There are several organizations validating SCs almost allover the world. We have some of them here, creating the articles, such as the GRG, the GWR or the IDL. But there are more organizations in different countries, such as the ESO. Should we create the articles for such organizations. I think, some of them are quite serious and scientific.
Does anyone know why the World Supercentenarian Rankings List website has been down for several days?
I would like to get some input about the idea of allowing Gerontology Wiki articles in languages other than English.
While I think it's a good idea to have the Gerontology Wiki written in a "universal language", I think allowing alternate versions of the same article in other languages is something to be considered. The main issue at the moment is how to separate these. For example, could we make a "French-language" section, a "Japan-language" section, etc.? At this time, this is open for discussion, not starting. We need to first consider whether such an effort is practical, given the constraints of the WIKIA software system.
As I brought up this topic with Robert Young, I think that Fandom should increase security so that to prevent future trolling, every future editor will have to show a photo of themselves, and Fandom should block the account if the person's photo matches the PsychoTroll. I believe this is the best option we have at this point, I mean we've tried everything else to get the troll to stop, and he still won't.
I have thought for a long time that it would be a good idea to create a gallery for Jeanne Calment. She is the oldest person ever and I see that it would be a good idea to have a nice large gallery for her. could somebody with access create it.
The article on what a supercentenarian is needs updating as the oldest person is Kane Tanaka not Nabi Tajima.
Who got the most recent Lucky Edit badge, and when? It's been quite a while since I've seen someone get one
Hello, I think that from 1905-1910 and so on as years go by, I think that people should be sorted by dob rather than age, so that way we don't have to keep on doing ranking updates. Thoughts?
I feel that we should have a list of 107 years old men, as age 107 for a man is basically 110 for a woman. Share your thoughts.
Longevity is the study of aging and the surrounding factors. Exercise a contributing
factor. Pro. Steven Blaire believes that swimmers have a lower death rate than not
swimmers. Swimming is good aerobic exercise but I do not think has anything to with
how long a person lives.Dr. Lee says that swimming is a weight bearing exercise for
arthritis sufferers. Walking and and running is good cardio exercise for younger
people. The eldery cannot do as much running as their bones and muscles are much
weaker. A 90 year old skeleton is much weaker then a 27 year old skeleton. Diet is
another big factor to how people live. People who eat fresh food are typically
healthier then those who only eat processed foods. Fresh food is usually grown from the
This blog post is just to see which US states (as well as D.C.) do not have articles yet.
List of supercentenarians from Alabama
List of supercentenarians from Alaska
List of supercentenarians from Arizona
List of supercentenarians from Arkansas
List of supercentenarians from California
List of supercentenarians from Colorado
List of supercentenarians from Connecticut
List of supercentenarians from Delaware
List of supercentenarians from District of Columbia
List of supercentenarians from Florida
List of supercentenarians from Georgia
List of supercentenarians from Hawaii
List of supercentenarians from Idaho
List of supercentenarians from Illinois
List of supercentenarians from Indiana
List of supercentenarians from Iowa
List of supercentenarians from Kan…
After a year of continuing contributions, I've earned the WIKI HERO BADGE, which is the only Platinum level badge available. It was a difficult journey at times, including one time when I almost missed making a daily edit due to my stay on a scientific conference in Paris. It comes to my mind that I'm the second person to have earned the Wiki Hero badge, the first one being ryoung122 in 2018. It's not what I initially planned to achieve on this wiki; it was only after I noticed to have exceeded the 200 continuing days of edits that I decided to make an approach for this very badge. My first and foremost goal however remains the same - to make the Gerontology Wiki the best and the most reliable in both quality and quantity world's…
Given that it has very recently come to my attention that Robert Young is a climate change denier and promoter of conspiracy theories that support Donald Trump, I am announcing my permanent departure from this wiki. A wiki dedicated to a scientific field should never be run by someone who denies scientific research themselves.
I use to edit wikipedia. I think they are strict. Derby County in NZ said that if you want to add supercentenarians to the list you need a source that says that they reached there 110th birthday. Even one day before they become a supercentenarian is insufficient. I said to them that the Generontolgy wiki is less strict then wikipedia. Wikipedians are idiots. Wikia is so much nicer than Wikipedia. Last year people were fighting over a supercentenarian called Maria Quesada. Because she is 117 and not verifed from the GRG. Her claim is probably fake. I love Wiki a better than Wikipedia. They keep saying wikia is not a reliable source for the past year or two. So for now on Wikipedia is no longer a relieable source for wikia.
What is the maximum limit to age is a question asked many times over. I notice patterns of supercentenarians and see an increase in average age over time.
Welcome to the GerontologyWiki. I'm WhiteEaglet and I live in Poland. Where do you come from?
- 1 Spanish Civil War
- 2 World War Two
- 3 Korea
- 4 Vietnam
There is only one american veteran left, so on the US side of things (as an american I'm american-centric) this doesn't give us much more time to spend with him gathering stories. With nine non american vets and the one american vet still around this should give us maybe 3 to 5 more years to spend with them gathering their stories and life experiences.
If things stay the same we should expect to see the last world war two veteran die in 2038 around the age of 110ish. That gives us twenty more years to spend with them, gathering their stories and life experiences.
If things stay the same we should expect to see the last veteran of the korean war die around 2045 around the age of 110ish. This give …
- 1 All about me
- 1.1 Random facts
- 1.2 General facts
- 1.3 If you wanna be friends
all im willing to share
My name is Honour and im 18 years old. When i was 13 i suffered depression problems but just before i hit 14 i found the old people and now i know so much about them and they have helped my depression, five years have gone and im much better.
When i was 12 my parents got a divorce, i was so scared which i think is what lead to such bad depression, my mum had left and my dad was the one who stayed. My Brother Damian stayed by my side and helped me alot.
Im currently in university and am tired every day
Like i said my name is Honour and my Brothers name is Damian [he is 1 year older than me]. My mum is called Caroline and my dads name is Samuel. I have …
Hi. I'd like to thank Gerontology Wikia users for making interesting articles about supercentenarians and upgrading information and making lists of oldest known people and living people by country. Thank you!
Is there somewhere where I can see the amount of edits made on the gerontology wiki or no?
Hi, I'm Trent. I'm new here and would love to contribute!
I found this article while researching the following website: https://www.sysoon.com/deceased/sophie-glandorf-35?q=135+years, and connected the article back to this: https://www.ancientfaces.com/person/sophie-glandorf/8670319
I also connected her to the SSDI index; here's the website: https://www.genealogybank.com/doc/ssdi/news/1135DA5669A8FDC7?h=14&lname=glandorf
Could you review this and tell me what you think?
Is there any way to view living individuals who are on the pending cases list?
I think we should forgive me I mean him. Timmy is awesome and deserves a second chance!
Hi, i need help, because i cannot use the "classic editor" and i cannot get on the admins walls for help! This happens to me since few hours. I can only use normal edit and blog.... What's going on???
Rrabbit i can't do it, what else can i do?
Greetings to all,
I wanted to wish a serene Christmas to all users and administrators, who collaborate with the Gerontology Wikia with dedication and care, and of which I have been passionate about it since I discovered it a few months agoand I immediately entered to be part of it.
Merry Christmas and happy new year
Mihael7 (from Italy)
I wonder whether we do really need the "Prussian supercentenarians" category.
Currently there are four supercentenarians included: http://gerontology.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Prussian_supercentenarians
I'd be cautious ro avoid overcategorization or mistakes here. Kingdom of Prussia existed between 1701-1918. Until 1934 we could speak of Free State of Prussia as part of the Weimar Republic. In 1947 Prussia was dissoved de jure. Today, the territory of former Prussia is part of Germany, Poland, Lithuania and Russia (Kaliningrad Oblast). In the period which interests us the most; namely, before 1907, Kingdom of Prussia existed not as an independent state, yet part of the German Empire - since its proclamation in 1871.
Therefore, I propose the cat…
One of Wikia's incentives to drive editing is the "Lucky Edit Badge."
Typically awarded to the user who makes the 1000th, 2000th, etc. edits, this badge is the only "random" badge on the Gerontology Wiki: all other badges are awarded based on merit (achievements made).
Below is a list of the "Lucky Edit Badge" winners.
A few of the badges remain missing...can you find them?Ryoung122 (talk) 21:45, April 24, 2017 (UTC)
|Futsuko Furuie=Futsuko Furuie=F=1 January 1906===
|Mary Jorden=Mary Jorden=F=1 January 1906===
|Alice Knox=Alice Knox=F=4 January 1906===
|Elisabeth Hamm=Elisabeth Hamm=F=4 January 1906=2016=110 years, 0-362 days=
|Marjorie Cooke=Marjorie Cooke=F=5 January 1906===
|Ellen Brandenborg=Ellen Brandenborg=F=7 January 1906===
|Evelyn Vigor=Evelyn Vigor=F=9 January 1906=26 April 2016=110 years, 108 days=
|Clelia Campolongo=Clelia Campolongo=F=9 January 1906=2 March 2016=110 years, 53 days=
|Isabel Castano Restrepo=Isabel Castano Restrepo=F=11 January 1906===
|Auguste Ehard=Auguste Ehard=F=12 January 1906=22 March 2016=110 years, 70 days=
|Zhou Youguang=Zhou Youguang=M=13 January 1906=14 January 2017=111 years, 1 day=
|Yvette Mangin=Yvette Mangin=F=13 Janua…
Initially, the plan for unvalidated supercentenarian claims is to have three categories:
Unvalidated supercentenarians (110-114)
Longevity claims (115-130)
Longevity myths (130+)
We certainly don't want to, for example, categorize "Old Tom Parr" as a "supercentenarian" (when he probably was about 80 years old).
But things become more problematic for the gray area cases.
Should we go ahead and categorize someone such as Maria do Carmo Geronimo as a "unvalidated supercentenarian" as well as a "longevity claim"?
One way to do that would be to make two sub-categories for unvalidated supercentenarians: "Unvaldiated Supercentenarians (110-114)" and "Longevity Claims (115-130)". Whatever we decide, I think the rules need to be made clear and c…
I do feel that we need more efforts for the "longevity claims" articles.
Perhaps we could also include a Longevity claims "deaths in year X" category.
Longevity claims aren't just about whether the case is true or not. It's important to show the reader that there are a lot of claims out there that can't be validated, whether they are true or not.
I would also like to see more efforts to "link" the longevity claims articles.
Ryoung122 (talk) 19:36, March 9, 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I have decided that I will create a new article every Sunday throughout 2017, instead of haphazardly creating them when I felt like it. A new article will be up today, but starting from tomorrow, I will be creating one article a week.
Any thoughts/comments on my plans?
Regarding the "articles without pictures" category: this presupposes that every article "should" have a photo.
But not every article is a biography of a person. What is a "ghost case" supposed to look like?Ryoung122 (talk) 00:37, November 24, 2016 (UTC)
In regards to the creation of new categories, please, everyone, let's give the courtesy of having a discussion before making unilateral changes. This is the place for it.Ryoung122 (talk) 22:22, November 17, 2016 (UTC)
Some of Gerontology Wiki lists are outdated in terms of updating the tables regularly.
I'm still not 100% sure how to create an article on the wiki. I'm good at editing articles, just not creating them.
Some of the Gerontology Wiki articles such as the list of Japanese supercentenarians and well basically all of the supercentenarian lists are outdated. As a gerontology wiki contributor i work and don't have time to update them when i am home since it is a lot of work for me especially since i cannot copy or paste but i can only do that at a computer with a computer mouse.
Regarding categories for WOPs/world's oldest person titleholders, please do not include original research. Only cases officially approved as WOP titleholders by GWR and/or the GRG should be included.
One issue to discuss further:
I think, in the past, there was a discussion of whether to merge "WOPs" and "World's Oldest Person titleholders". I think this needs to be looked at again...I seem to recall a reason for having separate categories but the rationale eludes me at the moment.Ryoung122 (talk) 17:24, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
A little bit of a blog...
We need an official policy on original research. What is acceptable as a source? No one's said the specifics here.
Also, another issue: If the person claimed one age, but a GRG correspondent's site lists them as a different age, should we cite the correspondent, if the GRG says age X but Andrew says age Y...that's an issue that needs addressing.
I think we should have an "Oldest Living American" titleholder template.
Someone please create.Ryoung122 (talk) 14:57, May 20, 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the bracketing of birth years/birthdates,
I prefer this style:
and for living persons:
I'm open to hearing other suggestions, however.Ryoung122 (talk) 17:45, May 5, 2016 (UTC)
Cases with issues:
- Mathew Beard
- Addie Bess
- Andrei Kuznetsoff
- Lucy Hannah
Cases which are suggested to be older by RR:
- Maggie Barnes - 116 (+1)
- Ella Miller - 115 (+4)
- Mary Bidwell - 114 (+10 days)
- Ella Gantt - 114 (+2)
- Myrtle Dorsey - 114 (+2 days)
- Mary Curley - 113 (+2)
- Clarina Ragland - 113 (+2)
- Ada Van Natta - 112 (+1)
- Mary Bodie - 112 (+1)
- Lucy Hoyle - 112 (+1)
There's a disturbing Wikipedia trend, which is bleeding over to the Gerontology Wiki, to misunderstand what the subject of an article is. The subject of an article is what the article is about, and why the subject is notable.
Roger Federer isn't notable just for being a tennis player, or for currently being #3 in the world...he's noted, first and foremost, for having 17 Grand Slam titles, and being a candidate for GOAT. There have been times in the past when an article on Wikipedia would simply say, "Person X is condition Y". But that is NOT how an article introduction in an encyclopedia should be worded. Instead, the focus should be, firstly, what the subject is mainly about.
So, there's no need to say, "person X was a verified Am…
I was thinking about creating an article where claims 110-114 that are unlikely to be verified can be put into an article, with a living cases list and a deceased cases list because we have an article with 110+ cases that are already/likely to be verified, we have Longevity Claims and Longevity Myths, but we don't have one for unlikely (but not debunked) claims 110-114.
What does everyone think of this idea?
I've noticed that there are some "superflous" categories...such as "List of supercentenarians by country" and "Lists of supercentenarians by nationality". If the category is basically the same thing with different wordings, please merge, but consider a redirect for the category that is merged.
I suggest we go with "nationality", as it sounds more formal than "country". We have the "United Nations", not the "United Countries".Ryoung122 (talk) 18:20, March 23, 2016 (UTC)
When I was asked to return to the Gerontology Wiki on August 15, 2015, it had become a place where troll-lords ruled. Extremely vulgar language was everywhere, and the material that was here wasn't reliable, as everyone carved out their own little "walled garden" and ran things on their section of the Wiki their way.
Things have changed since then.
First, I did recognize those strong, positive influences that were already here, and I reinforced their position. I also made it clear, right off the bat, that the trolls would be blocked, banned, and stopped in their tracks. And they were. I also continued to bring in more responsible, credible administrators to help run this Wiki. We also formulated rules that would help with the stand…
Deaths in 2014 vs 2014 Deaths
I had started a category, "Deaths in 2014", with the purpose of providing a super-category that would include all deaths on the Gerontology Wiki in 2014...both supercentenarians and non-supercentenarians. However, someone had already started a "2014 deaths" and populated it (although '2016 deaths" was empty). I think we need to merge these efforts. One thing to consider is which naming system would be better, and this is less a matter of tone than one of organization. "Deaths in (xxxx)" has the alphabetical advantage of listing all the "Deaths in" categories close together..."(xxxx) Deaths" has the numerical advantage, but would include, for example, 2014 births.
Before we expend a great deal of energy…
I'm wondering if the Gerontology Wiki should track "recent deaths", as Wikipedia does?
Ryoung122 (talk) 21:41, February 17, 2016 (UTC)