As I noticed an improperly-formatted update today (Mr. Djafar Behbahanian, oldest Swiss resident who recently died), I corrected it and cited the German-language newspaper source properly. While I was here, I proceeded to fix the sorting for all columns, with no exceptions and no change in appearance. There is no reason to keep non-functional sorting columns, and I trust that my work will not be reverted this time. — JFG talk 17:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I am dismayed that my work was summarily reverted again, this time by an IP user.[1] @TFBCT1: Was that you? Any comments? — JFG talk 06:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
- No, I edit only using my account. I found nothing erroneous with your edits. I find your comments to be accusatory. If you continue to have editing problems do not direct your attention towards me.@JFG:.TFBCT1 (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Sorry, no offense meant, I just did not appreciate the blind revert, and I understand it was somebody else. Glad you cleared that up, and happy to collaborate further. — JFG talk 20:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Can somebody point me to the rules for inclusion as "verified supercentenarians"? And what is the convention about people who do not meet such criteria, but are nevertheless reported by reliable sources? Should they be included with no rank? There was a person in the list for a long time with no ranking displayed (Magdalena Oliver Gabarro), and another one added recently (Djafar Behbahanian) to whom I gave a rank, not knowing exactly what it means to not have a rank. Today an IP editor gave a rank to Gabarro and removed Behbahanian.[2] What is the best way to proceed? @TFBCT1: Your expert opinion would be welcome. — JFG talk 20:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
- According to this edit summary, it looks like the accepted practice is to list non-verified individuals with no rank; I'll add Behbahanian back accordingly. — JFG talk 23:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Behbahanian is not allowed to be listed on any "verified" list anywhere on Wikipedia in that his claimed age is older than Masazō Nonaka, the world's oldest recognized living man by both the GRG and Guinness World Records.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
- The claimed age does seem preposterous. Did the GRG study his case, and have they issued a statement? And why do we keep Gabarro, also unverified? — JFG talk 00:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Now that I see he's deceased, his claimed age is greater than the last (6) world's oldest men in the same time frame and I doubt trying to verify a dubious claim from a suspect country is a priority. Gabarro, on the other hand, is from Spain which has many verified supercentenarians, her age is reasonable, and she may still yet be verified.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
- If someone were to strongly protest, Gabarro could end up being removed, however, she is currently being listed on List of oldest living people and List of Spanish supercentenarians.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I don't understand why she would be accepted on two lists and rejected (or accepted but unranked) in another. All lists point to the same journalistic source, so one article does not excuse the other. Back to my initial question on inclusion criteria: are they well-defined somewhere? — JFG talk 00:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
