Why isn't this working? Richard Monkey (talk) 19:55, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

Template:IRL etc.

Can someone please sort these out, the ones with Template:such and such in it? Thank you. Richard Monkey (talk) 08:29, August 22, 2015 (UTC)Richard Monkey


Format issue


When I updated the death of "anonymous Tokyo woman", the list shifted out of alignment. Someone please fix.Ryoung122 (talk) 15:41, October 2, 2015 (UTC)


Due to formatting issues, I'm going to let someone else work on this article. Please note that cases such as Violet Brown and Anonymous Tokyo woman should be moved up to their appropriate rankings, having moved ahead of Margaret Skeete.Ryoung122 (talk) 15:51, October 2, 2015 (UTC)

If it is okay, I would like to have a go at this issue and the data in the database. It can be done in a couple of hours. Cheers. CGT dk (talk) 16:35, October 2, 2015 (UTC)


Feel free to try to fix this. The formatting is overly intensive and conflicting. I note there are "classic editor" and "new edit style" and a lot of other formatting issues...why, for example, does the auto-update not disappear when I added the date of death?Ryoung122 (talk) 16:46, October 2, 2015 (UTC)


Limbo cases should be removed, especially when the purported "last confirmed alive date" isn't sourced...for example, Ichi Ishida.Ryoung122 (talk) 01:10, October 4, 2015 (UTC)


This list should be "top 300," not "top 299".Ryoung122 (talk) 18:25, October 7, 2015 (UTC)

I was originally planning to make a list of ALL validated supercentenarians, but with schoolwork and other things I just haven't had the time. So, could this list be continued? Richard Monkey (talk) 18:58, October 7, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we could split the list into different pages (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 etc.) and each page have 300 SC's in it. Then the page wouldn't take so long to load compared to having all validates SC's in one page. Richard Monkey (talk) 09:15, October 10, 2015 (UTC)


PLEASE REMOVE THIS REDIRECT

"LIST OF ALL SUPERCENTENARIANS" IS INAPPROPRIATE AND NOT TRUE. This is, instead, a list of oldest validated supercentenarians, which is a subset of all supercentenarians. Thus, there should be no redirect and the redirect should be removed and the incorrect information replaced with the correct information in the article space.Ryoung122 (talk) 02:36, November 10, 2015 (UTC)

COULD SOMEONE REMOVE THE REDLINKS AND WHY DOES THIS PAGE ONLY GO TO 113? Richard Monkey (talk) 22:01, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.