User talk:Equazcion/test

Splitting the list
Well, it survived AfD, but I do agree that it probably needs to be split into smaller lists. The question is, how do we do it? With bigger lists there are many precedents. It could be alphabetically (ie. List of Centenarians A-F) or by occupation, by country, by age etc. etc.

If nothing else, it will make it easier for us to produce some featured content. We can also add more pictures to smaller lists. So, what are the thoughts? Cheers, CP 01:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think alphabetical would be a good idea. I'll gather the free-use pictures on the articles listed here and include them on a subpage. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem to be any objection to alphabetical... now the question is, how do we split up the letters so that the divisions are neither too small nor too large? Cheers, CP 23:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well A-M (inlcuding Miscellaneous) and N-P would be 'fairly' close to 50:50 at the moment but either could potentially approach 100k within a year or so. A-E, J-R and S-Z would probably be better just in case there is a flood of new entries! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I say if there are no objections, I say we do this ASAP, before someone complains or tries to delete the list again... then we can get back to providing references and weeding out the problematic entries. Cheers, CP 03:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Doing it alphabetically has negative effects on the usefulness of the list I'd prefer splitting by nationality or profession. Anything that makes it less of a category-looking list would stop future spurious nominations. - Mgm|(talk) 08:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I also think catagorising what the centenarian was famous for (artist/politician etc) is a useful way to organise the information, so I think we should retain this. As this is a list of notable centenarians, it's important to list what they were notable for. Organising alphabetically would make this information hard to find. I think it should be either split by nationality (doesn't necessarily have to be by individual nations - eg. continents), or by profession. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it's the end of 2009 and the list is now 188k, so Derby's prediction off two 100k lists from a year ago wasn't that far off. I think it's about time to do this... the question is merely alphabetically or by profession and, if we use the latter, how do we divide them and what do we name the pages? Cheers, CP 17:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest List of centenarians by profession (A-H), List of centenarians by profession (I-R), List of centenarians by profession (S-Z). This article could explain the splitting of the list and have a list of professions linking to the appropriate section in the new articles. (Talk Contribs) 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I like that solution, but we'd have to decide beforehand how to alphabetize each profession (most aren't a big deal, but the broader ones might be ie. "Educators, school administrators, social scientists and linguists" or "Social scientists, educators... etc."). I'd say we alphabitize by using the broadest category first (like the second way I organized the example). We could then use this page as a disambiguation page to all the actual lists and the talk page as a central location for discussing all the things that we usually discuss here, so that people don't have to follow discussions that concerns the lists in general on four different pages. I think we should see if there are any objections, and then split the list in a week. Thoughts? Cheers, CP 16:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed on all points. (Talk Contribs) 20:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well no one has argued, so I'm going to set this up soon in my user space and then link it here for everyone to see. Cheers, CP 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)