio would be warranted if and only if the person was notable, in which case an actual article could be created (or possibly a single article to house all such biographies within a category as per WP:NOPAGE). ~ Rob^Talk 03:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd start with this one. I took the original article to AFD where it was closed as redirect (not merge), but someone decided to copy the entire article and make a mini-bio on another country article. Which I believe goes against the AFD decision. This one is amazing because the mini-bio tells us nothing that isn't in the table a few mouse scrolls above. There are probably loads more than could be removed and you'd lose no valuable information either. I've removed a few mini-bios because they were unreferenced and haven't had any complaints. CommanderLinx (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Christ what a lot of fancruft this stuff is. "List_of_Portuguese_supercentenarians", "... of Portuguese emigrant supercentenarians", "... Oldest Portuguese person by district and region", "Chronological list of the oldest living person in Portugal since 1998" -- my God, what trivia! "Limbo cases"??? EEng (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes there's a lot of cruft there. I've been merging the emigrant tables and removing the chronological lists as I come to them. I'm moving fairly slowly so that my changes have a few days to settle in before I look at the next few. I haven't seen these limbo cases before but that needs to go or be merged into another table. There's a lot of work to do. Ca2james (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't help marveling at the trivia:

"Augusto Moreira de Oliveira (6 October 1896 – 13 February 2009) was at his death age 112 years, 130 days, Portugal's oldest ever man, and the oldest person in Portugal at the time of his death. He was the 4th-oldest man in the world, the 2nd-oldest man in Europe and the 5th-oldest person in the continent. He ranks in the top 25 oldest men ever and was one of the 25 oldest verified living people in the world. He is the 6th oldest person ever from Portugal. On 2 January 2009, Oliveira became Portugal's oldest living person."

Who gives a shit? What does this have to do with anything? Then there's a little box saying "Oldest recognized living person in Portugal / 2 January 2009 – 13 February 2009 / Preceded by Maria de Jesus / Succeeded by Antonio de Castro" like he was a senator or something. What's "recognized"?

These rankings... they're either SYNTH/OR on WP's part, or they come from GRG's extremely incomplete tables. If so, we shouldn't be building all this "predecessor/successor/17th ever" stuff around them, because GRG's rankings are basically a strained attempt to "connect the dots" -- when we know 90% of the dots are missing. There's no significance whatsoever to such stuff when almost all the data is missing anyway. I'm beginning to see the merit of a position which says

• we should have articles on notable old people -- and by notable I mean multiple sources, not passing mentions, not 1E (which I think being old might be), not merely being listed in GRG's tables -- or joint/merged/list articles per WP:NOPAGE where there's little to say about the person despite notability
• no mention at all of a person who's only "notability" being in GRG's tables and 1E coverage
• none of these attempts to link ("predecessor"/"successor") or rank ("for 3 days the oldest peson in Ruritania's Smuggledink Province") them at all, except to the extent mainstream sources report it widely. Notice I'm saying "mainstream" sources here, not just "reliable", to limit this stuff to things that the general reader might care about. In other words, if a big Polish news outlet reports that X was the oldest person in Y part of Poland, I guess we might mention that about this person; just because GRG, which obsessively connects the dots between everyone on their lists whether anyone else cares about it or not, then no. And since that means in most cases there's no successor or predecessor, or meaningful group of people to rank against, all that stuff goes out the window.

EEng (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I actually think we should the opposite and remove the chronological tables in place with mini-bios. At List of Japanese supercentenarians, I started removed the first three the oldest living men from the table into short biographies. I think the short ones (even a single line if nothing more) is better than table rankings as it allows for more of a story there (while Ishizaki is a bit on the ridiculous side with cruft I admit). Japan is a bit of an oddity since so many of those men have their own separate articles but it allows for more flexibility and stories which will allow us to use more than the GRG as a source (and prevent the "really" reliable sources argument). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion/Suggestion on List Colors

I posted this on Talk:List of Japanese supercentenarians, and User:Ca2james recommended that I post it here, so more editors can discuss this:
I understand that using only colors to differentiate entries on tables violated WP:MOSCOLOR. However, nothing in the manual of style prohibits the use of color along with other identifying formatting (such as the italics currently being used). Therefore, I have a suggestion: for living entries, add in a soft, preferably pastel background color to more easily distinguish them from deceased persons for people with normal sight (because it's not easy to see the italics at a glance, to be honest). That way, background color can be used as a "supplemental visual cue" as the manual permits, without it being garish and overcolored either. Because this would affect a large number of articles and lists, we should have a discussion on what specific color and shade would be most appropriate, as the colors used before were often bold and bright, which is against standard. Thoughts/other suggestions? Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 04:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. I have no objection to using colour to highlight living people in tables in addition to the italics as I agree that in large tables, italics can be hard to see. However, I'm not convinced that green is the best colour to use and I'm hoping that we can discuss alternate colour here while referring to MOS:COLOUR. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Bulleted list rather than tables

I wonder if we should re-organize these pages to remove some tables. If I were looking at say, List of Australian supercentenarians, I would prefer that we have a bulleted list on top of the living people (alphabetical order by last name as ranking it is nonsensical largely) with less details (just name and birth date is all that matters) and all footnotes at the end of each line. Then a possible table for all supercentenarians (or bulleted list) and then covert the chronological list into a series of paragraph biographies (like at List of Japanese supercentenarians but most of which are one line sentences at the moment). The biographies with more details can be fleshed out into separate articles down the line and referenced in other places. That allows for more working on the actual drafting of text and less on the movement of tables. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

See the idea for the biographies here. The overall list would need to be fleshed out further and then a shortened males list for the few that fit both. That'll provide some more coherent organization as discussions that go like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo and are just blatantly ignored is not a long term solution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that some of the tables can be removed from the articles, especially for articles have are basically just a list of tables. Converting the table of living supercentenarians into an alphabetical bulleted list makes sense. Are you thinking that the living entries should also be removed from other tables on that page? I think they should be removed, since the person's rank in the list of supercentenarians won't be determined until their death.

Looking at List of Australian supercentenarians, I'm thinking that the Chronological list of the oldest living person in Australia since 2007 table should be merged into the Australian supercentenarians table - or at least, the Chronological list should be made a bulleted list since information on the entries should be in the supercentenarians table. Ca2james (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Validated and unvalidated data should not be mixed, if you remove the coloration and the rankings then the data will be just that. The coloration is not a violation of WP:COLOR which allows color to be used, so long the information is also presented another way. The rankings and the sourcing for every case already does that. 930310 (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are we going in circles again and again? WP:IDHT again I see. Whether or not the GRG has or hasn't "verified" or "validated" or whatever term you want to use a name is not a point that needs to be reflected here. If the GRG hasn't verified a source, then we look for other reliable sources. If another source has, then it gets listed. If we have a conflict on sources, then people can discuss the particular person and the conflicting sources and we can resolve the issue. However, for the upteenth time, we aren't just going to go with "the GRG hasn't verified it so literally no other source in the world matters." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should be aiming bullets at old people. They deserve respect. EEng (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)