Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to WikiProject World's Oldest People!

About us[edit]

See Category:WikiProject World's Oldest People articles.

This WikiProject and its editors aim to create, improve, update, discuss and assess articles and lists about the world's oldest people, collaboratively.

Notability and sourcing[edit]

Guinness World Records is a reliable source for ages, for dates of birth and death, and for whether an individual holds or held a record for human longevity.

There is currently no consensus about the reliability of the tables of data hosted at www.grg.org, nor of the journal Rejuvenation Research.

Biographies[edit]

Articles on centenarians and supercentenarians are biographies. The notability guidelines for biographies apply. Significant, independent coverage in reliable sources is required.

Some long-lived people are notable principally for their advanced age, e.g., Jeanne Calment. If the individual is not notable in any other way, the article is subject to Wikipedia policy guidance on one-event biographies. A subject whose biography is based on only one or two reliable sources establishing notability may belong on a list, rather than in a stand-alone biography, unless these sources provide significant details beyond longevity.

Some centenarians and supercentenarians are notable for reasons in addition to their longevity, e.g., Leila Denmark. In such cases, notable aspects of the subject's life, that are reported in reliable sources, should be included in the subject's biography. Supercentenarians whose age has been reported in reliable sources should be included in longevity-related lists, whether or not other notable, reliably-sourced facts justify a stand-alone biography.

Although not the primary focus of this project, cases where advanced age is contested or in doubt should be considered for notability using the same criteria as cases where advanced age has been verified by independent, reliable sources, e.g., Old Tom Parr is notable.

When sufficient reliable secondary sources establish notability that calls for a stand-alone biography, the following primary or tertiary sources may be used, for limited purposes only. They may supplement reliable sources, but no article should be based solely or primarily on these sources, and no article should rely on these sources alone in order to make assertions about subjects' history of records broken, rank-order placement in longevity-related lists, or current status as alive or dead.

Databases[edit]

There are various verification services and databases of long-lived people. Information on these databases may be in the process of checking rather than fully checked. They have been described on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as more in the nature of "works-in-progress." Such databases may be consulted in order to find further direction to more reliable sources. The databases should be viewed with even more care where they disagree:

  • Gerontology Research Group data from grg.org should be attributed and used only as backup for reliable sources.
  • The Oldest Human Beings (OHB) list hosted at http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html has none of the indicia of a reliable source, as that term is defined in wikipedia policy. It should only be used only as a backup for reliable sources.
  • The Yahoo! group health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People, is a discussion group and not reliable.

No article should be based solely or primarily on any of these databases, and no article should rely on any one of them alone in order to make assertions about subjects' history of records broken, rank-order placement in longevity-related lists, or current status as alive or dead.

Living people[edit]

When a person is still living, the strict, exacting guidelines on biographies of living people apply. Note that it must not be stated that a person falsified his or her age or date of birth unless that has been clearly reported in independent, reliable sources.

Lists[edit]

In regard to lists of centenarians and supercentenarians, and lists of unverified, disputed or disproved claims to longevity, WP:LISTPEOPLE applies. Independent, reliable sources are required. All items must be supported by a citation or a link to an article. Individuals may be included even if they are only notable for their longevity, or claim to longevity, and even if there is not enough material for a stand-alone biography article.

Article structure[edit]

Biographies should be structured in the normal manner for biographies. List articles should be formatted according to best practice for lists. Embedded lists should be avoided in articles.

Assessment[edit]

Importance guide[edit]

Need The article's priority or importance, regardless of its quality.
Top Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia. For biographies, all-time record-holders for oldest woman and man, e.g., Supercentenarian, Jeanne Calment, Jiroemon Kimura.
High Subject contributes a depth of knowledge. For biographies, aged 115+ for women, 113+ for men. Also, national recordholders, e.g., Maria de Jesus, and Oldest Person in the World, e.g. Emma Tillman.
Mid Subject fills in more minor details. For biographies, aged 112–114 for women, 110–112 for men, e.g., Harry Patch.
Low Subject is mainly of specialist interest. For biographies, aged 110–111, e.g., Alexina Calvert.

Participants[edit]

If you like, you could add this userbox to your userpage: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Userbox}}

WOP This user is a member of WikiProject World's Oldest People
  1. AMK152 (talk · contribs · email)
  2. Bart Versieck (talk · contribs · email)
  3. Berries and cream 33 (talk · contribs · email)
  4. Besse Cooper fan (talk · contribs · email)
  5. CalvinTy (talk · contribs · email)
  6. Editorofthewiki (talk · contribs · email)
  7. Futurist110 (talk · contribs · email)
  8. Gabe A (talk · contribs · email)
  9. Guidje (talk · contribs · email)
  10. Itsmejudith (talk · contribs · email)
  11. Longevitydude (talk · contribs · email)
  12. Lycurgus (talk · contribs · email)
  13. Mirno (talk · contribs · email)
  14. NealIRC (talk · contribs · email) (Neal Conroy)
  15. Neptune5000 (talk · contribs · email)
  16. NickOrnstein (talk · contribs · email)
  17. Old Time Music Fan (talk · contribs · email)
  18. Plyjacks (talk · contribs · email)
  19. Robert Waalk (talk · contribs · email)
  20. sbharris (talk · contribs · email)
  21. Statistician (talk · contribs · email)
  22. SiameseTurtle (talk · contribs · email)
  23. Tanough (talk · contribs · email)
  24. Vesailok (talk · contribs · email)
  25. Pascar (talk · contribs · email)
  26. SuperHero2111 (talk · contribs · email)
  27. Ollie231213 (talk · contribs · email)
  28. Fiskje88 (talk · contribs · email)
  29. 930310 (talk · contribs · email)
  30. STM201 (talk · contribs · email)
  31. ddmkm122 (talk · contribs · email)
  32. Waenceslaus (talk · contribs · email)
  33. Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk · contribs · email)

Edit summaries[edit]

Members of this project are committed to the highest standards of transparency and verifiability. Toward that end, members of the project editing in mainspace should make sure to accompany their edits with edit summaries. In the words of WP:FIES

It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit.
Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether it is worthwhile for them to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it. When a major edit (e.g. deletion of a substantial amount of text) doesn't have an edit summary, there are fewer reasons to assume good faith and busy editors may be more inclined to revert the change without checking it in detail. Summaries are less important for minor changes (which means generally unchallengeable changes such as spelling or grammar corrections), but a brief note like "fixed spelling" is helpful even then.

Multiple, daily edits without edit summaries are disruptive to the collaboration that is the hallmark of excellent wikipedia projects and articles. Such editing patterns are to be avoided.

Related WikiProjects[edit]