Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People

Our Current Status

Our current status is somewhat inactive, with having an absent group leader and such. However, I'll be watching over this page. Neal (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC).

Not really inactive, as the Project is just beginning. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 00:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, just the 2 of us. But our leader is currently working on his thesis, we'll be active again this summer. Neal (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

This WikiProject may have some virtues, but it now reads like a massive promotional statement for the GRG. This is completely against Wikipedia policies. The collage must be removed. Indeed it would be best to remove all mention of the GRG. I also have concerns that you have a project leader who is on a long term block. He can hardly lead if he can not edit. I do not see that he has agreed to be Project Leader on wikipedia either. I hope that you realise that most projects do not have leaders or coordinates. Some of the images seem to have license concerns and if these are not resolved, then the collage has licence concerns also. It also reads as if you think you own articles. This is against WP:OWN. --Bduke (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, I don't think we want to spam/advertise anything. Which is why we don't list any urls in the page. We merely only link the word GRG which links to the Wikipedia article. Our project leader, politically, has no power on Wikipedia. This place came as a result of not having members having to post on everyone's talk page regarding articles for deletion, which would be canvassing. So the logical thing to do was have a WikiProject page for announcements.

At 1 time, Robert Young, the group leader on his Yahoo board, would announce to his board about which articles were nominated for deletion, and even which admins nominated them, which could be outside-jurisdiction harassment to those admins. And you know what? When WP:ANI or any admin wants to confirm this, he would ban them from his group. Therefore, I felt it necessary to start grounds on Wikipedia for this. That way, we are directly under the watch of WP:ANI / Wikipedia admins. Besides that, he also used his own board for some good things, such as when articles were vandalized, with racial slurs. Do note that R. Young's block did involve "canvassing" via using his own group. We do have Wikipedia admins undercover watching his group, so there should be no problem moving the Wikipedia portion-posts to here.

This project, is of course, for the 'Wikipedians' of Ryoung122's Yahoo group. I pre-maturely started this group before his 2nd unblock request, which he will do this summer. Maybe I created it too early. If Robert Young wants to come back to Wikipedia via his 2nd unblock request, I'm sure some admins will want him to cooperate and not canvass via his own group. This place should (help) solve that problem.

I just added the GRG collage since I thought it was cute. The Yahoo group started as a board explicitly for supercentenrians, in which the GRG only allowed scientists and people with degrees.

No, we don't own articles, I just started a "Articles We Cover" section just to list for our own organization. I really don't care to add any button to the articles that point to this group, such as "this article is under the scope of.. <our group>." I know AMK152 has been doing some of that, but I don't quite support it. Neal (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

It's for a purpose of article Assessment. As this WikiProject's goal is basically to improve the World's Oldest People articles, it would help to know which articles need improving, which articles are close to becoming good/featured/etc. and if an article is about to be deleted, and we have the WikiProject banner on the article's talk page, usually someone will go to the WikiProject's talk page and notify people. Over 1,300 Projects are doing this and there's nothing wrong with it. We can just simply organize and see a list of the status of the articles. And we're not ownign the articles by doing this, we're just a WikiProject with goals for a particular group of articles like all the other projects. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 18:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of Images

I don't understand the purpose of member's pictures. If someone wanted to know what a person looked like, wouldn't they just go look for it on one person's user page? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 18:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like something on the individual level to be worried about. ;/ Neal (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Still, is having these pictures here helping us expand, update, and improve articles in regards to the World's Oldest People? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this has nothing to do with what you said. The point of those images were not to help us expand, update, and improve articles in regards to the world's oldest people. But you knew that. Neal (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Yes, it is. But I'm trying to figure out the purpose of the images. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Same purpose as in why any other images exist on articles. -_- Neal (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

There are many different purposes for images. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's very true, but as you asked, the images do not actually "help us expand, update, and improve articles in regards to the world's oldest people." Neal (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

I don't understand why we're not gettign anywhere. How about this. "Why did you include the images of some of the members of the WikiProject on the Project page?" -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, good question. So they know what we look like. Neal (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Seriously? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Group Leader?

Per Wikipedia:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, we shouldn't have a leadership committee or whatever. We work collaborately. Projects can be deleted for doing this. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I know I know, he's a leader in our heads. You're not inclined to follow him, especially since I don't think you're a member of our Yahoo board. We came as a result of his Yahoo board. Neal (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

But actually saying that he is the "Group Leader" may actually make people think he is the "group leader." Yes, it is important to know that he is part of the GRG, and this fact can be provided to inform people that he has more knowledge in that particular field. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Neal (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Okay then. We have consensus. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Project Point: Educating?

• Are we seriously going around telling people about Supercentenarians and aging and stuff like that? That's not what WikiProject's do. I though we were going around improving the articles. If the Project members were actually teaching people, we would go to their talk pages and tell them about the subject. Or perhaps you mean by the actual articles that tell people about the subject. WE educating people sounds like WE own that articles we use to "educate." -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, the people [us] do. Robert Young said on his WOP group that his #1 goal is to education people about human longevity. And he uses Wikipedia as a medium for that too. Even I like to educate people about human longevity. No, we don't own the articles, we edit them. ..Don't worry about it. Neal (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC).
    • Yes, the articles are educating people. It does still sound like own. Perhaps we need a third party's opinion? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • *We* - as in, the people of the group. Or the people that *founded* the group. Not every individual whom manually joins us has to agree to that philosophy. I understand you found us through Wikipedia and don't know much about us. Neal (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC).
        • 2 Questions:
        • Are you referring to the "group" as in the Yahoo Group?
        • Are you referring to "us" as in the members of the said group?
        • -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, in that case, it doesn't matter, because we're on both this group and Yahoo group. So both. Us as in the people. Neal (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Am I misunderstanding this?

• Is this just a group to teach people about the World's Oldest People? Did I mistakenly assume this was a Project to improve, expand, and update the articles? I assumed it was the second one, because I have been trying to shape this into a Project, but apparently there is conflict. The title has "WikiProject" in it and I hope I assumed correctly. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also yes, and yes. But you're also expanding and deleting and removing comments in the project page itself. You're welcome to contribute to the articles which everyone has default control over it. But whether or not you come to the WikiProject to edit and edit content of the project itself is something else.. In any event, I do appreciate you *adding* the project assesment, showing all the grade high medium low class articles, etc. As well as tagging. But I don't need you changing our philosophies or appreciate you editing our goals when you know little about us. Neal (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC).
    • When you say "us" who are you referring to? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Robert Young and his Yahoo group. Everyone listed in this group is/was a part of his group with the exception of you and Kitia. Neal (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC).