Talk:World's Oldest Person titleholders/@comment-258494-20160205201201

Greetings,

This has been an issue, for several reasons:

1. Guinness World Records started in 1955. Should we retroactively go back in time and make a list further back? It's possible that the GRG may one day make a "retroactive" list, which could start when actual case documentation started. But the question then becomes: do we start at age 110? 105? 100? 95? The further back in time we go, the smaller the dataset and the less representative of the total world population the data is.

2. GRG research updating has been unfortunately slow. However, this is starting to change as the GRG has expanded quite a bit in the past two years, from two admins to five, and now adding more administative assistants. So, I think "working within the system" is the best option at this point.

3. I agree that the Gerontology Wiki is "not the place" for original research. This is basically "Wikipedia-lite", similar to Wikipedia in concept and rules but with a "notability guideline" focused on the topic area and a better understanding of what a "reliable source" is when it comes to human longevity. For example, the Gerontology Wiki understands that the "Oldest in Britain" is a reliable source, wheras Wikipedia does not.

I'm ambivalent about removing the "alternate" list; we do want to make use of the Wikia software here.

May I suggest a compromise: individual users could make their own "alternate" lists on their "talk" pages, so long as it is clear that the list reflects the individual opinions of the user, and not the Gerontology Wiki.Ryoung122 (talk) 20:12, February 5, 2016 (UTC)