This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I suspect that this list does not take into account the fact that the Gregorian calendar was not adopted by China until 1912 and 1929 (and some others). The respective ages may be inflated by 13 days. On this list it would impact Nicholas Kao Se Tseien. If the birth date is a Chinese date then the Chinese year in 1919 (or 1929) was 13 days shorter, so he lived 13 days shorter which would put her in 64th position. The automatic calculator would treat all years equally - including leap years and these shortened years. Perhaps he should be put in 64th position with a footnote explaining that his total number of days is in fact less than the one above. (Note the Gregorian calendar was adjusted in Europe in the 1580s, in England (and thus the US and other colonies) in 1752 - for other dates go to Gregorian calendar). Alan Davidson ( talk) 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Old Style Gregorian calendar birth dates should be adjusted to the correct number of days to coincide with the New Style Julian calendar with a footnote explaining why. This should be done for both uniformity and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.68.121 ( talk) 00:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I will add such a footnote. Please comment. Alan Davidson ( talk) 01:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That does make more sense and appears to be the standard elsewhere as well. Well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.33.95 ( talk) 04:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that no one actually cares that all of this is blatant original research and has no place here. We report what the sources say, not what we think may or may not be right and may or may not have been taken into account. It is even admitted that you have no clue if this was already adjusted for or not! If the sources say that the person was born on day X and lived a total of Y days, then that is what we reproduce. Wikipedia is NOT I repeat NOT a place for original research. I am undoing all of these changes. Cheers, CP 20:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed Italian (female) supercentenarians are mostly indicated by two family names, and don't think this is correct. My guess is the second surname belongs to their (dead) husbands, as apparently confirmed by an article I found, in which Lauria Vigna is mentioned as simply Lauria, Ruberto D'Anna as Ruberto, Grotta Marinozzi as Grotta, Pizzinato Papo as Pizzinato, and so on. Anyway, no dash between surnames is generally used, though I think few exceptions exist.
Since the reform of Italian family law, in the 1970s, all women hold their maiden name forever. In case of marriage (no matter when it took place) they add the husband's family name, in the sense that they're allowed to use it (e.g. in signatures).
It's true that older women still prefer to introduce themselves by their husband's surname, but this doesn't match the legal usage. For example, it is likely that former "First Lady" introduces herself as Franca Ciampi, and probably signs "Franca Pilla Ciampi", but on her ID card is written Franca Pilla. Even the common usage generally avoids the double surname. On newspapers you may often encounter Flavia Franzoni or Flavia Prodi, very seldom Flavia Franzoni Prodi, and never Flavia Franzoni-Prodi.
In Italy we ironically say people with two surnames are either noble or bastard. :)
Thank you for attention. -- Erinaceus Italicus 13:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I think as few names as possible are desirable. I remember reading the Guinness Book of Records when I was young and I didn't have the attention span for some of them. And judging by some of the edits we get, certain people don't seem to have moved on from that level. I know that in Spain both the paternal and maternal names are taken, but beyond that I only know how it works in English. 80.2.16.73 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Captain celery
Lazarre Ponticelli was born in Italy, but moved to France in 1907. Should he have a French or Italian flag next to his name (or both)? Alan Davidson ( talk) 23:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
When i put him on the list i put a French and Italian because people have both flags on the top one hundred ever list, but then there are Elizabeth Stefan and Bessie Roffey aswell so should everyone have 2 flags or not? Funkdaddymac ( talk) 08:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It makes no sense to have an automatically updating "as of" date. Firstly, it serves no purpose but to tell the reader what date it is today, which most people can find out by another means. Secondly, it is claiming that all entries are automatically checked on a daily basis to see if anybody has died. That certainly wasn't the case back in August, when this automatic date was already present.
Even if somebody has since set up a bot (or is planning to) to check this page every day, look up each person on the list to see if he/she is still alive and remove anybody who has died, such a bot can be made to update the current date as well. Today's date as the "as of" date would still be bogus if the bot fails to run for some reason or has not yet run today (not to mention the time zone ambiguity). -- Smjg ( talk) 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This list needs a clear criteria for inclusion. Right now it seems to be "everyone on the GRG list and anyone else we feel like unless it's challenged" That is simply unacceptable. As the World's Oldest People forum has been discussed and dismissed as a reliable source, much of this list is questionable anyways, especially in light of Wikipedia's policies on the biographies of living people. I can think of a few ways to do it, feel free to suggest more:
This list either needs to have a set, objective set of criteria that can be placed in the lead and used to define who is included on this list, or it needs to be deleted as arbitrary and unencyclopedic content. Since I feel that the latter would be a loss, let's form a consensus on the types of people who stay and the those who go. Cheers, CP 23:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Greetings from Spain,
I have added María Díaz Cortés as the oldest supercentenary. I thought that this was sort of a legend, but it looks like the age of María has been properly verified through her national identity card and birth documents. MaeseLeon ( talk) 04:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"The material on the GRG website does not indicate sources, authors, dates of publication, or any of the other verification features which are to be found in an academic publication. There may be some decent scholarship behind it (though personally, having seen Young's approach to sourcing, I think that's doubtful), but the site as presented gives no evidence of being anything other than a hobbyist's site. It's also not helped by exceptionally poor site design and labelling of pages (which makes it very hard to find material) and by the weirdly non-standard HTML which prevents the huge table pages from displaying in Mozilla Firefox — one of the features of academic sites is that they pay some attention to usability, because they are are subject to the quality control applied by universities and other scholarly ventures, and the presentation of www.grg.org is clear evidence that it lacks that sort of scrutiny."
Putting aside her altercation with R Young, does this nevertheless have validity? Alan Davidson ( talk) 09:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
What is true is that Guinness uses the GRG as their source for "verified" supercentenarians and their annual top 10 lists. So while anyone can have their reservations about the quality of their work, the fact remains that Guinness uses them as a source for their "verified" oldsters. To deny their scholarship for their lists of verified supercentenarians would be akin to original research in itself. Thus, while I wouldn't use it for a lot of things, I feel safe using it for a list like this. As I said, some criteria is needed, and the GRG provides the best balance of objectivity and inclusiveness. It gives us a definite criteria for who is on the list. All sources are reliable for something it just depends for what. My personal website is reliable for my opinion, but not facts on, say, the Arab-Jewish conflict. Louise Glover's Myspace page is reliable for her personal activities, but not her personal controversies. The GRG list is reliable for a simple list of supercentenarians considered "living" and "verified" (good enough for Guinness, good enough for us), but not for other things. Cheers, CP 19:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we remove the rank numbers from the table. They require too much manual mantainance. Any objections?? Georgia guy ( talk) 18:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer that the rank numbers be kept b/c otherwise people are going to be confused on the counting since the list won't quite match up with the GRG list. 74.140.136.51 ( talk) 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why, but as the page has been changed to verified living supercentenarians, it no longer serves any purpose and is merely a clone list of the GRG List. Therefore, it should be reverted back to list of living supercentenarians, or deleted, as maintaining it would be a waste of time, when a link to the GRG could alternatively be provided. XZT ( talk) 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the list needed to be re-structured, as dubious cases were listed and the length of the list was sometimes too much for the format of the page. However, our guidelines should definitely differ from merely GRG defined cases to prevent this list from becoming defunct. Therefore, I think that we should take all the GRG cases, as well as most media reports, especially those from developed countries and that are plausible. Cases that enter the media from poorer, less well-documented regions should not be included, except if absolute proof is given. For inclusion of a new case, our criteria should be:
If we begin by sticking to these guidelines, this should clear up the list and remove all those anomalies that are slipping in, while keeping it independent of the GRG list. Also, it would help if any new cases could be discussed here before being added, or removed. XZT ( talk) 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem with this criteria is that it violates Wikipedia's no original research policies. Other than number one, you are including a subjective judgment of your own. In #2, you're subjectively deciding who qualifies as a country with "well-documented" records. If there were a reliable source, maybe a list of countries who are "officially" considered "well-documented," then this could work. #3 is obviously subjective, who defines "plausible." The GRG/Guinness has been wrong several times in the past as to who the "oldest person" was, which is why people have lost that title, cases have been recognized posthumously etc. etc. I have no problem using the GRG as a source for those who have been verified, but I do have a problem using them to determine which cases are "plausible" (aside from setting an upper age boundary at Jeanne Calment, but then again, it's not just the GRG who does this, it's used scientifically to determine human lifespan) or what the "upper limit" is for people currently living (again, besides 122 years and however many days). #4, I have to ask, what qualifies as someone "already known" as being 110? If people are "already known" to be that way, then why does the GRG bother validating cases at all? It's because there needs to be some reasonable, reliable and verifiable proof. #5 depends on the sources. If, for example, we say that our criteria is "the GRG list" then "the GRG list" criteria considers "living" those people that they've heard from within a year. So as long as they continue to have that person on their list, and as long as we continue to trust them as a reliable source, then we have to wait until they remove the individual before we can do it ourselves, otherwise it's original research that contradicts our reliable source. Cheers, CP 07:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
For my second point, we can take the 34 MEDC countries of the world, as recognised by the CIA World Factbook, as having well-documented records of births/deaths and population changes. Media reports from those countries can be included in the criteria (as long as they are not ludicrous). Whilst I agree with your point about plausible cases, I think the threshold of Jeanne Calment's age is still too high, as her age was exceptional. The closest verified case was Sarah Knauss, 3 years younger than Jeanne Calment. I don't want to see 120+ cases enter the list just because one verified person reached that age before, without sufficient proof. However, provided we stick to the GRG and MEDC media we shouldn't get 120+ reports, at least not for several years yet. What I meant by the fourth point is if someone widely reported and verified by the media reaches 110 and is not added to the GRG list for several months due to a backlog of cases that should not stop them from being included here, in case such a situation comes about. And 5, we both agree on, I just included that as part of my criteria - it will depend on the sources. XZT ( talk) 16:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's say we stick to cases on the GRG list, plus cases reported in the media of the 34 listed MEDC countries, as long as they are below the age of Jeanne Calment (122 years). That will keep this list much more concise, filter out dubious cases and prevent it from becoming an unnecessary clone of the GRG list. Hopefully this will mean it will be of much more use throughout the future. XZT ( talk) 00:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I am happy with either the one or two table system. Would having two tables prevent the formatting issue which arises when more than 103 people are listed? I'll have a look at the cases we had and present a list of those who I think should be included. XZT ( talk) 12:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, under the new criteria the following can be included:
These cases meet the criteria for inclusion. That means we are cutting out of the list the following:
The above cases do not meet the criteria, not having sufficient evidence and will be removed from the table, until they do meet the new criteria.
As well as those cases to be included, we should include Maria Diaz Cortes of Spain and Virginia Call of the USA. There may well be others, but that's all I can think of at the moment. XZT ( talk) 13:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
So in the end, out of all the above, only one individual qualifies:
Rebecca Lanier ( March 24, 1892) http://www.louisdb.org/documents/cr/2007/jn/28/cr28jn07-10.html Cheers, CP 17:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Ponticelli appeared for 11th November, but that was 3 weeks before his 110th birthday. XZT ( talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's what a second table would look like without references.
Rank | Name | Sex | Birth | Age | Country |
1 | María Díaz Cortés | F | January 4, 1892 | 132 years, 194 days | Spain |
2 | Rebecca Lanier | F | March 24, 1892 | 132 years, 114 days | United States |
3 | Virgina Call | F | January 4, 1894 | 130 years, 194 days | United States |
4 | Josefa Punzon | F | August 8, 1896 | 127 years, 343 days | Spain |
5 | Rosa Rein | F | March 24, 1897 | 127 years, 114 days | Switzerland |
6 | Cora Gentry | F | April 14, 1897 | 127 years, 93 days | United States |
7 | Viola Koch | F | May 24, 1897 | 127 years, 53 days | United States |
8 | Annie Butler | F | June 4, 1897 | 127 years, 42 days | United Kingdom |
9 | Mary Brown | F | September 5, 1897 | 126 years, 315 days | United Kingdom |
10 | Louis de Cazenave | M | October 16, 1897 | 126 years, 274 days | France |
11 | Stella Cooley | F | November 6, 1897 | 126 years, 253 days | Spain |
12 | Minnie Smith | F | January 5, 1898 | 126 years, 193 days | United Kingdom |
13 | Antonio Fernandes de Castro | M | January 6, 1898 | 126 years, 192 days | Portugal |
Antonia Plaat-Kolenbrander | F | January 6, 1898 | 126 years, 192 days | Netherlands | |
15 | Wally McBride Baker | F | January 9, 1898 | 126 years, 189 days | United States |
We would of course need a small introduction to this table, explaining what it is and what the criteria are. Cheers, CP 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I suspect that this list does not take into account the fact that the Gregorian calendar was not adopted by China until 1912 and 1929 (and some others). The respective ages may be inflated by 13 days. On this list it would impact Nicholas Kao Se Tseien. If the birth date is a Chinese date then the Chinese year in 1919 (or 1929) was 13 days shorter, so he lived 13 days shorter which would put her in 64th position. The automatic calculator would treat all years equally - including leap years and these shortened years. Perhaps he should be put in 64th position with a footnote explaining that his total number of days is in fact less than the one above. (Note the Gregorian calendar was adjusted in Europe in the 1580s, in England (and thus the US and other colonies) in 1752 - for other dates go to Gregorian calendar). Alan Davidson ( talk) 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Old Style Gregorian calendar birth dates should be adjusted to the correct number of days to coincide with the New Style Julian calendar with a footnote explaining why. This should be done for both uniformity and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.68.121 ( talk) 00:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I will add such a footnote. Please comment. Alan Davidson ( talk) 01:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That does make more sense and appears to be the standard elsewhere as well. Well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.33.95 ( talk) 04:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that no one actually cares that all of this is blatant original research and has no place here. We report what the sources say, not what we think may or may not be right and may or may not have been taken into account. It is even admitted that you have no clue if this was already adjusted for or not! If the sources say that the person was born on day X and lived a total of Y days, then that is what we reproduce. Wikipedia is NOT I repeat NOT a place for original research. I am undoing all of these changes. Cheers, CP 20:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed Italian (female) supercentenarians are mostly indicated by two family names, and don't think this is correct. My guess is the second surname belongs to their (dead) husbands, as apparently confirmed by an article I found, in which Lauria Vigna is mentioned as simply Lauria, Ruberto D'Anna as Ruberto, Grotta Marinozzi as Grotta, Pizzinato Papo as Pizzinato, and so on. Anyway, no dash between surnames is generally used, though I think few exceptions exist.
Since the reform of Italian family law, in the 1970s, all women hold their maiden name forever. In case of marriage (no matter when it took place) they add the husband's family name, in the sense that they're allowed to use it (e.g. in signatures).
It's true that older women still prefer to introduce themselves by their husband's surname, but this doesn't match the legal usage. For example, it is likely that former "First Lady" introduces herself as Franca Ciampi, and probably signs "Franca Pilla Ciampi", but on her ID card is written Franca Pilla. Even the common usage generally avoids the double surname. On newspapers you may often encounter Flavia Franzoni or Flavia Prodi, very seldom Flavia Franzoni Prodi, and never Flavia Franzoni-Prodi.
In Italy we ironically say people with two surnames are either noble or bastard. :)
Thank you for attention. -- Erinaceus Italicus 13:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I think as few names as possible are desirable. I remember reading the Guinness Book of Records when I was young and I didn't have the attention span for some of them. And judging by some of the edits we get, certain people don't seem to have moved on from that level. I know that in Spain both the paternal and maternal names are taken, but beyond that I only know how it works in English. 80.2.16.73 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Captain celery
Lazarre Ponticelli was born in Italy, but moved to France in 1907. Should he have a French or Italian flag next to his name (or both)? Alan Davidson ( talk) 23:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
When i put him on the list i put a French and Italian because people have both flags on the top one hundred ever list, but then there are Elizabeth Stefan and Bessie Roffey aswell so should everyone have 2 flags or not? Funkdaddymac ( talk) 08:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It makes no sense to have an automatically updating "as of" date. Firstly, it serves no purpose but to tell the reader what date it is today, which most people can find out by another means. Secondly, it is claiming that all entries are automatically checked on a daily basis to see if anybody has died. That certainly wasn't the case back in August, when this automatic date was already present.
Even if somebody has since set up a bot (or is planning to) to check this page every day, look up each person on the list to see if he/she is still alive and remove anybody who has died, such a bot can be made to update the current date as well. Today's date as the "as of" date would still be bogus if the bot fails to run for some reason or has not yet run today (not to mention the time zone ambiguity). -- Smjg ( talk) 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This list needs a clear criteria for inclusion. Right now it seems to be "everyone on the GRG list and anyone else we feel like unless it's challenged" That is simply unacceptable. As the World's Oldest People forum has been discussed and dismissed as a reliable source, much of this list is questionable anyways, especially in light of Wikipedia's policies on the biographies of living people. I can think of a few ways to do it, feel free to suggest more:
This list either needs to have a set, objective set of criteria that can be placed in the lead and used to define who is included on this list, or it needs to be deleted as arbitrary and unencyclopedic content. Since I feel that the latter would be a loss, let's form a consensus on the types of people who stay and the those who go. Cheers, CP 23:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Greetings from Spain,
I have added María Díaz Cortés as the oldest supercentenary. I thought that this was sort of a legend, but it looks like the age of María has been properly verified through her national identity card and birth documents. MaeseLeon ( talk) 04:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"The material on the GRG website does not indicate sources, authors, dates of publication, or any of the other verification features which are to be found in an academic publication. There may be some decent scholarship behind it (though personally, having seen Young's approach to sourcing, I think that's doubtful), but the site as presented gives no evidence of being anything other than a hobbyist's site. It's also not helped by exceptionally poor site design and labelling of pages (which makes it very hard to find material) and by the weirdly non-standard HTML which prevents the huge table pages from displaying in Mozilla Firefox — one of the features of academic sites is that they pay some attention to usability, because they are are subject to the quality control applied by universities and other scholarly ventures, and the presentation of www.grg.org is clear evidence that it lacks that sort of scrutiny."
Putting aside her altercation with R Young, does this nevertheless have validity? Alan Davidson ( talk) 09:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
What is true is that Guinness uses the GRG as their source for "verified" supercentenarians and their annual top 10 lists. So while anyone can have their reservations about the quality of their work, the fact remains that Guinness uses them as a source for their "verified" oldsters. To deny their scholarship for their lists of verified supercentenarians would be akin to original research in itself. Thus, while I wouldn't use it for a lot of things, I feel safe using it for a list like this. As I said, some criteria is needed, and the GRG provides the best balance of objectivity and inclusiveness. It gives us a definite criteria for who is on the list. All sources are reliable for something it just depends for what. My personal website is reliable for my opinion, but not facts on, say, the Arab-Jewish conflict. Louise Glover's Myspace page is reliable for her personal activities, but not her personal controversies. The GRG list is reliable for a simple list of supercentenarians considered "living" and "verified" (good enough for Guinness, good enough for us), but not for other things. Cheers, CP 19:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we remove the rank numbers from the table. They require too much manual mantainance. Any objections?? Georgia guy ( talk) 18:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer that the rank numbers be kept b/c otherwise people are going to be confused on the counting since the list won't quite match up with the GRG list. 74.140.136.51 ( talk) 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why, but as the page has been changed to verified living supercentenarians, it no longer serves any purpose and is merely a clone list of the GRG List. Therefore, it should be reverted back to list of living supercentenarians, or deleted, as maintaining it would be a waste of time, when a link to the GRG could alternatively be provided. XZT ( talk) 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the list needed to be re-structured, as dubious cases were listed and the length of the list was sometimes too much for the format of the page. However, our guidelines should definitely differ from merely GRG defined cases to prevent this list from becoming defunct. Therefore, I think that we should take all the GRG cases, as well as most media reports, especially those from developed countries and that are plausible. Cases that enter the media from poorer, less well-documented regions should not be included, except if absolute proof is given. For inclusion of a new case, our criteria should be:
If we begin by sticking to these guidelines, this should clear up the list and remove all those anomalies that are slipping in, while keeping it independent of the GRG list. Also, it would help if any new cases could be discussed here before being added, or removed. XZT ( talk) 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem with this criteria is that it violates Wikipedia's no original research policies. Other than number one, you are including a subjective judgment of your own. In #2, you're subjectively deciding who qualifies as a country with "well-documented" records. If there were a reliable source, maybe a list of countries who are "officially" considered "well-documented," then this could work. #3 is obviously subjective, who defines "plausible." The GRG/Guinness has been wrong several times in the past as to who the "oldest person" was, which is why people have lost that title, cases have been recognized posthumously etc. etc. I have no problem using the GRG as a source for those who have been verified, but I do have a problem using them to determine which cases are "plausible" (aside from setting an upper age boundary at Jeanne Calment, but then again, it's not just the GRG who does this, it's used scientifically to determine human lifespan) or what the "upper limit" is for people currently living (again, besides 122 years and however many days). #4, I have to ask, what qualifies as someone "already known" as being 110? If people are "already known" to be that way, then why does the GRG bother validating cases at all? It's because there needs to be some reasonable, reliable and verifiable proof. #5 depends on the sources. If, for example, we say that our criteria is "the GRG list" then "the GRG list" criteria considers "living" those people that they've heard from within a year. So as long as they continue to have that person on their list, and as long as we continue to trust them as a reliable source, then we have to wait until they remove the individual before we can do it ourselves, otherwise it's original research that contradicts our reliable source. Cheers, CP 07:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
For my second point, we can take the 34 MEDC countries of the world, as recognised by the CIA World Factbook, as having well-documented records of births/deaths and population changes. Media reports from those countries can be included in the criteria (as long as they are not ludicrous). Whilst I agree with your point about plausible cases, I think the threshold of Jeanne Calment's age is still too high, as her age was exceptional. The closest verified case was Sarah Knauss, 3 years younger than Jeanne Calment. I don't want to see 120+ cases enter the list just because one verified person reached that age before, without sufficient proof. However, provided we stick to the GRG and MEDC media we shouldn't get 120+ reports, at least not for several years yet. What I meant by the fourth point is if someone widely reported and verified by the media reaches 110 and is not added to the GRG list for several months due to a backlog of cases that should not stop them from being included here, in case such a situation comes about. And 5, we both agree on, I just included that as part of my criteria - it will depend on the sources. XZT ( talk) 16:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's say we stick to cases on the GRG list, plus cases reported in the media of the 34 listed MEDC countries, as long as they are below the age of Jeanne Calment (122 years). That will keep this list much more concise, filter out dubious cases and prevent it from becoming an unnecessary clone of the GRG list. Hopefully this will mean it will be of much more use throughout the future. XZT ( talk) 00:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I am happy with either the one or two table system. Would having two tables prevent the formatting issue which arises when more than 103 people are listed? I'll have a look at the cases we had and present a list of those who I think should be included. XZT ( talk) 12:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, under the new criteria the following can be included:
These cases meet the criteria for inclusion. That means we are cutting out of the list the following:
The above cases do not meet the criteria, not having sufficient evidence and will be removed from the table, until they do meet the new criteria.
As well as those cases to be included, we should include Maria Diaz Cortes of Spain and Virginia Call of the USA. There may well be others, but that's all I can think of at the moment. XZT ( talk) 13:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
So in the end, out of all the above, only one individual qualifies:
Rebecca Lanier ( March 24, 1892) http://www.louisdb.org/documents/cr/2007/jn/28/cr28jn07-10.html Cheers, CP 17:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Ponticelli appeared for 11th November, but that was 3 weeks before his 110th birthday. XZT ( talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's what a second table would look like without references.
Rank | Name | Sex | Birth | Age | Country |
1 | María Díaz Cortés | F | January 4, 1892 | 132 years, 194 days | Spain |
2 | Rebecca Lanier | F | March 24, 1892 | 132 years, 114 days | United States |
3 | Virgina Call | F | January 4, 1894 | 130 years, 194 days | United States |
4 | Josefa Punzon | F | August 8, 1896 | 127 years, 343 days | Spain |
5 | Rosa Rein | F | March 24, 1897 | 127 years, 114 days | Switzerland |
6 | Cora Gentry | F | April 14, 1897 | 127 years, 93 days | United States |
7 | Viola Koch | F | May 24, 1897 | 127 years, 53 days | United States |
8 | Annie Butler | F | June 4, 1897 | 127 years, 42 days | United Kingdom |
9 | Mary Brown | F | September 5, 1897 | 126 years, 315 days | United Kingdom |
10 | Louis de Cazenave | M | October 16, 1897 | 126 years, 274 days | France |
11 | Stella Cooley | F | November 6, 1897 | 126 years, 253 days | Spain |
12 | Minnie Smith | F | January 5, 1898 | 126 years, 193 days | United Kingdom |
13 | Antonio Fernandes de Castro | M | January 6, 1898 | 126 years, 192 days | Portugal |
Antonia Plaat-Kolenbrander | F | January 6, 1898 | 126 years, 192 days | Netherlands | |
15 | Wally McBride Baker | F | January 9, 1898 | 126 years, 189 days | United States |
We would of course need a small introduction to this table, explaining what it is and what the criteria are. Cheers, CP 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)