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 oldest living people/Archives

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.

The intro states; "For the main article, see Centenarian." As if that page deals with supercentenarian status. Surely it should be the supercentenarian page? I am hesitant to change this, but I will and if wrong it will obviously be reverted. MattSucci (talk) 05:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@MattSucci: works for me! ... richi (hello) 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restricting this list to 100 entries had the effect that there is almost no male supercentunarians, as most of them barely reach 110 or 111.

Personaly, considering the small number of living supercentunarians, I would just list them all and wait until the ;arge number became a real problem before limiting it.

My feeling is that some wanted th list to be limited only by rigid application of principles and not for real technical reasons (we have many shorted lists of countries that are much longuer than that without any complain). But anyway, since resolving this arbitrary created another problem, I suggest listing also on this page a table with, let say, the 40 oldest male supercentunarians (I am not even sure if there is 30 of them alive…) 45.73.14.41 (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point was there was no rationale to list every super-c living if there were well more than 100 of them, when were were limiting other lists of super-c's to being 100-deep. Sure, 100 is an arbitrary number, but so was listing all of the super-c's. It's not some "rigid application of principles," it's common sense. I have yet to see any justification as to why we need to list ALL known super-c's, when it was at 155 when we shortened the list, potentially it could have been in the hundreds. Lists of countries is entirely different - there are a fixed finite list of countries. Not so with super-c's. As for the suggestion we have a separate list of male super-c's, I made the same suggestion in the post above. Canada Jack (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no justification for including a random number of extra male supercentenarians. A list of 100 is entirely consistent with other longevity articles. There are fansites for those who want to follow the minutiae of the subject. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the argument for including a small list of living male supercentenarians, for example 10, if there even is that many. --Marbe166 (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is questionable if anyone cares about even the top 100 but claiming to be the 105th oldest person alive... not notable. Also there is no evidence to say that #87 or #56 or whatever are really ranked there - just our list itself - and we now the list is incomplete. Legacypac (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morano is NOT the last surviving person born in the 1800s. The 1800s go from 1801 to 1900, so there are three of them. --Gspinoza (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. What you mean is the 19th century (1801-1900), the 1800s are 1800-1899. --Marbe166 (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]