Talk:Guinness World Records

The article List of discontinued Guinness World Records was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 November 2024 with a consensus to merge the content into Guinness World Records. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page.

Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guinness World Records article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Guinness World Records. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Guinness World Records at the Reference desk.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 27, 2023 and August 27, 2024.

Record Breakers (TV show)

I'm not sure that the BBC show Record Breakers should be included in the list of Guinness spin offs. It was a BBC show, at a time when there were strict guidelines on tie-ins to commercial products in TV programming; the only real link was the presence of the McWhirters. CulturalSnow (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most tattooed person

Is there a reason the world's most tattooed person is pictured in this article, other than a random arbitrary Guinness world record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.17.141 (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Penile Omission, Also, Heaviest Book?

Strange that their searchable website has a result for longest penile artificial/surgical extension, but not longest penis. Also, I was thinking how the Guinness Book is pretty heavy so I searched heaviest book and it doesn't seem to exist! -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 05:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think this talk should be on wikipedia, however, as an editor who tried to lookup Hypixel's record for Wikipedia, here's a good tip. The search webpage you linked does NOT list all records. If you want to perform an exaustive search, you need to create an account to GRW's website in order to use the "Record Application Search" webpage. 81.245.100.129 (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"List of New or Broken Records in Guinness World Records Books" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of New or Broken Records in Guinness World Records Books and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 7#List of New or Broken Records in Guinness World Records Books until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 16:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately ignoring credible record claims

In recent years Guinness seems to be deliberately ignoring credible record claims that come from poverty-stricken countries. In particular, there have been a number of credible claims to tallest living man that have come out of southern and southeast Asian countries that, at the least, warranted further investigation. These include Pornchai Saosri (Thailand) and Ho Van Trung (Vietnam). Unlike many past record claims there is a lot of photographic and video evidence for both of these men. Unfortunately, they have both since died from their conditions.

I feel there are three possible reasons for this (in order of likelihood): 1) Guinness new business model (rightly criticised already in the article) is more interested in rich people paying for records than actually researching legitimate real records. Financing the investigations into these two men would have been expensive with little to no financial return. 2) Guinness is motivated to keep records in the hands of financial sponsor countries such as UK and US. 3) Racism. The worst and least likely reason, but it's crossed my mind more than once over the years.

One thing that is certain is they are moving away from active investigation of claims and requiring the claimants to lodge a record challenge application, provide all the evidence themselves, and pay for it. This, of course, is unfeasible for such poor people. I'm unsure if any of this material is useful for the article but I feel the discussion about their current practices is worth having.

It's not the role of Wikipedia to investigate. If a reliable source investigates and publishes its findings then that can be incorporated into the article. Nthep (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral?

The page was less neutral then the company side. You can read there. Its not offical, its no database, its just accept records of paying costumers, they dont list all records, they dont do own researches to find new records. You can all read this on their own webside. you have to pay them 1000$ and dend them signed document of two witnesses. Then you are in. If you dont contact or pay them you are not. No database and not "offical". Check on the own company website. :) So. Can you belive a record in the GB. Yes, maybe. Better then nothing. But by far not sooo save. A record dokumentet by the press (a reporter team) for example is much better then a simple "say so" of 2 guys nobody knows :) And. Are all records in there? No! Just some of the "offical" records are listet. Just the records of the customers of the company G.! So most of the "offical records" been done are not in there. So it cant impossible be something "offical". If you call it offical people of course think - whats not in this book is not offical :) And this is more then wrong. Its a simple Book from a simple company and just for entertainment and for makeing money. Like all other companys 2. So this should be a main point in this article. Till now the article did exactly the opposit. It makes this entertainment company to someking like or near a "offical" recrord database. And this is completly wrong! Even acording to the information they have on there own website. You can find there all the information. You find there answers to. Do you list all recods? What is the most easy way to get in, What do I have to pay, What I have to do? Why do I dont find my record in? Are we a complet database? Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.180.156 (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not your criticisms of the subject are valid, you are not permitted to state them in the encyclopedia in your own voice. This is called original research and is prohibited here. You must cite reliable sources that make and provide support for these observations, preferably in a section called "Criticism" or "Controversy", not in the lead of the article, which summarizes reliably-sourced content in the article body. Also, please make an effort to use correct English spelling and grammar here. General Ization ^Talk 17:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not critic at all. Its the stuff you can read ON THERE OWN WEBSITE!!! Its not my opinion or something. Its clear facts. The question is. Why this is not neutral and why its written like an advertising article? Even more then they do on the own homepage. It is NOT controversial to do an entertainment book and do money. Thats very normal. Controversial it gets if encyclopedia publishes an advertising text that creates a false impression for the reader. Giving him the impression that a private beer company is the official international database and highest institution to declare whats a record and whats not. Its NOT official, its a PRIVAT company, It is no database; they not even research records them self, nor do they even try to list all records! It is pure entertainment. And this is good. NO PROBLEM with that!! The problem is if all people on the planet think - it is something like the united nations of records. No its not. It s a funny nice book for kinds with mostly funny records. Like "the man with the longest fingernails". Not more and not less. But this article make them 100 Steps more important then they are. And this is not right and absolutely against WP Rules and neutrality. And if we don't fix you support this. Check it out yourself. Its all correct what I say and if you look right you will find it on their own company website. Cant be more clear. 62.202.180.156 (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest Game Bird in Europe

The cited source for the Golden Plover being faster than the Red Grouse, Lonely Planet Ireland, merely states that the spur-wing goose is Europe's fastest game bird, while Guinness' website itself states "the red-breasted merganser would be the most likely answer; it is fully migratory and still occasionally hunted." While the Golden Plover may be faster than the Red Grouse, the parenthetical seems inaccurate. Zergog1 (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Records

How about a mention of The Guinness Book of Olympic Records, presumably containing complete Olympic statistics, even if not record breaking? 108.225.17.141 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update museum section?

Not sure whether the list of franchise museums is still accurate and could do with updating as it specifically says as of 2010. 2A00:23EE:14C8:2E33:450F:9AF4:C549:3B35 (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor typo I noticed

“or the largest number of hot dogs that were be consumed in three minutes.” It’s Right before citation 22. (Im sorry if this is inappropriate, I know nothing of Wikipedia etiquette, just read it a lot. thanks for everything you guys do!) 209.6.147.117 (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This article appears to be an advertisement. There is much justified criticism, but none of it is in this article. Much of the text sounds promotional. Polygnotus (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is. GWR is just a money grab. But according to the admins, you need a reliable source for criticism. Totally cool to have an entire article about an unreliable company whose entire business model is based on false information in the first place, though!!! Don't criticize their "effective authority" to certify whatever anyone with money wants to be certified, that's SCARY!!! ~~~ Meme Star27 (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]