Talk:List of the verified oldest men

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject World's Oldest People (Rated List-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject World's Oldest People, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 

Masamitsu Yoshida[edit]

An IP has correctly added Masamitsu Yoshida who is now Japan's (and maybe the world's) oldest man. I know he is not "verified" by GRG but that does not matter since the Japanese govt, AP and others are reporting his age and status.[1]

List of the verified oldest men[edit]

I know someone alive in trinidad and tobago 111 male and his name is not here, I have a news paper with the confirmation Josu07 (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Lists of supercentenarians[edit]

Re: [2][3][4] ...

Being a supercentenarian is not a defining characteristic of being in the list of oldest men - the list is not defined by absolute age, it is defined by age relative to everyone else in the world - so this list ought not be in Category:Lists of supercentenarians.

(Note that if it were in Category:Lists of supercentenarians, then we'd have to remove the article from the parent Category:Lists of oldest people, because of WP:SUBCAT.)

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: Well, we have a bit of a conundrum here. List of the verified oldest men & List of the verified oldest women are in fact lists of the 100 verified oldest of each gender, & their names therefore fail the precision criteria of the Wikipedia:Article titles policy. Titles of stand-alone lists is a guideline, & states "The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject." One could argue that policy trumps guidelines, & that these lists really should be entitled List of the verified 100 oldest men & List of the verified 100 oldest women, or something similar.
Both those lists & the list of Oldest people (the latter actually a collection of embedded lists) exclusively conain supercentenarians. I would be fine with removing each of those three lists from Category:Lists of oldest people & putting them into Category:Lists of supercentenarians as per WP:SUBCAT as everyone on every list in each of those three articles is/was a supercentenarian.
If you feel strongly that these lists should appear under the Category:Lists of oldest people, well, then maybe this is a situation in which Non-diffusing subcategories apply.
I would argue that a list is defined by its de facto contents. Compare de facto From Latin de facto, de (“from, by”) + ablative of factum (“fact, deed, act”) with definition derived from defino: From - +‎ fīniō (“set a limit, bound, end”). I would argue that because these lists of oldest men / women / people are limited to supercentenarians, being a supercentarian is ipso facto a defining characteristic of these lists.
Peaceray (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Peaceray I agree with your point about the title vs contents - in principle renaming the articles to "... 100 oldest ..." would be reasonable. (Rather than simply re-applying the bold format to "100", ie reverting [5], you might consider re-wording the lead sentence per MOS:BEGIN, 2nd bullet point.) At the moment List of the verified oldest women has 101 people, with 2 people at position 100, but I think we can safely ignore that - the "spirit" of the list length is clear.
As to the categorization of this article and similar articles about "oldest people" ...
The fact that everyone in the list is a supercentenarian does not make that a defining characteristic. You say that a list is defined by its de facto contents, but I disagree. A list is defined by what the lead sentence (or article title) defines the list to be - and that is simply "verifiable oldest", independently of the absolute age. If the list/article was described as "verifiable oldest supercentenarians" or "list of supercentenarians", then supercentenarians would be a defining characteristic, but it is not. As you mention with the etymology of "definition", the "definition" is what the list is limited to, and the list is limited to the oldest people, not necessarily supercentenarians. If everyone over the age of 110 died tomorrow, we would change the names of the people in the list, but we would not change the definition of the list, and thus we should not have to change the categorization (being a defining characteristic) of the list. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
No, actually, even if everyone verified to be over the age of 110 were to die with no one in that age group remaining, the lists would still be of supercentenarians, because they are lists of the 100 oldest men, women and people ever, not 100 oldest currently living men, women and people. 2602:306:3653:8440:7019:F623:472D:3440 (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
...they are lists of the 100 oldest men, women and people ever, not 100 oldest currently living ... -- OK, I missed that. However my point still stands that the defining criteria is "oldest" not "supercentenarians". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that the term "supercentenarian" is not as popular as "oldest" (my mother tongue is not English). A possible solution could be to retain the word "oldest" in the lists and add: Note: All oldest ... are supercentenarians. Xakepxakep (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Peaceray, your claim "Both those lists & the list of Oldest people (the latter actually a collection of embedded lists) exclusively conain supercentenarians." is false: Oldest people#Chronological list of the oldest known living person since 1955 contains several non-supercentenarians. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Zhou Youguang[edit]

Should Zhou Youguang be included in this list? After all, his country (China) doesn't appear to have produced any verified SCs (unlike the countries where the living male SCs on the list come from). Futurist110 (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

HatNote about needs additional citations[edit]

The primary source of this list says "If an individual has not been confirmed living in the past year, they are removed from the list, even if their death has not been reported." Since these are people, not objects with an ankle braclet, it's information is probably more current than ... pick your favorite. Seriously: the USA Census is only taken once in ten years.

Rather than remove the HatNote altogether, I've moved it further down. Yunmagz (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)