Talk:List of unvalidated deceased supercentenarians/@comment-31321778-20170216200239

Hello everyone,

As a researcher interested in both the data on supercentenarians and the process by which the community obtain and validate such data, I've started to follow the pages here as well as those at the GRG and the 110 Club. I have a very general question, addressed to all who actively edit the lists here: is there currently a process for checking for and maintaining consistency across these pages (both within the Gerontology Wiki and between it and  other sites)? I ask this because I occasionally notice departures from that: for example Rachel Wieselberg appears on the list of UK SCs but does not appear on this page. Is there (or could there be) a central, all-embracing list from which the various other lists can be derived by simple selection criteria?

Also, I see that Robert made a suggestion below to split the "unverified" category. I'm guessing that the main reason no discussion ensued was that it would be so much work to do that, but it seems to me that the same logic applies as above: in an ideal world there would be an all-embracing list that includes records of which required types of data have been obtained and which are unlikely ever to be obtained. There must be knowledge of that information here for each case, so would it be worth the work?

Finally I'm wondering about the status of other cases that in whatever way achieve a high profile. I think a lot of people coming here would be surprised to find no information at all about Olga Agar, given she's been listed at Wikipedia for some time. I don't know any specifics about that case, of course, but is there an argument for using this site as a semi-authoritative source of info on anyone who achieves a certain level of apparent legitimacy in the wider online world, even if they don't reach sufficient standards to be included in other lists here?