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.

Talk:List of living supercentenarians/Archives

I just counted all the unverified supercentenarians, and I count 171, not 172. If I made a mistake, please correct me on my talk page? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I copy/pasted the "Other cases" list into Excel, and updated the total and female/male counts. No guarantee this number will stay accurate, though. -- Jevanyn _talk 16:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Frampton is listed in the list of british supercentenarians, but not in the list of living siupercentenarians. Why isn't she in the list of living supercentenarians? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article requires that there be confirmation that the person was alive in the last year, the British supercentenarian article does not. The reference used there is inadequate for this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the table has a minimum age of 111 and not 110. Georgia guy (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is because the GRG now only lists verified supercentenarians aged 111 or more. If they, or any other appropriate organisation, publish any verified supercentenarians aged 110 then they will be included. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to scroll down the page, Georgia guy, before changing all the name of the page to "111"?! There are something like 100 people on the list who are 110! Putting aside the basic requirement for a page with numerous editors and frequent updates to gain a consensus before such a fundamental change, the GRG may not currently list any verified people under 111, they most certainly list numerous people 110 who are not verified but are pending, let alone the stack of other unverified cases. Are we going to chop off everyone under 111 on those lists too?

I appreciate that Georgia Guy was operating in good faith, but next time, better to get a consensus on such a basic change (the title now contradicts the content). Who is going to change all these pages back? Canada Jack (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of unverified people. The list of verified people has no one 110. If you move the page back, you'll have to add the 110-year-olds. Georgia guy (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia, take a look at the page and the title. "Verified" cases aren't what the page lists, it is only ONE of the lists. We list living people 110+ under three lists: the first is verified - none at the moment under 111; the second is partially verified - with a number of 110-year-olds; the third is unverified, dozens of people who are 110. So please revert your changes, or someone else will do it for you. As Derby pointed out, GRG currently does not have any verified 110-year-olds on their list, if and when one is verified, there will be 110-year-olds on the "verified" list notwithstanding the 100 or so already on the page.

This reminds me, has there been any discussion about whether this list should be split into separate articles for verified and unverified people?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I believe I suggested it at one point. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the moving of this page. As CanadaJack says it is now inappropriately named, there are many 110 year old in the pening and unverified sections. That this was done without any proper discussion let alone consensus seems to me to violate multiple wiki guidelines. That there are no current verified 110-year-olds is nothing to do with wiki editors, there is no "you'll have to add the 110-year-olds". Why"? There are none to add (at the moment). All the 111 years olds are by definition supercentenarians, just because there is currently no-one on the verified list under 110 does not make that description (and article titel) inaccurate. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Unverified_supercentenarians regarding two issues: is GRC the only basis we consider a RS for listing here? I think that's contrary to the general policy of using reliable sources but one could argue that any other claim falls under WP:FRINGE so I don't know. However that leaves the articles that GRC has not verified: should they be listed even though there are no reliable sources that support it? Should they kept if there are other reliable sources for it which means that GRC isn't the only basis for the claims? Or we could have GRC along with ones that have other reliable sources but ones that are unverified by GRC and have no other sources should be removed. Feel free to comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it is This article is mainly just a duplication of the GRC article, which a link would serve just as easily. Williamb (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. The List of living supercentenarians#Other cases have nothing to do with GRG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Tou Tajiri be removed from this list? We haven't received confirmation that she's alive since 2013.

Anna Stoehr died months ago, so she needs to be removed from this list ASAP.74.131.251.19 (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but for a different reason, although this is far more significant didn't see this until after she was removed). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha Harris has been dead for five days, and thus should not be listed on this page any longer.74.131.251.19 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link which states that she has died? There must be reliable evidence that she has died, not just hearsay. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here. --Ollie231213 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]