This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Longevity Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Lists Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Where is this "addendum" that people refer to in the history of edits? Thanks. GermanShepherd1983 (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the top 50 list, the addendum is a list of supercentenarians under the main list that are ranked 51-55, however this is only visible in the source code. It serves as an easy way to add a new person to the list when someone in the top 50 passes away. PrezDough (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Currently when you want to update that list, you have to go to the Spanish list or LQ/GRG lists and see who they have on there, and add that. Wouldn’t it make sense to have a queue for that list as well with maybe 2 entries ready to go? Sneakysasquatchfan (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone tried to expand the oldest men sub forum page to 25 and it was immediately changed back. I would be fully in favor of going to 25 since these people are already on the addendum so they may as well be part of the main script. It's a big honor to get that old and they deserve some recognition and it's always fun to see certain names work their way up the list as they get older. There is no downside to this, let's do it. ~2026-13334-30 (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The above was done by me. I wasn't logged in and didn't realize it until I posted it. German Shepherd GermanShepherd1983 (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t be opposed to this, however I do have one question for it. Should we have a set amount of SCs for the addendum or just have all validated male SCs because there likely won’t be a whole lot more than 25 at any given time. Either way it seems like a fine idea, even tho I reverted the initial edit Sneakysasquatchfan (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm against the entire inclusion of the list of men, and I don't really see any reason to expand the list further. The logic of including people because they are already on the addendum doesn't really make sense as the addendum is there for ease of editing, and we'd need to create a new addendum anyways. While yes, list sizes are arbitrary, I feel expanding the list further would also take away from the main purpose of the list overall, which is the oldest living people, by essentially showed every man over 110, but only some of the women. Atriskofmistake (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Women naturally live longer so of course there are more of them over the age of 110 GermanShepherd1983 (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but I still don't see the need to mention a disproportionate number of men who make it to that age. Atriskofmistake (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So a list of 25 men is wrong but a list of 50 with 47 women is OK? Makes no sense. GermanShepherd1983 (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a list of 50 with 47 women is OK, because that is a fact of the world, and not created by arbitrarily looking at one gender. Atriskofmistake (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]