Talk:List of the verified oldest men

Rang order

Johnson Parks and Tomoji Tanabe lived exactly the same number of days, so it´s POV to give them different rang numbers.81.230.63.186 (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

These lists are based on age in years and days, not days, so the rankling is correct. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn´t a ranking based on days be more NPOV? 81.230.63.186 (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No. This has been discussed at length some time ago and the consensus was to use years and days. BTW, using days is also POV! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Men top priority for verification !

While there has been hundreds of women reach age 112 verified. The amount of men who reach it is very small. Only 29 men have ever been verified age 112 or better. Once a man claims he is 110 the GRG should put him at top priority to be verified. So many men have claimed to be a supercentarian and have died before they are verified. I believe any man that is 109 and 6 months old should have the process started on verifying his age and on the day he turns 110 be place on the verified list. Ralph Terry the oldest living man in Great Britain born in July of 1903 should allready have been checked out by the GRG. The day he turns 110 he should be on the verified list. Is so sad to see a guy on the other or pending list die before being verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.155.86 (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What has this to do with this article? Wiki does not verify claims. Take this to GRG, it does not belong here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Date sorting on death date

The sorting on the death date sorts on day, month and then year. I have no idea why it would do that as the format looks correct and same as the dates entered for birth date. Birth date sorts correctly with year, month then day. Thanks, HJKeats (talk)

It may be something to do with living cases being displayed as text("Living") and therefore the column is sorted as text rather than as dates. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Title is the wrong way round.

This should be called "List of the oldest verified men", not "List of the verified oldest men". They are not verified as being the oldest, they are the oldest whose ages have been verified.88.167.22.75 (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. "Oldest verified men" would imply a list of verified men by age i.e. "oldest 'verified men'". It looks odd, but the alternative would be something like "Oldest men whose age has been verified" which is too cumbersome. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't "look odd" it IS WRONG. A cumbersome but factual title is preferable to a short but false one. --Khajidha (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It is neither wrong nor false if you have a competent understanding of English. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Verified oldest men" means that these men have been proven to be the oldest to have ever lived. They have not been so proven and cannot be so proven. They are the oldest men whose age has been verified. --Khajidha (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

An accurate title is certainly preferable to a misleading one. A seven-word title, as suggested above, is not unreasonably cumbersome.88.167.22.75 (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Verified means that these men have been proven to be the oldest to have ever lived. This cannot be proven nor can it be proven. They are then the oldest men whose age has been verified. The title is misleading.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)