Talk:Inah Canabarro Lucas#rfc D4BAED1

:(

2601:246:CD80:4240:795C:C919:F4B:1126 (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::also https://gerontology.fandom.com/wiki/Oldest_Ecclesiastical_People was not a source that I used for Wikipedia article But I used it for telling you the top three oldest living nuns 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 22:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Someone deleted it because Wikipedia does not have the rights to use it. It does not have permission from the person who took the photograph. EytanMelech (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there has been a lot of disruptive editing on this article recently, so I think we should protect it a little bit from vandals. PrezDough (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:I think it should be semi-protected yeah. It hasn't been as bad as Elizabeth Francis was in the past but still somewhat annoying. EytanMelech (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Unregistered editors keep adding the age in years & days to the end of the lead in plain text, which would need to be maintained daily. More experienced editors keep removing it. I think we should just go ahead & embrace it by adding Her age is {{age in years and days|1908|06|08|df=y}}, which would produce {{tq|Her age is {{age in years and days|1908|06|08|df=y}}}}. Peaceray (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:Peaceray, you shouldn't add her age in years and days without an age template; it will require manual editing. You must use an age template. Georgia guy (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::A typo prevented the template syntax from displaying. I have fixed it. Yes, we should use {{tl|age in years and days}}. Peaceray (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Yet, this doesn't stop the same un-registered editors from typing out the age in plain text. Look at the recent edits to the article if you don't believe me, Peaceray. Georgia guy (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I think someone needs to get this page protected. It's getting ridiculous waking up every morning and seeing the same edit-revert pattern. EytanMelech (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I added the template as Georgia guy noted, but EytanMelech is correct, an IP address added it anyway. I will add semi-protection again so we do not have to bother with this. Peaceray (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Semi-protected for one year. Peaceray (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The infobox containing some of her information, specifically the "known for" section, has too much information and thus appears cluttered. As far as I am aware there is no list of oldest living nuns or any sources that mention she is the oldest living nun, so the "oldest living nun" mention in the infobox should be the first to go. Same with "oldest in South America" and "oldest in Latin America" to a lesser extent. I'd like some opinion on this. Avengingbandit 02:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:but if someone's the oldest living person and they are a nun then logically they are also the oldest living nun. If someone is a nun and everyone older than them is not a nun, logically, it means that they are the oldest living nun 54rt678 (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::She is the oldest living nun yes, there's no doubt about it, but just because she is doesn't mean it should be listed. What about her being the oldest living woman? Or the oldest living person in the Southern Hemisphere? Or any other insignificant trivia about her in her infobox? I'd say no and say WP:FANCRUFT applies here. What matters here is that she is not known specifically for being the oldest living nun. Avengingbandit 14:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::There are a lot of people who would like to use Wikipedia for research and seeing how long Inah Canabarro Lucas was in each category is very useful for research 54rt678 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The infobox isn't meant to be a full research table. It's meant to give a concise summary of the subject's most notable distinctions, not every logically derivable title. For people doing research, that kind of detailed breakdown is much more appropriate in the article body or even a dedicated table or timeline section, not the top-right summary box. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? Again, do we add "oldest living woman," "oldest person in the Southern Hemisphere," or "oldest person born in 1908"? Each might be accurate, but not all are notably distinct.Avengingbandit 19:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Okay fine. I'm willing to compromise. I do not want to remove the oldest nun part, but I would be okay with removing either of the following and a neutral third party can decide which should be removed. we could either remove oldest in Latin America or oldest in South America. but not both. Are you willing to compromise? 54rt678 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I still believe we should focus on what Inah Canabarro Lucas is notably known for: being the oldest living person. That’s the key distinction cited in multiple sources and what gives her true encyclopedic notability. Her being the oldest living nun, while logically accurate, isn’t independently sourced or emphasized in coverage about her. It doesn’t appear to be a title that she’s recognized for in reliable secondary sources, which makes it less suitable for the infobox. Being a nun is a part of her identity, but it’s not what defines her notability at this scale. That said, I’m open to compromise regarding the geographic superlatives. If it’s helpful, I’d support keeping either "Oldest in South America" or "Oldest in Latin America", whichever is deemed more useful or commonly cited. Both are potentially notable but we definitely don’t need both. I’d just ask that we prioritize what's clearly verifiable and contextually significant over what's technically derivable. That way, the infobox stays clean and focused on what truly sets her apart. Avengingbandit 20:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::so should we have a neutral party decide what to keep? 54rt678 (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I created the original article, and I personally think that the "Latin America" one should be removed, but the other 3 don't seem to out-of-place, honestly. EytanMelech (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I agree 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 20:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ping|DerbyCountyinNZ}} thoughts on this matter? Avengingbandit 20:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I don’t think deference to the article’s originator constitutes a truly neutral third party in this case. Wikipedia operates on consensus and reliable sourcing, not on editorial ownership or legacy. When we're deciding whether something belongs in the "known for" field, especially a detail that’s technically accurate but arguably trivial, we need to prioritize encyclopedic value and precedent over personal attachment or original intent.

In this situation, precedent shows us that not even Lucile Randon, who was the oldest nun ever(!), has "oldest nun" listed in her infobox. So it doesn’t make editorial sense to apply a higher level of emphasis for someone whose notability as a nun isn’t the central point of public recognition. That’s why I think moving "oldest living nun" to the article body is the best compromise; it maintains the fact without inflating its relevance. Avengingbandit 20:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:your proposal is not a compromise it is just exactly what your side wants 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 21:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::I’d argue that compromise doesn't always mean meeting in the exact middle. It can also mean preserving verifiable facts in a contextually appropriate place, like the article body, without elevating them to top-tier notability status in the infobox. That’s what I’m aiming for here. The core issue isn’t removing information but how much weight we give it. By moving “oldest living nun” to the article body, we acknowledge it without overstating its significance. That, to me, is a reasonable compromise based on WP:DUE and supported by precedent (like Lucile Randon’s article). Out of curiosity, does anyone actually know who the second and third oldest living nuns are? That alone might say something about the notability of the label. Avengingbandit 21:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Lucile Randon is the oldest.Inah Canabarro Lucas is #2. Marie-Josephine Gaudette is #3. By the way, I want to keep oldest living nun on her infobox at least until she dies 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 21:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I asked about the second and third oldest living nuns, not the oldest nuns in history. That distinction actually illustrates my point: while the “oldest living person” is a well-documented and widely followed title, the “oldest living nun” isn’t a category that sees consistent or notable attention. That’s exactly why I think WP:DUE applies here. This fact, while accurate, isn’t widely covered or emphasized in reliable sources, and doesn’t rise to the level of notability that warrants infobox inclusion. Listing it in the article body still preserves the fact for those interested, without inflating its significance. Avengingbandit 22:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::the 2nd and 3rd oldest living nuns:Francis Piscatella and Hattie Mae Allen 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 22:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Do you happen to have a source handy for those names as the 2nd and 3rd oldest living nuns? I’d be curious to see how widely that info is published outside of niche tracking databases. If it's something that's regularly covered by secondary sources, that would help establish notability. Avengingbandit 22:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::https://gerontology.fandom.com/wiki/Oldest_Ecclesiastical_People 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 22:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks for confirming! Gerontology Wiki is definitely a detailed resource for age-based records, but it’s important to remember that Wikipedia relies on independent, reliable secondary sources, not primary data aggregators or hobbyist wikis, for determining notability and weight, especially in infoboxes. Per WP:RS, sources used in infoboxes should reflect what’s been covered in reliable publications, not just what’s true or trackable. That’s also where WP:DUE comes in; just because something exists on a list doesn’t mean it’s notable enough to warrant front-and-center status. That’s why I still think the article body is the most appropriate place for “oldest living nun”; it preserves the fact for readers without overstating its public significance. Avengingbandit 22:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::sorry your question is unclear and I thought you were asking about where I answered your question about the three oldest living nuns and that's information I did find on the fandom but all information on the entire Wikipedia article including the info box was not sourced from fandom 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 22:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::also https://gerontology.fandom.com/wiki/Oldest_Ecclesiastical_People was not a source that I used for Wikipedia article But I used it for telling you the top three oldest living nuns 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 22:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1748487675}}

Should the infobox for Inah Canabarro Lucas include things like "oldest living nun", "oldest living person in South America", and "oldest living person in Latin America", or should those be moved to the article body?

These claims are accurate, but they don’t seem to get much attention in reliable sources. The subject is mainly known for being the oldest living person in the world. Per WP:DUE and WP:RS, should the infobox focus only on what’s most notable and widely covered?

For example, Lucile Randon was the oldest nun ever, but even her infobox didn’t list “nun” as something she was known for. Should we treat these extra titles the same way and keep them out of the infobox?

Avengingbandit 02:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{sbb}} Comment. It's unclear what the question is. Are you proposing to remove all titles that aren't "oldest known living person"? Additionally, are you calling to remove her occupation as a nun from the infobox as well? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{reply to|Chess}} I’m not proposing to remove all titles except “oldest known living person.” The focus of this RfC is on whether certain titles that are accurate but more region-specific or less widely recognized should remain in the infobox or be moved to the article body. Specifically, I’m referring to “oldest living nun,” “oldest living person in South America,” and “oldest living person in Latin America.” I’m not suggesting removing “oldest living person in Brazil,” since that still seems notable at a national level. Also, I’m not calling for the removal of her occupation as a nun. That definitely belongs in the infobox. The question is more about whether “oldest living nun” belongs in the “known for” section, as it might give that label more prominence than it receives in independent reliable sources. Avengingbandit 04:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You're asking too many questions, honestly. You should refactor the RfC into a set of choices that reflect the disagreement. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:We should only include "Oldest known living person(since 29 December 2024)" as everything else derives from that.

:She will be the "Oldest known living" for everything she is or does and she is not notable for anything else. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, you make a solid point. I originally thought “oldest living person in Brazil” might be worth keeping just because it felt notable at the national level, but looking at how other supercentenarian pages are handled, it doesn’t really hold up. Most of them don’t list every country-specific title unless there’s actual coverage calling attention to it. If the main thing she’s known for is being the oldest living person overall, then everything else like Brazil, South America, or being a nun feels more like background info than something that needs to go in the infobox. Probably makes more sense to keep those in the article body for readers who are curious, without putting it front and center. Avengingbandit 14:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I would be totally fine moving oldest living person from Brazil from the infobox, but if she lives longer than 29 days from now, I would like to add oldest person from Brazil ever 54rt678 (talk | contribs) 19:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

"She worked as a kindergarten teacher at Santa Tereza de Jesus High School, having taught João Figueiredo, the 30th president of Brazil."

This phrase seems weird to me. Lets do the math. Lucas was born in 1908, and Figueiredo was born in 1918, so when Figueiredo was kindergarten age and reportedly taught by Lucas, Lucas likely would have only been a teenager at most, around 14 to 16 I would say. I am an American, so I dont know how kindergarten works in Brazil, but I assume 14 to 16 year olds are not kindergarten teachers in Brazil? This just seems weird to me and it does not add up. Am I missing something? If you could explain this, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Historyobsessor (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)