![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Are the authorities for this article simply off base or missing the facts? There are several documented cases of people living into their 150's. There are documented cases of it, at least, in south central Asia. 68.14.108.62 17:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You can CHOOSE to believe in stories of 150-year-old people, just like you can choose to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Vishnu, or whatever. Just don't call it validated and don't call it science. No documents or not, you're so far off base that it's like insisting the Earth is flat. Whatever. Ryoung122 06:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
If there are documented cases of it, we would like to see it. Otherwise, it isn't evidence until there is evidence. Anyways, this has nothing to do with what if Tanabe died today, so I moved this as a new topic. Neal 14:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC).
I think in this case the redesignation is justified. I don't know if people are just goading us or they really believe this stuff. I think there might be a few shattered illusions about Santa Claus now though. 80.2.16.73 20:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Captain celery
I see that Louis de Cazenave has been put up again in 11th. It could be argued that Nicholas Kao shows no sign of being validated, but as has been stated before, there's a strong chance that he is the age claimed. So this raises the old chestnut of whether we should list 109 year olds if they're in the top 10, or supercentenarians if they're outside it. What if Harvey Hite and Lazarre Ponticelli reach 110 before any of the others die? Statitsically it's unlikely but that would mean a top 13. Why should Elizabeth Stefan, Astrid Zachrison and Mary Ray not be on the main page? Captain celery 20:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the top 10. Whomever IP address (89.159.94.77) that added the 11th must have 11 fingers. Whether or not someone like him is capable of conversation, (so we could hear his side of the story), would be another thing. Nevertheless, the 10 stays. Neal 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If people want to see all the living supercentenarians, then we have a seperate page for that. Alltime records are a bit different, because largely they are not ongoing. However I think that the overall alltime list should also be top 10, like the male one. '115+' yields 23 names, which is somewhat cumbersome. 115 may have lost some of its luster as a special age and we have a top 100 for them anyway. Now the bar has been raised to 116, and conveniently that equates to the top 10. It will do so for at least another 18 months, unless there is another Maria Capovilla out there. Captain celery 22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Er, 'top 10 men only' and 'top 10 women only' is fine. Because sometimes, the top 10 women and men, could be only women. If the oldest man in the world is the 20th oldest person, what's wrong with top 10 men only? Anyways, I don't see a point in top 11 men. And yes, the 10th oldest man could be 109.. Neal 23:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
User CP, I don't think it is proper to 'declare consensus' and then 'find' Mr Versieck in 'violation'...the original idea of 'top 10 or 110+' was all 110+ males or, if there were less than 10, then at least 10 places listed. The original 'overall' list was 'top 10 or 113+'. One reason is that recent statistics have shown the number of 110+ validated males has ranged from as low as 4 to as many as 16, while the 113+ overall numbers have been similar (from 4 to 14 in recent years). I realize that it would be easier to just do a 'top 10' and that's it, but on the other hand, the fact that several people wanted to list an 11th person suggests that there is not complete consensus on this issue. I note that, once again, you employed an extremely negative, scorched-Earth policy. You declared consensus even before some people had a chance to comment. Further, I'm quite sure Bart is aware of the three-revert rule. Apologies to Mr. Versieck would be in order. Ryoung122 03:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
--NOT an official Wikipedia arbitration --NOT everyone had discussed this yet --MORE than one person favored adding Louis de Cavenave
Now, I could see that keeping a 'top 10' for both is not only the fairest, but also the easiest, method. However, the list had existed for MORE THAN A YEAR in the former format, which was:
Based on that formula, Bart made his edits. If consensus favors a simpler, top 10, then OK. But at least give people a chance to explain their position before 'finding' someone in non-compliance. I note that negativity has a way of going around: Neal 'jumped on the bandwagon' and declared Bart's edit to be 'vandalism'. No, it was a differing point-of-view.
As for apologizing, I've apologized before to those I felt needed an apology. I realize that, at times, I have been overly negative. However, that does not jusify or excuse your not respecting the process or worse, acting as if you were the process.
So, I leave it at this: I generally find the 'top 10' system to be fairest and simplest, so we can go with that. But at least hear out alterate points of view on the 'discussion' page.
Thanks. Ryoung122 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, when IP 89.159.94.77 made the 'edit' of adding in the 11th oldest man in world who turned 110, I looked at his contributions to see half a page, starting from last month. Figured he was a new guy. So - I originally didn't quite consider it to be vandalism. But when CP reverted his edits, which I strongly agree upon, and then Captain celery decided to point it out, and me and CP agreed that 10 was the better number than 11, for Bart to post and revert to 11 after we already agreed, is when I worded it to be 'vandalism.' That was my reasoning behind it, others might differ.
I guess for the 1st time in Wikipedia history, the "11th oldest man" in the world, turned 110, and so now Captain Celery would like to bring up whether or not all 110 year-old men should be listed even if it exceeds 10. So me and CP opinionated that we felt top 10 was the better number, so what Bart could have done is explain why 11 or etc. was the better number rather than revert, see what I mean? But that's okay, the past is the past, I don't have to worry about it, this won't bother me. There are much more important stuff to bug me from my sleep at night. ;P Neal 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Which underlines my point. If there isn't something intrinsically special about being 110, then focus on top 10 instead. Canada Jack 20:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
My argument was mainly one of process; we needed to not be hasty in making sure everyone agreed. Taking one's time, your above argument succinctly explains that combining two criteria is not a good idea and that since there are now two ways of dealing with this, the need for a 'top 11' isn't really there. Ryoung122 01:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
One more quibble: The current Top 10 list of oldest humans is all female. Might be a good idea to actually note that, at the moment, this list is all female as that isn't immediately obvious. Come to think of it, might be a good idea to simply label separate lists as male and female - because what happens if one male makes the Top 10? Do we add an 11th to include the 10th female? Make the Men's list a "2nd-to-10th" list? Or do we have THREE lists, separate men's and women's lists, with an over-all Top 10 list?
I'd say we should label the first list "Top 10 Women" with a note under the title saying "also Top 10 Humans" or what have you, then when a man reaches the over-all Top 10, create a new list with Top 10 Humans. Canada Jack 15:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You say the gender isn't immediately obvious but there is a key for that. When Emiliano Mercado and Moses Hardy were in the overall top 10, perhaps they had earned their place. I don't think you should add a list for that situation. Whether the status quo is ideal is another matter. Captain celery 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you are speaking to the wrong guy, as I have run the Boston Marathon five times. They in fact DO have multiple lists: Top men's finishers, top women's finishers, overall finishers. When I last ran it, I could tell what a) my over-all rank was b) what my rank as a male was c) what my rank via my age group was. Canada Jack 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
In aging, female supercentenarians outnumber male supercentenarians about 89% to 11%. For age 112+, the numbers are even more staggering: 92% female, 8% male. So, do we really need three separate lists? In truth, this is an issue that could be argued either way. But since it likely won't be a problem until at least mid-2008, when Tanabe will probably enter the top-10, can't we wait until then to worry about it? Ryoung122 01:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that there is a presumption it is generally known that the vast majority of people who reach 110 or beyond are women. Though the trends seem to be fairly clear - 90 % currently over 110 are female, only 3 of 23 over 115 historically male - it is nowhere stated on this page this trend exists and the rationale for making some male-only lists. Indeed, some of the remarks made on this page make it seem "like, duh! men getting to 110 is rare..."
I have looked at this page and only realized that separate male lists are done, it seems, for this reason after asking myself how many males made it to this age. While this may seem self-evident to those who regularly contribute, it is NOT to those who are not initiate. I believe it probably would benefit the page to make some note about this male/female disparity, as that would explain the need for some of the separate male lists. Canada Jack 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a separate all-male list? Because top 10 humans are top 10 females. And people can see that top 10 females are 114-112 whereas top 10 males are 112-110, etc.
Now as far as the male/female disparity, rather than... for males, 1-10, you would rather have, 20., 42./43., 51., 53., 55., 68., 72., just so you know that the 1st 2nd 3rd oldest man in world by their actual rank with women? Neal 22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC).
Perhaps I should rephrase the question to: "It is not readily apparent to the casual reader why there is a need for separate lists." Canada Jack 17:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't agree that the femaleness of the overall list isn't obvious. It says 'sex' and underneath are 10 Fs. If the casual user can't work that out then there's nothing we can do for them. Captain celery 22:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I just say, that this article is "oldest people" and not "oldest woman," so clearly, both genders should be listed. Now if you wanted the men's ranking to include their overall ranking with women too, I'd be for that. Note that that would require a heck of a lot of update for the bottom 6-10th oldest men. Neal 09:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
Well, since there seems to be a perceived need to have separate men's lists presumably owing to the disparity here, I vote for having two "oldest living" lists, one for men, one for women. There already is a list for the 10 oldest men ever, as most of them would not make it to the all-time list, but since women are 10 of the top 10, there's no real need to make a separate list there.
But I think the error here is in applying that logic to the "oldest living" lists, which is why I feel a change should be made. While I can see how it initially would make sense to have an "oldest living persons" list followed by an "oldest living men" list, as that follows what is above it, upon reflection it seems to me that the "oldest living persons" list should be replaced by an "oldest living women" list. At the moment, that simply requires a change in title. AS I said before, problems crop up when men, as they will inevitably, make the over-all top 10 list as you then have a situation where you have a 10-deep list for men, but not one for women. This will fix that, eliminating in one fell swoop the need for an "oldest persons list."
I might add that there is already an "extra" list here for men - a list of those who held the oldest man record from the 1950s on. Since several of those men were also the oldest person at the time, there is a gap here in who was the oldest women, particularly for the near-decade Izumi was oldest. There is a total of about 15 years over the past 50 where one can't know who was the oldest woman, yet we have all the men for that same period. But to create such a page would, I agree, add too much to this page as it is. Canada Jack 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. This change is very simple and as I suggested earlier, we could easily include a subhead when as is currently the top 10 women also are the top 10 people. Canada Jack 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line: either there's going to be two lists...oldest people, oldest men...or three: oldest people, oldest women, oldest men. But 'oldest people' and 'oldest men' aren't going anywhere.
Further, if you consider that the top-10 oldest living people list LINKS to a longer version that has both men and women on it, then we see that it would NOT be appropriate to re-name the 'oldest people' list to 'oldest women' when the long version includes men. Ryoung122 17:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I just read the article, and I saw it listed the top 10 women as 'oldest people' rather than 'oldest women.' It all of a sudden makes sense to me now. Now I know why all the conflict. Simple solution: why didn't anyone change the word people to women? And then we can discuss that. Neal 23:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
Why was the disclaimer added? It makes little sense in context of the discussion. Canada Jack 15:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read the thread. My proposal WOULD keep the men's list, Cards. My question is: Why must we know the #10 man and not the #10 woman when a man makes the oldest person list? Canada Jack 20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Well you're not famous for starting debates. So I'll give it a shot.
I do agree with you on 1 thing: why should we know the #10 man if we won't know the #10 women if we know the #10 person. Back when Emiliano Mercado del Toro and Moses Hardy made the top 10, we only knew the #8 woman. So the "top 10 men list" might as well be "top 8 men."
And after del Toro's death, the top 10 people should be changed to top 10 women. Only when Tanabe makes #10 should we change the name of the table to oldest people overall, but then, list only the top 9 men. Neal 16:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Are the authorities for this article simply off base or missing the facts? There are several documented cases of people living into their 150's. There are documented cases of it, at least, in south central Asia. 68.14.108.62 17:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You can CHOOSE to believe in stories of 150-year-old people, just like you can choose to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Vishnu, or whatever. Just don't call it validated and don't call it science. No documents or not, you're so far off base that it's like insisting the Earth is flat. Whatever. Ryoung122 06:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
If there are documented cases of it, we would like to see it. Otherwise, it isn't evidence until there is evidence. Anyways, this has nothing to do with what if Tanabe died today, so I moved this as a new topic. Neal 14:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC).
I think in this case the redesignation is justified. I don't know if people are just goading us or they really believe this stuff. I think there might be a few shattered illusions about Santa Claus now though. 80.2.16.73 20:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Captain celery
I see that Louis de Cazenave has been put up again in 11th. It could be argued that Nicholas Kao shows no sign of being validated, but as has been stated before, there's a strong chance that he is the age claimed. So this raises the old chestnut of whether we should list 109 year olds if they're in the top 10, or supercentenarians if they're outside it. What if Harvey Hite and Lazarre Ponticelli reach 110 before any of the others die? Statitsically it's unlikely but that would mean a top 13. Why should Elizabeth Stefan, Astrid Zachrison and Mary Ray not be on the main page? Captain celery 20:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the top 10. Whomever IP address (89.159.94.77) that added the 11th must have 11 fingers. Whether or not someone like him is capable of conversation, (so we could hear his side of the story), would be another thing. Nevertheless, the 10 stays. Neal 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If people want to see all the living supercentenarians, then we have a seperate page for that. Alltime records are a bit different, because largely they are not ongoing. However I think that the overall alltime list should also be top 10, like the male one. '115+' yields 23 names, which is somewhat cumbersome. 115 may have lost some of its luster as a special age and we have a top 100 for them anyway. Now the bar has been raised to 116, and conveniently that equates to the top 10. It will do so for at least another 18 months, unless there is another Maria Capovilla out there. Captain celery 22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Er, 'top 10 men only' and 'top 10 women only' is fine. Because sometimes, the top 10 women and men, could be only women. If the oldest man in the world is the 20th oldest person, what's wrong with top 10 men only? Anyways, I don't see a point in top 11 men. And yes, the 10th oldest man could be 109.. Neal 23:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
User CP, I don't think it is proper to 'declare consensus' and then 'find' Mr Versieck in 'violation'...the original idea of 'top 10 or 110+' was all 110+ males or, if there were less than 10, then at least 10 places listed. The original 'overall' list was 'top 10 or 113+'. One reason is that recent statistics have shown the number of 110+ validated males has ranged from as low as 4 to as many as 16, while the 113+ overall numbers have been similar (from 4 to 14 in recent years). I realize that it would be easier to just do a 'top 10' and that's it, but on the other hand, the fact that several people wanted to list an 11th person suggests that there is not complete consensus on this issue. I note that, once again, you employed an extremely negative, scorched-Earth policy. You declared consensus even before some people had a chance to comment. Further, I'm quite sure Bart is aware of the three-revert rule. Apologies to Mr. Versieck would be in order. Ryoung122 03:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
--NOT an official Wikipedia arbitration --NOT everyone had discussed this yet --MORE than one person favored adding Louis de Cavenave
Now, I could see that keeping a 'top 10' for both is not only the fairest, but also the easiest, method. However, the list had existed for MORE THAN A YEAR in the former format, which was:
Based on that formula, Bart made his edits. If consensus favors a simpler, top 10, then OK. But at least give people a chance to explain their position before 'finding' someone in non-compliance. I note that negativity has a way of going around: Neal 'jumped on the bandwagon' and declared Bart's edit to be 'vandalism'. No, it was a differing point-of-view.
As for apologizing, I've apologized before to those I felt needed an apology. I realize that, at times, I have been overly negative. However, that does not jusify or excuse your not respecting the process or worse, acting as if you were the process.
So, I leave it at this: I generally find the 'top 10' system to be fairest and simplest, so we can go with that. But at least hear out alterate points of view on the 'discussion' page.
Thanks. Ryoung122 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, when IP 89.159.94.77 made the 'edit' of adding in the 11th oldest man in world who turned 110, I looked at his contributions to see half a page, starting from last month. Figured he was a new guy. So - I originally didn't quite consider it to be vandalism. But when CP reverted his edits, which I strongly agree upon, and then Captain celery decided to point it out, and me and CP agreed that 10 was the better number than 11, for Bart to post and revert to 11 after we already agreed, is when I worded it to be 'vandalism.' That was my reasoning behind it, others might differ.
I guess for the 1st time in Wikipedia history, the "11th oldest man" in the world, turned 110, and so now Captain Celery would like to bring up whether or not all 110 year-old men should be listed even if it exceeds 10. So me and CP opinionated that we felt top 10 was the better number, so what Bart could have done is explain why 11 or etc. was the better number rather than revert, see what I mean? But that's okay, the past is the past, I don't have to worry about it, this won't bother me. There are much more important stuff to bug me from my sleep at night. ;P Neal 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Which underlines my point. If there isn't something intrinsically special about being 110, then focus on top 10 instead. Canada Jack 20:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
My argument was mainly one of process; we needed to not be hasty in making sure everyone agreed. Taking one's time, your above argument succinctly explains that combining two criteria is not a good idea and that since there are now two ways of dealing with this, the need for a 'top 11' isn't really there. Ryoung122 01:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
One more quibble: The current Top 10 list of oldest humans is all female. Might be a good idea to actually note that, at the moment, this list is all female as that isn't immediately obvious. Come to think of it, might be a good idea to simply label separate lists as male and female - because what happens if one male makes the Top 10? Do we add an 11th to include the 10th female? Make the Men's list a "2nd-to-10th" list? Or do we have THREE lists, separate men's and women's lists, with an over-all Top 10 list?
I'd say we should label the first list "Top 10 Women" with a note under the title saying "also Top 10 Humans" or what have you, then when a man reaches the over-all Top 10, create a new list with Top 10 Humans. Canada Jack 15:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You say the gender isn't immediately obvious but there is a key for that. When Emiliano Mercado and Moses Hardy were in the overall top 10, perhaps they had earned their place. I don't think you should add a list for that situation. Whether the status quo is ideal is another matter. Captain celery 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you are speaking to the wrong guy, as I have run the Boston Marathon five times. They in fact DO have multiple lists: Top men's finishers, top women's finishers, overall finishers. When I last ran it, I could tell what a) my over-all rank was b) what my rank as a male was c) what my rank via my age group was. Canada Jack 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
In aging, female supercentenarians outnumber male supercentenarians about 89% to 11%. For age 112+, the numbers are even more staggering: 92% female, 8% male. So, do we really need three separate lists? In truth, this is an issue that could be argued either way. But since it likely won't be a problem until at least mid-2008, when Tanabe will probably enter the top-10, can't we wait until then to worry about it? Ryoung122 01:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that there is a presumption it is generally known that the vast majority of people who reach 110 or beyond are women. Though the trends seem to be fairly clear - 90 % currently over 110 are female, only 3 of 23 over 115 historically male - it is nowhere stated on this page this trend exists and the rationale for making some male-only lists. Indeed, some of the remarks made on this page make it seem "like, duh! men getting to 110 is rare..."
I have looked at this page and only realized that separate male lists are done, it seems, for this reason after asking myself how many males made it to this age. While this may seem self-evident to those who regularly contribute, it is NOT to those who are not initiate. I believe it probably would benefit the page to make some note about this male/female disparity, as that would explain the need for some of the separate male lists. Canada Jack 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a separate all-male list? Because top 10 humans are top 10 females. And people can see that top 10 females are 114-112 whereas top 10 males are 112-110, etc.
Now as far as the male/female disparity, rather than... for males, 1-10, you would rather have, 20., 42./43., 51., 53., 55., 68., 72., just so you know that the 1st 2nd 3rd oldest man in world by their actual rank with women? Neal 22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC).
Perhaps I should rephrase the question to: "It is not readily apparent to the casual reader why there is a need for separate lists." Canada Jack 17:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't agree that the femaleness of the overall list isn't obvious. It says 'sex' and underneath are 10 Fs. If the casual user can't work that out then there's nothing we can do for them. Captain celery 22:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I just say, that this article is "oldest people" and not "oldest woman," so clearly, both genders should be listed. Now if you wanted the men's ranking to include their overall ranking with women too, I'd be for that. Note that that would require a heck of a lot of update for the bottom 6-10th oldest men. Neal 09:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
Well, since there seems to be a perceived need to have separate men's lists presumably owing to the disparity here, I vote for having two "oldest living" lists, one for men, one for women. There already is a list for the 10 oldest men ever, as most of them would not make it to the all-time list, but since women are 10 of the top 10, there's no real need to make a separate list there.
But I think the error here is in applying that logic to the "oldest living" lists, which is why I feel a change should be made. While I can see how it initially would make sense to have an "oldest living persons" list followed by an "oldest living men" list, as that follows what is above it, upon reflection it seems to me that the "oldest living persons" list should be replaced by an "oldest living women" list. At the moment, that simply requires a change in title. AS I said before, problems crop up when men, as they will inevitably, make the over-all top 10 list as you then have a situation where you have a 10-deep list for men, but not one for women. This will fix that, eliminating in one fell swoop the need for an "oldest persons list."
I might add that there is already an "extra" list here for men - a list of those who held the oldest man record from the 1950s on. Since several of those men were also the oldest person at the time, there is a gap here in who was the oldest women, particularly for the near-decade Izumi was oldest. There is a total of about 15 years over the past 50 where one can't know who was the oldest woman, yet we have all the men for that same period. But to create such a page would, I agree, add too much to this page as it is. Canada Jack 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. This change is very simple and as I suggested earlier, we could easily include a subhead when as is currently the top 10 women also are the top 10 people. Canada Jack 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line: either there's going to be two lists...oldest people, oldest men...or three: oldest people, oldest women, oldest men. But 'oldest people' and 'oldest men' aren't going anywhere.
Further, if you consider that the top-10 oldest living people list LINKS to a longer version that has both men and women on it, then we see that it would NOT be appropriate to re-name the 'oldest people' list to 'oldest women' when the long version includes men. Ryoung122 17:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I just read the article, and I saw it listed the top 10 women as 'oldest people' rather than 'oldest women.' It all of a sudden makes sense to me now. Now I know why all the conflict. Simple solution: why didn't anyone change the word people to women? And then we can discuss that. Neal 23:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
Why was the disclaimer added? It makes little sense in context of the discussion. Canada Jack 15:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read the thread. My proposal WOULD keep the men's list, Cards. My question is: Why must we know the #10 man and not the #10 woman when a man makes the oldest person list? Canada Jack 20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Well you're not famous for starting debates. So I'll give it a shot.
I do agree with you on 1 thing: why should we know the #10 man if we won't know the #10 women if we know the #10 person. Back when Emiliano Mercado del Toro and Moses Hardy made the top 10, we only knew the #8 woman. So the "top 10 men list" might as well be "top 8 men."
And after del Toro's death, the top 10 people should be changed to top 10 women. Only when Tanabe makes #10 should we change the name of the table to oldest people overall, but then, list only the top 9 men. Neal 16:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC).