Talk:List of oldest living people: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m added comment |
Bart Versieck (talk | contribs) My reaction |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Let me say this: if the list mirrors the GRG list, what is the purpose? If the list does not mirror the GRG list, who decides the standards and what cases to accept?[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 04:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC) |
Let me say this: if the list mirrors the GRG list, what is the purpose? If the list does not mirror the GRG list, who decides the standards and what cases to accept?[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 04:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
:I don't think this list only mirrors the GRG list because I'm not the only one who edits this article and the other people may not have gotten their information from that list. This list is trying to compile the data from the GRG list and from other lists to make a comprehensive list. Anyway, maybe the article should be deleted as a mirror, perhaps it should be put up in the [[WP:AFD]] and let the masses decide. [[User:Useight|Useight]] 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
:I don't think this list only mirrors the GRG list because I'm not the only one who edits this article and the other people may not have gotten their information from that list. This list is trying to compile the data from the GRG list and from other lists to make a comprehensive list. Anyway, maybe the article should be deleted as a mirror, perhaps it should be put up in the [[WP:AFD]] and let the masses decide. [[User:Useight|Useight]] 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
Actually, there are more people in it (four to be precise), namely almost validated ones as well: great stuff. [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely sexy]] 23:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:18, 29 June 2007
This article is basically plagiarizing the GRG list, and we should consider its removal.Ryoung122 05:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- It'd be hard to have a list of supercentenarians without appearing at least somewhat similar to their list. If anyone can think of any way of making this list less like their's, please make a comment. All I can think of is alphabetizing the list instead of going chronological, but that doesn't really make any sense. Useight 05:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is...who will decide who to include/exclude on this list? And, if it is the 'same' as the GRG list, why have the article at all?Ryoung122 19:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I would think that a list of living people that are 110 or older should include people that are 110 or older. But I see your point, because there are many unverified claims of people's ages. Personally, I think only verified claims should make this list because this is an encyclopedia. As for your other question, I know Wikipedia isn't a mirror, but there are other articles about the oldest, heaviest, etc, and I just like having all the information in one place. Useight 22:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. - I just saw your userpage and now know why you have such an interest in this topic. Useight 22:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me say this: if the list mirrors the GRG list, what is the purpose? If the list does not mirror the GRG list, who decides the standards and what cases to accept?Ryoung122 04:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think this list only mirrors the GRG list because I'm not the only one who edits this article and the other people may not have gotten their information from that list. This list is trying to compile the data from the GRG list and from other lists to make a comprehensive list. Anyway, maybe the article should be deleted as a mirror, perhaps it should be put up in the WP:AFD and let the masses decide. Useight 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there are more people in it (four to be precise), namely almost validated ones as well: great stuff. Extremely sexy 23:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)