Talk:Marie Brémont

Notability

Seems notable. BBC obituary, &c.--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

last person born in the year 1886?

Greetings,

Regarding linking to the year 1886:

1. linking to years is considered a "guideline" NOT a "policy"

2. even the current guideline, as written, states:

Year linking

Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter

In this case, Marie Bremont was already listed in the 1886 article and, moreover, is the last person verified to have been born in the year 1886. If you must insist, here is a source:

http://www.grg.org/Adams/OldestCentYear.HTM

Further, while most persons are generally noted for WHAT THEY DID, "world's oldest persons" are noted for their longevity and LINK TO THE PAST. Thus, even without a guideline discussion, such a case as Marie Bremont fits as a VERY NARROW EXCEPTION. Of the hundreds of thousands of biographies on Wikipedia, very few would qualify under such an exception. However, Marie Bremont is certainly a person for whom it makes perfect sense to link to the year 1886. Can you honestly say this article is devalued by such a link? It's actually devalued without the link. Like overpruning a tree (pines often die when the head of the tree is cut off), such overpruning here is quite silly. It's like saying "it's not lawful to heal on the Sabbath"--we shouldn't be applying guidelines with "ZERO TOLERANCE" mentality. A girl in Georgia was suspended from school for having a Tweety Bird keychain which the school "interpreted" as a "weapon." Such obsessive focus on "policy," without the consequences of its application, is one of the current dangers in our society, which often struggles to strike a balance between order and chaos.Ryoung122 22:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So what you are really saying is that it's okay in this case to link to 1886 because that page has a link back to this article? The rest of the points on the 1886 do not give context to Marie Bremont, and are purely trivia as far as she is concerned. This is a point that drove the RfC discussion and consensus in order to present the following (complete) wording:

Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is

germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an

important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year. For instance,

Timeline of World War II (1942) may be linked to from another article about WWII, and so too may 1787

in science when writing about a particular development on the metric system in that year. However, the

years of birth and death of architect Philip C. Johnson should not be linked, because little, if any,

of the contents of 1906 and 2005 are germane to either Johnson or to architecture.

(Note the specific mention to the years of birth and death—with no mitigation as to age of the person involved.)

(Also note that more debate about this issue is occurring here.)

 HWV258.  22:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you not notice that this is a GUIDELINE and NOT A POLICY and even, as stated, contains an exception.

Also, it violates the spirit of Wikipedia to suggest that this is set in stone, never to be changed again, as if this were one of the Ten Commandments from on high.

I'm concerned that:

1. You suggest that since there was a general debate, no room remains to debate exceptions

2. All your concerns are with enforcing "policy" or putting down year articles, rather than to debate the merits of whether "oldest persons" are noted as symbols of a connection to the past. Check out, for example, this book (written before Wikipedia existed):

http://www.amazon.com/Jeanne-Calment-Goghs-Extraordinary-Years/dp/0786217774

Does it not have a subtitle that says "From Van Gogh's Time to Ours"?Ryoung122 23:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(Again with the indenting issue! Do you realise that if you use the ":" mechanism you don't have to leave a blank line between each of your paragraphs? The indenting mechanism is an established practice at WP—one that makes it easier for all editors in a debate.)

You need not be concerned. As I have mentioned many times, there is plenty of room to debate exceptions, and in fact I have encouraged you to do just that at Wikipedia:Linking. When will you be doing that? I'm the one that is worried as it is you who has neatly by-passed the normal process at WP when you decide to ignore the consensus-driven guideline and edit in a manner simply because you know better. Are you worried about testing the waters at Wikipedia:Linking?

 HWV258.  23:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Restored despite full merge

I merged this article fully into List of French supercentenarians, then Andrew Davidson restored it. What's the benefit of keeping a separate page? I would assume that WP:NOPAGE applies, and the merger WP:PRESERVED any well-sourced and relevant biographical information we had. — JFG ^talk 18:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

On one level, I support the redirect JFG made. On the other hand, I would be fully on board taking this article to AfD, since I believe it fails various Wikipedia policies as is. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Any comment? — JFG ^talk 23:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

No response: I have added the recently-added picture to the merged list, and restored the redirect here. — JFG ^talk 12:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)