This article has not yet been rated 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 List‑class 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 List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Annual readership

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2.

Why is she not on the list? Daka (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source which says she was alive on her 100th birthday? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article speaks of a source from a year ago. (This one.) Daka (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does not look sufficiently reliable to me. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reliable source of her being alive in January 2009 (age 100). There are other sources that confirm that she is most likely still alive at the moment. However, they are not reliable as per Wikipedia's established guidelines, so something else will be needed in order to include her here. OscarL 23:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did she appear in America's Intercultural Magazine after her 110th birthday? She is named as the founder of that magazine.2001:1AE9:24B:4600:897B:9400:BB72:EE1D (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what a "reliable" source is but according to Oldest People In Britain (oldestinbritain.nfshost.com) Hilda Clulow died on December 24, 2019. The site is now listing Joan Hocquard and Bob Weighton as the joint-oldest people in the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromleychuck (talk • contribs) 18:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OldestinBritain is not considered a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several websites report her death - all quoting the same date. Wikipedia is far more likely to look unreliable by continuing to keep her listed as the age attained increases once there is any published report of death ie reliability is important where exaggerated claims may be made. An exaggerated 'claim of death' is so improbable as to warrant prima facie acceptance of such notifications.165.225.80.65 (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I deleted her name.-Phil of Bristol 15:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil of Bristol (talk • contribs)

The criteria for removal from this article are that the person does not have a report from within the last year that they are alive or there is a reliable source reporting that they have died. Reliable sources do NOT include OldestinBritan, Gerontology Wikia or the 110 Club. For the benefit of other users the link should be posted either in the edit summary or on this talk page. So far none of the criteria have been met. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link were already mentionned but here are just 2 sources: - https://the110club.com/hilda-clulow-1908-2019-t22619.html and gerontology.wikia.org/wiki/Hilda_Clulow.--Phil of Bristol 17:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil of Bristol (talk • contribs)

Neither of which is considered reliable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for removal have been clearly spelled out above and have still not been met. I am adding Hilda Clulow back to the list until proper criteria for removal have been met. The question here is if the oldest person in the United Kingdom died 5 weeks ago, why are no reliable sources available?TFBCT1 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a recent memorial from Thomas Brothers The Funeral Directors in Redditch, England, confirming the death of Hilda May Clulow on December 24, 2019. https://www.facebook.com/ThomasBrothersTheFuneralDirectors. 211.197.11.17 (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook is not a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The HTML comment above the list says:

Also, when removing someone from the list please move the HTML comment below the bottom (which has up to 5 people proposed to be added) below so that there are exactly 100 people on this list.

It appears that many editors of this list aren't following this direction. Anything we can do to make this HTML comment (the one at the top of this list, NOT the one at the bottom that the above is referencing) more visible when it comes to this part of it?? (User:TFBCT1 appears to be the one everyone wants to leave it up to because TFBCT1 always pays attention to the table and moves the HTML comment as this direction says. Why won't other Wikipedians do this themselves?? The HTML comment says to do so, doesn't it?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dumitru Comănescu, born 8 November 1908, seems to be the oldest living man in Romania: https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/social/cine-este-dumitru-comanescu-cel-mai-varstnic-cetatean-al-bucurestiului-1150042 Please add him to the list of the oldest living people if this is sufficient.2001:1AE9:24B:4600:3895:ED87:61C1:FC29 (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The page isn't protected, so you should be able to make the change yourself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added him but I will probably need some help with links and the HTML comment below the bottom of the list.2001:1AE9:24B:4600:910D:ED82:D39F:A2B7 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I hope I have done it right.2001:1AE9:24B:4600:910D:ED82:D39F:A2B7 (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question I've wanted to ask long ago. It has been discussed several times - why limit this list to 100? -why not all supercentenarians? etc Monitoring this list since long ago, I have noticed that over time, it keeps 80+% of people aged 111 or more. So I wondered if taking this age 111 as a limit for inclusion to the list would not be a good idea. It would maybe make the list easier to maintain.Bvatant (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an edit war between at least one user who believes that Maria Kononovich belongs to Longevity claims and users who believe that she should be included in this article. Should she be kept here or removed? 2001:1AE9:24B:4600:8499:38D2:94E7:95E (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She meets the current criteria for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If she outlives Kane Tanaka and doesn't get validated by GRG, then she may be moved to the Longevity claims article. Georgia guy (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just would like to be clear that my revert was based on the statement that the birthdate had to be fixed around the Julian / Gregorian date issue before Kononovich could be included on this list. That seem to me to be an invalid reason for removing her altogether when the problem could be noted & discussed.

As to whether Kononovich should be included or not, I am not weighing in on that as others are far more familiar with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Just because I am growing older does not make me an expert on gerontology.

Peaceray (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know is Anonymous woman from France [1], born 14 May 1907, who lives in Paris, Ille-de-France, France still living and does anyone know her name?109.240.244.182 (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After extensive cleanup today adding new citations, removing entries where only outdated citations existed, and removing a dead woman, there are only 96 entries on this list. While this article is not the GRG, their words and practices can be informative for our own practices. As stated here, The actual estimated number of worldwide living Supercentenarians is more likely to be between [300 - 450] persons. By assigning rankings to these individuals that clearly do not correspond to reality, this article is in effect a WP:OR horse race. The GRG sensibly dropped routine validation of those under 112 and no reliable source presently tries to do what this list does: gather together GRG data, Japanese Prefecture reports and a hodgepodge of random birthday fluff articles from the media.

Given that this list wildly doesn't reflect factual reality and the enormous maintenance burden (too often neglected) of maintaining it, would trimming it to say 50 entries (other ideas welcome) have community support? Keep in mind a great many entries are already listed on other longevity lists, so duplication reduction is another problem that has been long neglected but can be partly resolved with this change. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem the number of supercentenarians has increased greatly since I started this article thirteen years ago. Useight (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed she was removed because of lack of sources but I found a post of her 111st birthday from just a couple weeks ago Facebook Supersammy00 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social media, blogs, and self-published sources like Oldest in Britain are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. She can only be re-added with a recent reliable source proving life, such as a newspaper article. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this list enumerate the 50 known oldest living persons as reported by various reliable sources (proposed change), or should it enumerate the 100 known oldest living persons as reported by various reliable sources (status quo)? Newshunter12 (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining a list of 100 people while following topic area quality standards is a heavy maintenance burden for the small number of dedicated editors in this topic area, and is too often neglected, which is why the list is presently failing to even have 100 entries after undergoing long-neglected clean up. Every single person on this list is either already on 1-3+ other longevity lists (in addition to sometimes possessing individual articles or mini-bios) or will never become notable enough to reach another list. Such duplication and over-representation is tedious for the small group of dedicated editors to maintain and unnecessary.

A list of 50 also eliminates the core sources of conflict that have been plaguing this topic area for over a decade. Namely, a list of 50 creates a de-facto age threshold of approximately age 112, where SC coverage becomes much more steady and reliable. This eliminates the common disputes over excluding entries with sources from before age 110, and the vast majority of the often heated disputes over entries with sources from 110th or 111th birthday coverage, but no 111th or 112th birthday media coverage causing removal. A more focused list would also greatly cut down the number of disputes over the reliability of death reports, especially since reliable coverage improves at increased ages since the individuals are more notable. A list of 50 would also eliminate most of the well intentioned or not attempts, which have been happening repeatedly for over a decade, to add individuals (most often age 110 or 111) with unreliable sources that than have to be removed (often the same ones repeatedly). Newshunter12 (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please express your preference with Support (for listing only the 50 oldest living people) or Oppose (for listing the 100 oldest living people) and a brief rationale. Longer comments should go in the #Discussion section below.

Support- will make what is currently a sourcing and trivia nightmare slightly less nightmarish. Reyk _YO! 06:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Support - A smaller list that better conforms to our sourcing standards is better than a longer one that's proven impossible to keep up to our minimum requirements. David in DC (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]