Greetings. In last time I noticed that a lot of users are using both "Year X? birth" and "Claims birth in year X" for unvalidated supercentenarians and SC claims, most recent example was Richie Richardson whose article has both "1907? births" and "Claims birth in 1907". I would like to hear opinions of other members about this. I believe having both categories is pointless.

In my opinion, categories named "Claims birth in Year X" should be used only for publicly debunked cases like Antonia Valderrama Ocampo, who claimed to have been born in 1905, but is validated with 1907, so her article should have "1907 births" and "Claims birth in 1905". Having both of those categories for unvalidated cases is pointless. Would you agree?

Should we add people from the Bible to the List of Longevity Myths (130+)?

So I can ban that retard Liam Rutherford 

My grandmother turns 110 on December 8, 2017. I have found a list of supercentenarians through the Gerontology Research Group that shows only the living supercentenarians. Can anyone tell me what they need to validate her? I have her birth certificate and she is in a nursing home local to me. They could help, if needed. She’ll also be in the local newspaper next week. Thank you.

How do you think we will validate supercentenarians in the future? Will it be a mix of documents and their social media presence throughout their life (or lack there of)? Let's say 100 years from now, when the very last people born in the 1900s start dying, how will we know whose claims are legitimate? I think this is a interesting question. I think making false longevity claims will be a lot harder in the future because of the internet. What do you think? 

Greetings fellow Wikia users. My name is Lance Uppercut and I wish to apply in becoming an admin on this Wiki. I have been editing here for 11 minutes and I feel my edits have been positive and useful and the community is better with my contributions. I can start right away and look forward to working with everyone.

Yours truly,

Lance Uppercut

/-\ future Wiki admin /-\

Greetings fellow Wikia users. My name is Lance Uppercut and I wish to apply in becoming an admin on this Wiki. I have been editing here for 11 minutes and I feel my edits have been positive and useful and the community is better with my contributions. I can start right away and look forward to working with everyone.

Yours truly,

Lance Uppercut

/-\ future Wiki admin /-\

Hello everyone,

I think we should discuss and finalize what kind of general information we want in the infoboxes and categories. I have seen a lot of categories added and I think we should discuss this.

Here is where it stands:

INFOBOXES

• Name
• Image
• Birth date and place
• Death date and place
• Age
• Country
• Verification status (verified, unverified, pending, claim, myth)

Do we want to specifically include gender? Race? Anything else? We could include gender, but I think that would be enough.

As far as CATEGORIES...

• Birth year
• Death year
• Birth country
• Death country
• Gender
• Birth country subdivision (state, province, etc.)
• Death country subdivision (state, province, etc.)
• Nationality (sometimes multiple)
• Verification status

On the subject of nationality, is it necessary to have "British," "American," and "British-American?"

As for birth country subdivisions, is this necessary? Would we go further into more subdivisions, such as counties (U.S.) or parishes?

I think the other categories are good enough.

Thoughts everyone?

Greetings,

I realize that there were two superfluous categories..."2016 deaths" and "Deaths in 2016"...that could have been merged.

Going forward, let's consider the options:

1. Change "Deaths in 2017" to "Supercentenarian Deaths in 2017" (only supercentenarian deaths), while "2017 deaths" would be ALL deaths reported on the Gerontology Wiki.

2. Merge the two categories and don't report supercentenarian deaths separately.

Comments? Suggestions?Ryoung122 (talk) 03:56, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

A few of the most active Gerontology Wiki users have been producing new hybrid categories unilaterally. Please do not do so without discussing it first on the discussion board.

What next, "Unverified unvalidated American supercentenarian children born in 1904"? "Validated English British UK supercentenarians who died in 2014"? If the categories already cover the scope of the issue, please do not create superfluous catgories. Repeated violations of this policy may result in more stringent measures, including loss of editing privileges.Ryoung122 (talk) 15:44, November 23, 2016 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have both "Verified" and "Validated" as two separate categories when they mean exactly the same thing?

I have noticed a wish to add the 3-letter-abbreviation to the flag icons. The country identification by hovering the flag icon, made by me, seems not to be enough. If the change is made in the flag templates, it will work everywhere in one edit.

I would like to hear if you think I should do so. Here are two examples:

• SWE (Template:SWE)
• VIR,USA (Template:VIR)

There are two different ways of transliterating non-English diacritical marks. For example, if we had "Hermann Dörnemann", we would transliterate it to either "Hermann Dornemann" or "Hermann Doernemann". Which way do people prefer? I personally prefer "Hermann Dornemann".

Please add GRG, GWR, or IDL citations for supercentenarian cases marked as "validated" or "pending." Ryoung122 (talk) 21:12, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

Posted message in topic title.Ryoung122 (talk) 23:05, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

I think we should make geographic sub-units of a nation subcategories of the nation. Thus, North Rhine-Westphalian supercentenarians would be a subcategory of German supercentenarians.Ryoung122 (talk) 16:59, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, we already have a World's Oldest Person template. Let's also make a World's Oldest Man template. Ryoung122 (talk) 16:26, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

I think that the Gerontology Wiki should institute succession boxes for WOP/WOM titleholders. Ryoung122 (talk) 16:24, January 30, 2016 (UTC)