Jump to content

Talk:Marie-Louise Meilleur

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk | contribs) at 00:13, 10 December 2018 (→Merge: Re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Assessment

I have assessed this as a Stub class, mainly because I do not quite feel that it satisfies the requirements for a Start Class. If it were properly referenced and written, it might pass for Start with a little extra expansion. Similarly, I gave it low priority, because I do not feel that many readers would be familiar with her, despite the fact that is the oldest Canadian ever. Cheers, CP 02:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Marie-Louise Meilleur.jpg

Image:Marie-Louise Meilleur.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many grandchildren?

The various news sources give the number of children as 10 and the number of grandchildren as 75 or 85. This means that each of Marie-Louise's 10 children would have had to *average* 7.5 or 8.5 children, and presumably also that this number would be alive in 1998, when Marie-Louise died. I can find no source that comments on this extraordinary productivity, nor details the number of children had by each of her children, though there are sources that name the children and their spouses and birth/death dates. Eleanorba (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any idea, but just to say that families that large were not unusual until maybe a generation ago (maybe 2) in Quebec and other French Cdn Catholic families. I still know people who had 10 siblings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.217.113 (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

This person has held the title of oldest living person, is the oldest Canadian and is the fifth oldest person ever. Valoem talk contrib 18:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

My BOLD merge was undone, as explained in the section above. I still think this is an optimal merge candidate. This is about as much information as exists on the subject, and it adds up to only a couple short paragraphs. There is enough interest in her that there's a bit more than routine coverage, but not very much, and a significant amount of that information is related to her nationality as Canada's longest-lived person. Therefore, putting it in a list format is not eliminating, but merely consolidating, that information. Furthermore, without her entry List of Canadian supercentenarians is fairly empty, so our readers would get to both Meilleur and additional information on longevity. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support re-merging this woman's article to the Canadian list with a mini-bio, per the nominators succinct explanation. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The merge was appropriate. As one of the longest-lived humans ever documented, Ms. Meilleur was clearly more notable than "run-of-the-mill" people aged 110+, however the very limited facts available about her life do not warrant a separate article, per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Indeed, a couple paragraphs in the list of oldest Canadians, along with a redirect from her name, are the best way to represent her in the encyclopedia for the benefit of readers. — JFG talk 06:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the full list of her non-notable children in the articles's infobox is likely an undesirable invasion of privacy for her family. That information should not be kept in the merged version: just say she had 12 children and 85 grandchildren (later generations are frankly irrelevant fancruft). — JFG talk 06:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As per Template:Infobox person Children should be listed/named "Only if independently notable themselves or particularly relevant." So on that basis I'm removing them from this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support re-merging. The blizzard of supercentenarian stubs full of longevity fancruft were all based on the idea that it somehow disparages individuals to not give them individual articles. That's silly. The question is how to best present them, and in most cases that's a list entry or minibio within a list. EEng 02:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should be kept as a standalone page. The biographical information presented here would not be better presented as a minibio, which, by its nature, limits categorization, templates, and future article expansion, should the need arise. Succinct infoboxes, which readers turn to for a fact-based summary of the article, would be absent or cluttered, hampering readability. Sufficient context, per WP:NOPAGE, would be lost in a merger. It's the reader, not a cabal of editors, whom we should be keeping in mind. I pose this question: Would a merge into a minibio on the whole help the reader? My answer is no. EEng's question above is also a good one, one which I would, in this case, have to answer with the retention of a standalone article. schetm (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The article's 15 years old and has undergone 400 edits by 230 editors. Any idea when this future expansion will get underway? EEng 06:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no crystal ball, which is why I used the term "should the need arise." I agree that expansion is highly unlikely, but it is not impossible. Categorization and infobox, two reader aids, would still be negatively impacted by a merge into a minibio, which I why I answered the question you posed in the way I did. How do you answer mine? schetm (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well when the need arises a separate article can be broken out. There's nothing in the infobox to be lost (now that I've deleted the nonnotable parents and spouses). The categories can be attached to the list. This is an utterly empty biography. EEng 06:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What you propose would violate WP:COP, especially given existing categories such as "People from Bas-Saint-Laurent," as an entire list of people cannot properly be categorized as being from Bas-Saint-Laurent. I've reverted your edit which removed the non-notable spouses, as there is nothing in Template:Infobox person which says they shouldn't be included. In fact, they are included in many articles, including Pol Pot, David Attenborough, and Stephen Hawking. The biography clearly isn't empty, as it contains roughly 4,000 bytes of information. Merging to a minibio will not help the reader, so I reaffirm my opposition to any such merger. schetm (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've re-removed the nonnotable parents, as called for by Template:Infobox person. Your argument regarding categories implies that standalone articles can never be merged into lists, which is absurd. The article doesn't contain "4000 bytes of information" about Marie-Louise Meilleur, but rather 650:
    She was born in Kamouraska, Quebec, where she married her first husband, Étienne Leclerc, at age 20 in 1900 who was a fisherman. Meilleur left two of her four surviving children in 1913 and moved to the Ontario border to help support her sister. She returned to the Quebec region in 1939, She had six children by her second husband, Hector Meilleur, whom she married in 1915. From there she lived first with a daughter and then in a nursing home in Corbeil. Around her 117th birthday she was too weak to talk and she could only hear if someone shouted directly into her right ear. She died of a blood clot at age 117 in April 1998 in Corbeil, Ontario.
The rest is lead and longevity fancruft. EEng 11:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very little of the article seems crufty to me - it simply seems to be a part of her biography. The article says that she quit smoking. So does the featured article on Barack Obama. Other non-longevity articles contain biographical information on the number of children and grandchildren, as well as quotes from the subjects of the biographies. I will grant that info on the death of her daughter should be removed, as it doesn't directly relate to her. But, on the whole, the information contained fails to violate WP:IINFO (the "anti-cruft" section of WP:NOT) as it is not indiscriminate, but a vital part of the biography. On categorization, of course an article can be merged, but you'd have to lose the categories on the target page. You implied otherwise when you said that "the categories can be attached to the list." This runs contrary to policy, as I outlined, but I'd be open to hearing a way it can be done. Between a pass of WP:BIO, the loss of categorization on a WP:NOPAGE merge, what I've said above in answer to the cruft concerns, and the fact that the reader would not be served by a merger, the article should not be merged. schetm (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered that categories can be included on redirects, which satisfies my concerns on the categorization issue, but my other objections still stand. schetm (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And... after all that we still have 3 short paragraphs. That's not sufficient for a full article, but perfect for a minibio. There's no loss of information, only consolidation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to look at the minibio you created for this page. The infobox (a fantastic reader aid) was too big for the space allotted, and always will be if the picture (another fantastic reader aid) is included. It could always be collapsed, but that's not optimal for readers on mobile browsers. There's also no protection from the minibio being nuked down the line. I fail to see how a merger will be beneficial for the reader, or is necessary under WP:NOPAGE, as context (infobox and image) could be lost in a merger. If you can make a case that a merger would benefit the reader, I'll be very open to considering it. But I've not seen such a case being made, nor have I seen a good policy case be made. schetm (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox will be smaller if you remove (as should happen regardless) her non-notable husbands from it, which solves that problem. And it benefits the reader by obviating the need to click through a link to get to information on other Canadian supercentenarians. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marie-Louise_Meilleur&oldid=872907696"