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?Read more >
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.Read more >
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
Read more >
This blog post is just to see which US states (as well as D.C.) do not have articles yet.
List of supercentenarians from AlabamaRead more >
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…Read more >
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.Read more >
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.Read more >
how to know who is the oldest living person in Brazil?Read more >
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.Read more >
Welcome to the GerontologyWiki. I'm WhiteEaglet and I live in Poland. Where do you come from?Read more >
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 us around twenty-seven years to spend with the…
Read more >
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 had 2 pets during my life. Peg was a Russian dwarf Hamster who everyon…
Read more >
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!Read more >
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/augustachronicle/obituary.aspx?n=alberta-davis&pid=86284426Read more >
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
Read more >
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?Read more >
I think we should forgive me I mean him. Timmy is awesome and deserves a second chance!Read more >
Is there somewhere where I can see the amount of edits made on the gerontology wiki or no?Read more >
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?Read more >
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)Read more >
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…Read more >
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)Read more >
|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…Read more >
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…
Read more >
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)Read more >
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?Read more >
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)Read more >
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)Read more >
Some of Gerontology Wiki lists are outdated in terms of updating the tables regularly.Read more >
I'm still not 100% sure how to create an article on the wiki. I'm good at editing articles, just not creating them.Read more >
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.Read more >
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)Read more >
Is Louis Epstein's list an RS?Read more >
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.Read more >
I think we should have an "Oldest Living American" titleholder template.
Someone please create.Ryoung122 (talk) 14:57, May 20, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
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)Read more >
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…Read more >
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?Read more >
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)Read more >
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…Read more >
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…
Read more >
I'm wondering if the Gerontology Wiki should track "recent deaths", as Wikipedia does?
Ryoung122 (talk) 21:41, February 17, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
I am confused by the number of edits the wiki says I have. The wiki says three different amounts. The "Local List Users" page says I have 2570, my user profile page says I have 2610, and my edit stats say I have 2663. So, which is correct?Read more >
Name Creation date
Oldest living notable people 20 December 2014
Oldest Ever Notable People 20 December 2014
List of oldest English people by county 21 December 2014
List of supercentenarians who died in 2015 1 January 2015
List of supercentenarians who died in 2016 1 January 2016
Katherine Gomery 12 January 2016
William Del Monte 12 January 2016
James Birren 25 January 2016
Maggie Renfro 2 February 2016
Philippe Vocanson 2 February 2016
Soledad Mexia 3 February 2016
Evelyn Kozak 4 February 2016
Terue Ashida 6 February 2016
Nettie Whittington 6 February 2016
Beryl Kapaun 6 February 2016
Helen Reichert 8 February 2016
Kame Nakamura 9 February 2016
Blanche Cobb 9 February 2016
Anna Stoehr 10 February 2016 Read more >
Today I noticed that a certain editor made a new category, "Lists of supercentenarians by age", when there is already a "Lists of supercentenarians" category. I'm not sure we need both of these, but if we keep the second, it should be a subcategory of the former.
Thoughts?Ryoung122 (talk) 15:40, February 9, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
It may have been assumed that categories for places of birth and death are for supercentenarians, but that's not actually so. If someone were noted for gerontology other than being a supercentenarian and were born in the same location, they would be in the same category.
This leaves us with a conundrum: if we, in fact, wish to have "categories" limited to supercentenarians only, how would we do this? Use sub-categories, or separate categories? Let's discuss this now as the growth of the Gerontology Wiki in 2016 is expected to be tremendous.Ryoung122 (talk) 22:34, February 8, 2016 (UTC)Read more >
If it hasn't been clear yet, the main purpose of the Gerontology Wiki is to allow editors to cover material on the topic of gerontology. Wikipedia initially began as a "one-size-fits-all" open-source encyclopedia, where "Wikipedia is not paper" and, as long as material is appropriately sourced and encyclopedic, coverage was allowed.
Perhaps because Wikipedia is reliant on donations and the English Wikipedia, in particular, has become overly burdened with 5+ million articles, there has been a push in many topic areas (Pokemon, beauty pageants, war veterans, etc.) to move individual biographies and lists to Wikia, a for-profit entity.
It is no coincidence that, when on August 15, 2015, it was decided on Wikipedia to begin deleting an…Read more >
As the Gerontology Wiki continues to expand, we need to alter/expand categorization in order to serve the primary purpose of categorization, which is to group similar topics/continuities.
I note that Lowell K. Bridwell died in 1986, so he's added to the "1986 deaths" category. But he died at 62.
Going forward, we need sub-categories for supercentenarian deaths, or something like "1986 supercentenarian deaths."
The Gerontology Wiki is for all facets of gerontology, and as such, the focus on supercentenarians eventually will be lost. And that's O.K. The main reason that the focus is currently on supercentenarian material is because much of that material was being recently deleted on Wikipedia.
In the long run, the Gerontology Wiki will…Read more >
The Gerontology Wiki is not going to be Wikipedia, forbidding the use of flags to indicate places of birth and death.
However, the default (standard) value should be text first, with flags added as an additional visual element.
We also need to be concerned regarding whether the person identified with the flag actually does identify with the particular flag.
Common sense should be used here.
I am recommending:
Flags for the place of birth should reflect the flag then in use at the time of the birth. Thus, Emile Fourcade was born in 1884 in French Algeria, not Algeria.
Flags for the place of death/current residence should be easier to clarify...in almost all cases, the place a supercentenarian died or resides coincides with their citizen…Read more >