Thread:930310JL/@comment-258494-20161123151005

I see no reason to add both categories.

While validation and verification are not the same...a verified date of death comes from a newspaper obit; a validated date of death comes from a death certificate...I'm not sure that this level of distinction is necessary for a group like this. Second, one of the purposes of the Gerontology Wiki was so that we could have cases categorized in line with the GRG categories which were on Wikipedia until Aug 15 2015. But Wikipedia confused WP:Verifiability with the scientific concept of "validation."

To clear this confusion, I suggest that we rename all "verified supercentenarian" categories to "validated supercentenarians" and "unverified supercentenarians" to "unvalidated supercentenarians". Because, by definition, a case on the Wikia should be sourced (i.e., "verified"), I suggest we do away with the word "verified" completely...instead using the categories which we have as "unsourced" for information not sourced. This would clear the confusion, and make things simpler. Right now, it's becoming a mess to implement multiple viewpoint systems. We all can work together but I want the system to be unified, not divided. Efficiency and clarity are achieved through having the same system, not multiple competing systems.

We can discuss this a bit more if you and others if you wish. That's what the "talk" page is for.Ryoung122 (talk) 15:10, November 23, 2016 (UTC) 