Talk:Lists of centenarians/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My edits on January 16th, 2007

I've combined the Royalty and Nobility sections -- didn't see any need to distinguish them, especially since together they only have four members. Also, I separated out Married Couples from Miscellaneous and made the format of that section more like the rest of the list. The Guinness and Le Monde claims in that section need referencing. I took out "Sorry to report that Mr. Rocchio died Monday.He was 102 year old,his wife might have died as well"... a quick Google didn't turn up a reference for his death, and "Monday" isn't very specific. Pinball22 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles Rudolph Walgreen, Jr.

Why is Charles Rudolph Walgreen, Jr. referred to as a centenarian? <KF> 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

100

1800 births-1900 deaths/ 1895 births-1995 deaths

  1. 1800-1900 Móric Farkasházi Fischer
  2. 1811-1911 Isaac Charles Johnson
  3. 1821-1921 Judith Winsor Smith
  4. 1826-1926 Adam Brown (Canadian politician)
  5. 1830-1930 He Dog
  6. 1832-1932 Louis Maurer
  7. 1833-1933 Léon Bonnat
  8. 1836-1936 Juliette Adam
  9. 1838-1938 Aaron S. Daggett
  10. 1839-1939 Roswell K. Colcord
  11. 1844-1944 William Mulock
  12. 1845-1945 Thomas Barlow (medicine)
  13. 1849-1949 Hallie Quinn Brown
  14. 1853-1953 Schuyler Merritt
  15. 1853-1953 Lady Agatha Russell
  16. 1854-1954 Knut Johannes Hougen
  17. 1858-1958 James Swinburne
  18. 1862-1962 Peter J. Shields
  19. 1863-1963 Frederick Carder
  20. 1863-1963 Margaret Murray
  21. 1864-1964 Ivan Yizhakevych
  22. 1865-1965 Henry Oliver
  23. 1865-1965 Max Fabiani
  24. 1866-1966 Jean Arp
  25. 1867-1967 Lady Charlotte Wheeler Cuffe
  26. 1868-1968 John L. Hines
  27. 1871-1971 Ellaline Terriss
  28. 1872-1972 Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganthan
  29. 1872-1972 John Netherland Heiskell
  30. 1872-1972 Beta Vukanović
  31. 1872-1972 Bill Johnson (jazz musician)
  32. 1873-1973 Gene Bailey
  33. 1874-1974 Margaret Q. Adams
  34. 1875-1975 Alfred Hamish Reed
  35. 1876-1976 Frederick Grover
  36. 1877-1977 Olof Thörnell
  37. 1878-1978 Russell K. Pitzer
  38. 1879-1979 Julia Bell
  39. 1882-1982 Giorgio Abetti
  40. 1883-1983 Scott Nearing
  41. 1883-1983 Hall S. Lusk
  42. 1883-1983 Scott Nearing
  43. 1883-1983 Norman McLeod Paterson
  44. 1886-1986 Gaspare Ambrosini
  45. 1887-1987 Alf Landon
  46. 1888-1988 Fenner Brockway, Baron Brockway
  47. 1888-1988 John Bertram Stirling
  48. 1888-1988 Yukio Kasahara
  49. 1888-1988 Sri Tirumalai Krishnamacharya
  50. 1889-1989 Horace Alexander
  51. 1889-1989 Jack Turner (photographer)
  52. 1889-1989 Frank M. Thomas
  53. 1890-1990 Neta Lohnes Frazier
  54. 1890-1990 Grim Natwick
  55. 1890-1990 Myra Bennett
  56. 1891-1991 Henry Angus
  57. 1892-1992 Abel Kiviat
  58. 1892-1992 Hal Roach
  59. 1892-1992 James Van Fleet
  60. 1893-1993 Lillian Gish
  61. 1893-1993 Catherine Caradja
  62. 1893-1993 Philip Christison
  63. 1893-1993 Wacław Jędrzejewicz
  64. 1893-1993 Elizabeth Holloway Marston
  65. 1893-1993 Nina Palmquist Meyers Warren
  66. 1894-1994 Kojima Masajiro
  67. 1894-1994 Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Kanchi Mahaswamigal
  68. 1894-1994 Reg Balch
  69. 1895-1995 Douglas Lloyd Campbell
I have checked all of these names. Cheers, CP 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

101

1800 births-1901 deaths/ 1894 births-1995 deaths

  1. 1804-1905 David Wark
  2. 1805-1906 Manuel Patricio Rodríguez García
  3. 1826-1927 George Higginson
  4. 1831-1932 Hermann Ottomar Herzog
  5. 1837-1938 Henry R. Gibson
  6. 1844-1945 Charles D. Barney
  7. 1849-1950 Theodore Penland
  8. 1855-1956 Henry Nicholas Ridley
  9. 1856-1957 Arlow Stout
  10. 1858-1959 George Handley Knibbs
  11. 1859-1960 Christopher Hornsrud
  12. 1860-1961 Grandma Moses
  13. 1860-1961 Susanna M. Salter
  14. 1861-1962 William Mitchell (philosopher)
  15. 1861-1962 Godfrey Lowell Cabot
  16. 1861-1962 Mokshagundam Visvesvarayya
  17. 1863-1964 Louis Sparre
  18. 1868-1969 Alexandra David-Néel
  19. 1869-1970 Alice Hamilton
  20. 1870-1971 Earl Hanley Beshlin
  21. 1871-1972 Samuel McLaughlin
  22. 1871-1972 Jules Ellenberger
  23. 1872-1973 Charles Greeley Abbot
  24. 1872-1973 Henri Büsser
  25. 1873-1974 Edward K. Gaylord
  26. 1873-1974 Harry Ernest Brittain
  27. 1874-1975 Ida May Fuller
  28. 1875-1976 Martha Walter
  29. 1876-1977 Nellie Tayloe Ross
  30. 1876-1977 Paul Rohmer
  31. 1877-1978 Thomas Wyatt Turner
  32. 1879-1980 Richard Gavin Reid
  33. 1879-1980 Irvin F. Westheimer
  34. 1879-1980 Goethe Link
  35. 1879-1980 Melville Henry Cane
  36. 1881-1982 Louise Marion Bosworth
  37. 1883-1984 George Alexander Parks
  38. 1883-1984 Estelle Winwood
  39. 1885-1986 Harry Benjamin
  40. 1885-1986 Hermann von Siemens
  41. 1885-1986 Alicia Moreau de Justo
  42. 1887-1988 Zvonimir Rogoz
  43. 1888-1989 Irving Berlin
  44. 1888-1989 Thomas Sopwith
  45. 1889-1990 Chang Ch'ün
  46. 1889-1990 Athene Seyler
  47. 1889-1990 Okumura Togyu
  48. 1890-1991 Ed Russenholt
  49. 1890-1991 Oswald von Nell-Breuning
  50. 1891-1992 Gwen Ffrangcon-Davies
  51. 1892-1993 Tom Maguire
  52. 1892-1993 William McElwee Miller
  53. 1892-1993 Freya Stark
  54. 1892-1993 Mieczysław Horszowski
  55. 1892-1993 D. B. Deodhar
  56. 1892-1993 Peter J. De Muth
  57. 1892-1993 Sanzo Nosaka
  58. 1893-1994 Elmer Ernest Roper
  59. 1894-1995 Nicolas Slonimsky
  60. 1894-1995 Robert Alexander Anderson (composer)
I have checked through all of these. Cheers, CP 17:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Supercentenarian?

In the list of "Relative of someone well-known" someone listed the Duchess of Dúrcal, wife of José Ramón Rodil y Campillo, a spanish general and statesman. She is listed as born in 1788 (her husband was born in 1789, so her birthyear seems right). But the year she died is said to be 1901! So she would have been 112 or 113. Could that be right? That would mean, she was the oldest woman in the world at the time of her death. Many age records would have been broken earlier (first 112h birthday, etc.). I could not find something on the internet about her, except this listing on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.80.231 (talk • contribs) (posted May 19, 2007)

I have received a long note about this on my talk page from User:Ryoung122, giving further documentation [1] ;in accordance with it I have finally removed the above name from the list. If I have misunderstood the situation, feel free to revert--with a good explanation. 12:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for this List

Greetings to those who put working into adding and maintaining this list. Recently I worked on List of Married... with Children episodes and brought it up from a disorganized mess to a decent list. With the recent promotion of Surviving veterans of World War I to FLC, I think it's time that some attention was devoted to this very disorganized list. My proposal is as follows:

  1. Organize the data into wikitable format. I was thinking of five columns: Name, lifespan, age at death/current age, nationality and a brief claim to fame. I'm not sure how well all of these columns would work, or if more should be added, but that's why I'm bringing it up here.
  2. Remove red links. I don't quite see the purpose of adding people without Wikipedia articles - it's a dangerously slippery slope. I'll leave that open to discussion and, if I get started on this project, I won't remove the ones that are there right away.
  3. Citations! Everything on the list would need proper citations, which can be incorporated either with their age claim or both.
  4. Expand the lead, perhaps explaining what a centenarian is, why reaching 100 is so important and why it's worth having a list of centenarians.

Normally I would just be bold and do these things, but I have some uncertainties and I feel that this list is not abandoned (like the MWC one) and that it is the product of many contributors, who may have some good ideas for the list. I'll leave this open for a day or two to see what kind of response I get before I do anything. Cheers, CP 16:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, now it`s more than one or two days ... anyway ... I agree with you, that there must be spent some time to work on this article. Many other, quite similar aricles have become very clear and very comprehensible. But should the people stay to be listed after the different categories (Artists, Sportspeople etc.)? They could also be listed alphabetical or by age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.203.241 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 28 September 2007
I think alphabetical rather than by age. Comparing ages would have little meaning in such diverse lists. DerbyCountyinNZ 21:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... on one hand, keeping them in different categories makes for a series of smaller, more readable tables, but one large alphabetical table could work too for flow. I did say one or two days, shoulda said one or two weeks. But I will get on this soon, and ponder the merits of both formats. Cheers, CP 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've thought it over and will do a sample at least within a few days. Cheers, CP 16:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Under Construction

Well, I've started working on the list! I hope that my edit summary was clear enough but, just in case, I'll briefly explain. To express it simply, a featured list should contain no red links and should be a synthesis of pre-existing articles (not always but, given the type of list that this is, it applies in this case). Since that is our ultimate goal, might as well get rid of them now. The people removed can be re-added if and only if an article exists about them. For a more detailed explanation, see WP:SAL. Anyhow, removing the red links may seem silly now (because what harm does it do to have them there, right?), but it will make more sense once I start actually giving proper substance and form to the list. The next step is to do a "test table," which I will do tomorrow. Also, I thought of another idea – perhaps pictures to illustrate the list for those that have free images available? Cheers, CP 02:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I did a section at the bottom. Comments or concerns before I continue? For now, I've bolded living people and used only years (rather than dates and years) for the columns. Also, as a reminder to myself, I need to find that "incomplete list" template, since this list can technically never be complete. Also, I realized that "Nationality" may be controversial, so I left it out for now. As for linking professions and countries, I think the first instance of each should be wikilinked, so for now I've left it blank since I've started from the bottom. Some of the more unique concepts should be wikified though (I usually went with what was already in the summary). I also have a some qualms about including Saadi on the list, but left him for the moment, since I didn't want to appear sneaky in removing him. Cheers, CP 01:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you're doing a good job for the most part so far, but I do have a gripe in how you have a color pattern for the table. I think it'd be better if you stuck to one color, as opposed to a gray and white sequence. I say this because it'd be much easier to add or remove a name if you stuck with only one color. --RandomOrca2 04:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point, it would make it difficult to add more names. I'll fix that up today. Cheers, CP 15:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed the colours and added sportspeople. I also removed James Stillman Rockefeller from business, as he was listed twice. If anyone would prefer that he be in business, that move is fine with me. Still trying to decide whether I want to do one a day or go for it all in one shot for the remainder... Cheers, CP 03:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I kept Elsa Countess Bernadotte in the royalty section to flesh it out a bit, in addition to the fact that she's probably inherently notable, but if anyone disagrees, I have no qualms with her being removed. Also, as a question, has anyone gone through the Nisba Centenarians categories (ie. Japanese Centenarians, American Centenarians etc.) and seen if there are more people who are notable for things other than their age to add to this list? Cheers, CP 04:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Giving Up

I wasted an hour of my time today doing the list for Authors only to have my computer crash when I was up to "Edward Upward." There's no way in hell I'm going to spend another hour doing that again, so unless someone else wants to do that section, I'm going to stop working on this list. Cheers, CP 22:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Major props to RandomOrca2 for doing one of the sections and many thanks. I'll add this back to my project list, starting tomorrow, now that my frustration has somewhat dissipated. Cheers, CP 23:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice Work

As a regular contibutor to this list for the past few years, I will certainly agree that more condensed/readable tables are the best way to go. Cheers to whomever decided to rid the list of the red links, as they were far to numerous to count. A few months back I tried to do the same, but was bitched at for trying to "remove" information. I recollect when this list was a part of the centenarian article itself and had just a few names, and it is cool to know that there are other persons out there who share in the interest of the notebly aged. Continue the good work! Cheers, Longevitymonger 01:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Death of Sam Dana

What about Sam Dana, could he be added to the list? Here is a little text about him ...

Sam Dana (104) oldest living former National Football League player who once played football alongside Lou Gehrig at Columbia. A running back, Dana broke into the then-fledgling league in 1926 with the Hartford Blues. He played one game with the Blues, then played a full season in 1928 with the New York Yankees, finishing with three catches for 66 yards and one touchdown. The Yankees football team folded before the next season, and Dana later worked as a special agent for the Internal Revenue Service before retiring in 1969. He died in his sleep of complications from an infection, in Buffalo, New York on October 29, 2007.

http://www.lifeinlegacy.com/display.php?weekof=2007-10-31#D7101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.253.200 (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

He needs a Wikipedia page first. If he gets one, then absolutely he can be added. Cheers, CP 20:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Patken4 added an article on Dana, so I added him to the list. --RandomOrca2 01:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you. Cheers, CP 16:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ellaline, close but no cigar

I've removed English actress Ellaline Terriss from the above list due to the fact taht she was 99 years old when she died. Although the Wiki article states thae she was 100 (1871-1971), I'm afraid its actually 1872-1971. If anyone needs (or desires) confirmation of this, I suggest you do a Yahoo search or view this site (one of many that states her real age) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0855909/

Well spotted, thank you! Cheers, CP 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

An Addendum to the above

I've added Rosenblatt, MacArthur, Oranmore and Browne, Dorothy Burr Thompson, Luther Gulick and Louis Maurer. I'll remove them from the list above. I've also removed Arthur George Gaston who's on the list already. As for the rest, there are a lot of war veterans who could go on the last survivors list (I think Woolson, Crump and Fraske are on there already.) The others could probably be thrown on at leisure. Cheers, Longevitymonger

Thanks for the adds! I agree and have removed all the veterans (I think). By the way, and this is directed to whoever moved the page and the community at large, I'm not so sure that I agree with the page change, since "notable" is a very subjective definition. Perhaps something better would be "List of centenarians notable before their centenary," even though that's a bit long. Cheers, CP 16:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be better to just mention the overall notability in the opening. --RandomOrca2 22:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, especially since a closer scrutiny of WP:MOSLIST reveals that list should not use the world "notable" in their titles. Cheers, CP 22:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Addendum (sorry Eleanor)

I'm afraid Eleanor Robson Belmont falls into the same category as Ellaline Terris, as she did NOT make it to 100. I remember seeing in a "Who Was Who in America" book that Belmont missed it by just a little under two months, and was proven correct by the Social Security death index and a few other sources as well. She was born December 10th of 1879, not 1878, and was 99 when she died. I've removed her from this above list. Here's what I mean....(http://ssdi.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi) Methinks Wikipedia isn't as reliable as it used to be! -- Longevitymonger (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted again! Keep up the good work, it's a valuable asset to this list. Oh, and I responded to your question on Talk:Louis-Mathias Auger. Cheers, CP 18:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to know with 100% certainty that Louis-Mathias Auger is alive, but until a source comes along that lists him as deceased, I don't see any reason to remove him from the list...(his life is pretty intresting to say the least!) and much obliged for the above comment. Cheers, -- Longevitymonger (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

New

Blackman has no claim aside from being a "last surviving veteran," so he's not appropriate for this list. I'll check out the other four later. Cheers, CP 02:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The other four seem to be notable enough at first glance, so I'll add them to the above pool. Cheers, CP 16:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A living (and noteworthy) individual

I just stumbled across a person that seems pretty listworthy and is still alive as of this writing. As of now, this person doesn't have an article on Wikipedia and I wanted to get a bit of feedback from the list contributors before I add her, and hopefully write an article. Here are a few links:

http://www.tampatheatre.org/Rosa.php

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/07/Hillsborough/The_queen_of_soaps_co.shtml

http://www.stummfilm.info/stars/index_en.html#RioRosa

-- Longevitymonger (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've found about her roughly a month or two ago via the last URL you posted. She has both the notability and information for an article, although I think an article should be written BEFORE she gets added. ---- RandomOrca2 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That's right, but what about Pietro Spiggia then: a hoax, or not? -- Extremely sexy (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Breitzke emailed me about this and I nominated Spiggia for deletion after he presented me with some convincing evidence that Spiggia may be a hoax. You can view the evidence here. As for Rio, she seems like a notable person, but I wonder if she's actually the age she claims to be. I mean, I would have been surprised if you told me that she was as old as 80 (I know she can't be that young given her work, I just meant if you showed me only a picture). She's probably notable enough and it would be really great if she looked that good at 105. Cheers, CP 23:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and wow: he actually still does send mails to you, does he (he is ignoring me since several months), but what about Jean-Frédéric Waldeck? Extremely sexy (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
He's definitely a real person, so I removed the hoax tag. I can't attest to his age, but I suspect that it was exaggerated. We can, however, only go with what's verifiable. Cheers, CP 23:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well: it's definitely not verifiable that he died at age 109, and Laurent Toussaint, the French supercentenarian expert, sent me this via e-mail:

Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 18:04:45 +0000 (GMT) From: "Laurent Toussaint" <ltoussaint_super@yahoo.fr> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.fr. Learn more Subject: Re : Décès de Marie Rouch Portet le 27 octobre 2007 à 110 ans et 151 jours To: "Bart Versieck" <yvohofmans@yahoo.com> 

   He is an unpostor, a very know fake in France!

Message d'origine ----

De : Bart Versieck <yvohofmans@yahoo.com> À : Laurent Toussaint <ltoussaint_super@yahoo.fr>; amarilis.espinoza@guinnessworldrecords.com; bertrand.desjardins@umontreal.ca; robertdouglasyoung@yahoo.com; Felipe Prista <fprista@hotmail.com>; Giovanni Alunni <agiox@libero.it>; John Dederer <profjohnd@yahoo.com>; José <cerceda05@yahoo.com>; Louis Epstein <le@main.put.com>; Robert Young <ryoung122@yahoo.com> Envoyé le : Mardi, 6 Novembre 2007, 21h38mn 23s Objet : Décès de Marie Rouch Portet le 27 octobre 2007 à 110 ans et 151 jours

Pity, but what exactly do you think about this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Waldeck, dear Laurent?

So is this not enough to dismiss him, or what? Extremely sexy (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... this is tricky. MAYBE it should be nominated for deletion, but I suggest checking to make very sure that it is a hoax. A proposed deletion might be better than an AfD too. Cheers, CP 23:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay: will you PROD it, please, dear Paul? Extremely sexy (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll check it out in detail to make sure that I'm not making a mistake tomorrow and, if it's appropriate, I will. Cheers, CP 01:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hannah Myrick

I found Information that might contradict the age that is Written in her Article. I found information through Social Security Death Index that shows her being older than 102 and being closer to 107. Her Birthday is Given as August 31 1866 and dying in October 1973. [2]

Social Security Death Index Search Results


The most full-featured SSDI search engine on the internet

Field Value Records Results Last Name MYRICK 4298 4298 First Name HANNAH 28162 2

Search Ancestry.com Click here to order a copy of the original record HANNAH MYRICK 31 Aug 1866 Oct 1973 02115 (Boston, Suffolk, MA) (none specified) 033-34-0341 Massachusetts SS-5 Letter Add Post-em Search Ancestry.com Click here to order a copy of the original record Viewing 1-2 of 2

(V)=(Verified) Report verified with a family member or someone acting on behalf of a family member. (P)=(Proof) Death Certificate Observed.

--Thomas (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that qualifies as original research. Since it doesn't affect her centenarian status either way, it's probably just best to go with what we can cite on the table. Cheers, CP 17:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

New centenarians

I added Walton to the list, but you need to create articles for the other two before they can be added. --RandomOrca2 15:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I added Vale-Onslow as of today. Cheers, CP 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Zheng Ji (biochemist)

Forgot to mention that I took the supposedly living Zheng Ji (biochemist) off the list. I found out that he does in fact exist (so my edit summary is satisfied), but I couldn't find any sources to show that he was still alive, or even made it to 100 years old. If someone can find such sources, I hope that he will be re-added. Cheers, CP 20:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there are actually several links, but unfortunately I don't speak chinese. For example, this text seems to me, using translation software, almost certainly talk about Zheng Ji's 108th birthday party, and include citations from Zheng Ji himself. Without someone actually reading chinese though, I wouldn't guarantuee I'm right. http://www.yangtse.com/jspd/jssh/200805/t20080507_442417.htm (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC))
Here is a slightly older one (October 2007) with a picture (Zheng Ji said to be the guy in the middle): http://hnljd.njgl.gov.cn/art/2007/10/22/art_2586_61553.html (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC))
That second one looks good - I'll add him back to the article with that as a citation. Cheers, CP 00:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I also removed Nilakantha Somayaji || 1444-1544 || 100 || Indian mathematician as I couldn't find any evidence that he actually made it to 100 years (the lifespan means he could have been 99 or 100 at the time of his death). Again, his sourced re-adding would be more than welcome. Cheers, CP 20:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I checked again just now, and I've seen 1444-1545 and also 1455-1545, so it's probably better to leave him off. Cheers, CP 06:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
And Louis-Mathias Auger, as there's no proof that he made it to 100 he is very dead. Cheers, CP 17:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I have just inquired to the user who moved Charles Howard (cricketer) from "living" to "possibly living people." It may be that, like with Horace Wass, the source is not entirely reliable. For now I'll leave him on the list, but he may need to be removed soon. Cheers, CP 19:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No response within a weak, so I restored him as "living". Cheers, CP 00:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

He's now 109: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-05/07/content_11326514.htm

More possible additions

I've found another person who should be considered for the list. Jane Richardson Hanks (August 2, 1908- ), an influential American anthropologist. After extensive research, all indications point to her being alive, and her name wasn't listed on the Social Security death index. Here's more info. http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/hanks.html Also, another name I found was economist Raymond J. Saulnier, who, if alive, will turn 100 in September. There's scant info on the net, but one site had mention of him giving a lecture in 2001 (unless it's a different Saulnier.) He also isn't listed on the Social Security index. If someone has info on him dying, please let me know. Longevitymonger —Preceding comment was added at 01:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I found argentinian photographer Horacio Coppola who was born 1906 and where a film from his 100th birthday is available on youtube. I'm still contemplating whether he is notable enough to create an article for though. (Yubiquitoyama (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

If you can find a few reliable, third party sources that discuss him, I say be bold and go for it. I tend to be a bit biased on centenarians though, since often I wonder if I would have considered some of these people as notable at age 80 as I do at age 100. Cheers, CP 15:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oscar Brodney

I'm not sure that the source given for his death, SSDI, is reliable enough to use as a citation on this page. Can anyone provide me with a source maybe for his 100th birthday, something reliable? I can't seem to find anything that we could cite on this page... Cheers, CP 17:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hastings Banda

Per his wikipedia page and the cited sources, there appear to be serious doubts regarding the fact that he attained the age of 100. I believe that he should be removed but, as this will likely be more controversial than most removals, I'll give a week for discussion to see if there is a consensus in the opposite direction. Cheers, CP 00:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I will be removing him, as well as Olive Riley, since she is clearly famous for her longevity only. Cheers, CP 16:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Gosta Werner

Another possible addition to the list could be Gosta Werner a Swedish Director and writer who made it to 100 on May 15. Here is a link dedicated to his birthday(Swedish Site) [3]

--Thomas (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Added. Cheers, CP 15:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Natalya Petrovna Bilikhodze

Here's an interesting case. She definitely reached 100 years of age per the sources (although the current link on the page doesn't work, other copies of the article indicate that she was 100 when it was published), but it is no longer ascertainable whether or not she is living. So there's two hurdles to overcome before we can include her:

  1. Is she notable enough? Not too many sources covering the event, I'm not certain that she meets the notability requirements.
  2. How do we deal with her "possibly living" status on the list? There's a similar problem, as noted above, with Oscar Brodney, whose only source of centenarianism comes from the SSDI records.

Any thoughts? Cheers, CP 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If her claim to be a Romonov is verified then she would be notable enough. But that seems unlikely (even if true) which I think makes her status rather too unreliable for this list. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Jolie Gabor

Her year of birth has just been changed to 1892. But looking at the reference on her page one (IMDB) has 1894 the other (Find a Grave) has 1899 but also mentions she was 35 in 1936! The latter is hardly likely given that she was married in 1914 and her eldest daughter was born in 1914 or 1915. So where did the 1892 come from? DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly did "IMDB" get their information from, and "Find-a-Grave" presumably means 37, but where did they get their claim from? Extremely sexy (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the page, "According to researcher Piet Hein Honig, Jolie's Budapest birth certificate indicates that she was actually born in 1892 to a Jewish family." It is, however, uncited, so I can't tell if this is something someone forgot to cite, or original research being disguised as something citeable. Maybe we should contact the user who added the information and ask them for a cite, tag the fact and give them one week for a non-original research answer, then revert? Cheers, CP 19:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fair to me! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Closer inspection reveals that the dates were changed from the original statement. I think that this is a case of just reverting back to 1896. Cheers, CP 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Two New Finds

Here are two notable persons who have attained 100 years of age. They haven't an article yet, and I hope to remedy that if time permits.Longevitymonger (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bernard Bierman (American composer): August 26, 1908-. [[4]]

Luis Leal (Mexican-American scholar and author): September 17, 1907-. [[5]]

Bernard Bierman has an article now and has been added. Cheers, CP 15:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Some new names

These ones seem uncontentious:

-- JackofOz (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

de Boissiere and Partridge seem to definitely be notable enough, however I doubt Campbell(seems like a WWI veteran pretty much) and no to Calment, as she's only famous for her extreme age. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with RandomOrca2 and have clarified the intro a bit to explain why Campbell and Calment should not be added although, as per the "to do" list, I still needs work. I have added de Boissiere and Partridge as well. In the former case, I'm not certain if the "de" should be counted in alphabetical order, so someone please correct me if I did that wrong. Also, if someone can find a better site for him (it's an official blog, but still a blog), please do replace the one used.
As a side note, I think the "living people" highlighting should be removed (too much of a size increase for too little of an effect), or at least changed to a colour that isn't the same as the table heading. Cheers, CP 01:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the highlight should just be removed - the bolding and italicizing of the text is enough to signify a name being alive. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure why we arbitrarily decide that people who've become notable purely because of their longevity are excluded. The first person I'd expect to find in a "List of centenarians" is the oldest person who ever lived. I'm not saying that everyone who reaches 100 and has had some media attention should be listed, but Jeanne Calment in particular was world-famous, much more so than many of the others we list, including most of the people in the "Relatives of well-known people" section. She started getting media attention when she surpassed Shigechiyo Izumi's longevity in mid-1995, and kept on hitting the news regularly until she died in 1997, and then there was a veritable flood of information about her.
On the topic of relatives, since all the relatives we list became notable in their own right (as measured by Wikipedia having articles on all of them), and not just because they happened to be related to some other notable person, surely they should be put into their respective categories and not lumped together as "relatives". It just seems odd to exclude Calment on what seems an arbitrary basis, but in the same breath include people who at first glance are only there because they were related to someone else. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Some fair points raised here, so here's my take on them. As far as I understand it, I would say there's three reasons why people who are notable for their age only are excluded. First of all, in practical terms, adding everyone on Wikipedia who is 100+ years old would triple an already bloated list - I'm even starting to become of the opinion that somehow this list should be split up into different pages. If we have to draw a line somewhere, to me it makes sense to draw that line at people who are notable based on their longevity alone. Otherwise I worry about a situation where individual editors are trying to decide who is "important enough" to be on this list. Secondly, I feel like adding people who are notable only for their longevity is double dipping - not only is there an article on them based solely on their age, but then they get a mention on a page solely dedicated to their age. I feel like the purpose of this list is to highlight people who are notable despite their age - of course this gets very thinly defined at some points, like the Delaney Sisters - after all, they may not have been notable if they hadn't reached the age of 100, but they're also notable for because of their works. Finally, people who are notable solely for extreme age (supercentenarians, last surviving veterans etc.) already have a dozen or so lists dedicated to them (see Template:Longevity), so it's not like they're being entirely left out. Having said all that, I see no reason not to mention Jeanne Calment in the intro, it certainly could add to the article.

As for the relatives, I would say that the key difference between those three individuals and people notable solely for their age would be that the former group would have passed the notability test if they had only lived half as long as they did, while the latter likely would not have. While they probably didn't get as much global coverage or name-recognition, they do have a claim to notability outside of their age, even if it's a weak one.

A lot of this is fairly subjective and, since I've been doing the bulk of the work, it's been my subjective judgment. So I'm always open to debate on particular individuals, or even groups of individuals. I wouldn't cry if the relatives were taken off, I can say that much, and I would be happy to see Jeanne Calment mentioned in the intro - maybe the article's picture can even be of her, since it's a free one. Cheers, CP 06:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support re Jeanne Calment. Maybe a way to not get it crowded with every centenarian under the sun would be to permit the inclusion of the current world longevity record-holder, whoever it happens to be, but nobody else who's notable only because of their age. Not sure how we'd specify that rule. Calment isn't likely to be surpassed for a long time, but we're talking about a principle here.
On relatives, I'm not sure which three people you're talking about. There are 11, not 3, relatives of someone well-known in the category. I wasn’t arguing to remove any of these names, but to allocate them to the relevant groups, e.g. Brooke Astor was a philanthropist et al, so she’d belong with the Philanthropists; Anthony De Palma was an orthopedic surgeon and humanitarian, so he’d belong either with the Scientists and Mathematicians, or in Miscellaneous. Et cetera. It sends the wrong message to have a category called “Relative of someone well-known”, given that Wikipedia’s rules prevent the creation of articles on people where this is the sole basis of their notability. Indeed, some scrape in by the skin of their teeth – e.g. Jean MacArthur only has an article because she was awarded the Medal of Freedom. Had that not happened, I doubt we could justify having an article on her in her own right. Questions have been raised about Jolie Gabor and others having their own articles. But since they currently have articles, I suppose it’s fair enough to have them in this list, but in a place that reflects the reason for their notability; if all else fails, they belong in Miscellaneous. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I confused Royalty with Relatives with the numbering, sorry. In any case, I agree with what is being said here about the relatives - if no one else minds, I don't have a problem with moving them all into different categories (including misc for any that may not fit somewhere else). So give it a few days, and if no one makes an argument to the contrary, whoever's up to it can move them. Cheers, CP 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Update

Okay, it seems that no one disagrees with either removing the gold "living" highlighting, nor splitting up the "relatives" section, and it's been a week, so I say that we do both. I will take care of the highlighting right now, but the relative job will take longer than I have time for at the moment - so either I can do it on the weekend or someone else can but, please, when moving them around, let's kill two birds with one stone and find citations for all of them.

Also, here's an interesting one Yardley Chittick, should he be added? He's sort of on the borderline of "famous for longevity only." I have no particular preference. Cheers, CP 19:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it'd be ok to add him, considering the same argument could be said for Philip Rabinowitz, yet Rabinowitz is listed. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... but I'd argue that Rabinowitz is famous for something that he did when he was old (such as The Delaney Sisters), not just being old. I think Fyodor Uglov should stay, though, since he did win the Lenin Prize for his activities that were unrelated to longevity. Cheers, CP 00:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I'll just see if anybody else has a viewpoint. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I wonder where Longevitymonger has gone to? Cheers, CP 00:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I also removed Karl Plutus for much the same reason. If he was a lawyer who died 20 years ago, he'd never have a Wikipedia article. Cheers, CP 04:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Born in 1908, still alive

Here's a list of people born in 1908, with Wikipedia articles, and still alive who will needed to be added to the list if they make their 100th birthday this year and IF an appropriate reference is included. This does NOT include those listed at http://www.genarians.com/1908.html (since I did this to bring attention to those names that may be missed), although if someone wanted to add those names too, it would certainly be appreciated. I pulled this list mainly from User talk:RandomOrca2. If I missed any names (and surely I have), please let me know/add them to this list. Once the person turns 100 and an appropriate reference is found, it should just be a matter of adding the reference, then copying and pasting.

Cheers, CP 22:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I added the NN&C names to the list. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Freakin' fantastic! If I hadn't already given you a barnstar, I would! Haha. Cheers, CP 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If by any chance Nguyen Ngoc Tho were still alive, he'd be hitting his 100th birthday on May 26, 1908. I doubt he's alive though, or that he'd get media attention if he were, but you never know. Cheers, CP 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Olin Stephens was just added, this may be a good time for me to mention that, while I'm pretty sure I saw evidence that Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak was alive at 99, I still have yet to see anything proving that he made it to 100. I'll continue to keep an eye out. Cheers, CP 16:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Rica Erickson should be 100 now if a source is found(I'm not really that good at source finding, so I don't know of any). --RandomOrca2 (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking around, but I haven't found any confirmation yet... hopefully one will show up within a few days... Olympic news may be drowning out the story. Cheers, CP 02:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this good enough?: http://www.postnewspapers.com.au/20080809/news/020.shtml --RandomOrca2 (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Definitely. I have added her to the list. Cheers, CP 06:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's an article I found mentioning Reginald C. Fuller, who turns 100 today. Its from earlier in the year, but it has a picture (at age 99) and highlights his 77th year as a priest. [[6]] Longevitymonger
Well, aside from the problem that it doesn't verify his 100th birthday, it's also a blog, which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's policies. I found a better one and have added it. Cheers, CP 22:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found anything on Pola Illéry's 100 birthday yet, but this is kind of weird. Anyhow, I figure that we should wait until the reference in the article updates before we move her into "Possibly living people". Cheers, CP 00:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

New finds among the recently dead

Here are a few of names not previously added:

With existing articles:

Margot Gayle

Sherman Maxwell

Without existing articles (where I would consider notability requirements met):

Harry L. Kozol. For example obituary at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/health/research/01kozol.html

Without existing articles (where notability is more questionable):

Jean Dent http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/121810055779480.xml&coll=1

Samuel L. Evans http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-06172008-1550375.html

(Yubiquitoyama (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

Have added Gayle and Maxwell. Let me know if any of the others get articles. Cheers, CP 16:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

John Landeryou

Following this link John Landeryou is dead. As John (the Bridge-Player) otherwise still would be Jack (the Bridge-Player). But perhaps he still qualifies for this list. But it seem unlikely as John (the Bridge-Player) was called John before the 100th birthday of John (the politician). To follow me you have to read the article. --Dangermouse600 (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, good spot! Since there's no evidence that John (uh, the older one) lived to 100, I'm going to remove him from the list. Thanks for the tip! Cheers, CP 18:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Living & Active Microphilanthropists

Ok, I'm not sure if this will be accepted. My grandma is well known in the community of Ann Arbor, Michigan (go Wolverines!) and will be 102 in a couple days. She is the oldest volunteer in the city, and has played piano weekly for the "elderly" in nursing homes and churches for 18 years. I looked up Philanthropist on Wikipedia to find references to Volunteerism and ended up in a category name "Microphilanthropist"--a term to describe smaller forms of philanthropy including volunteering, emergency response activities, and mentoring--those that are "broader than just charity or donating money". In trying not to be biased, I think contributing people of this age deserve recognition on this page. Please give me your opinion on this, and my contribution to this talk, as I am new to Wikipedia.

Its certainly preferable to a list of politicians. My own father is 105 and was a lecturer in modern history. Should he qualify too, perhaps under academics? Peterlewis (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Since she's not famous to the point of a Wikipedia article, no. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok...touching, nevertheless... this is what I wanted to add as a reference, but couldn't figure out how!http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews_multimedia/2008/05/agnes_warren_and_her_music.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harwoodc (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Giuseppe Alessi

I found this man via the Italian wikipedia site and it lists him as an Italian politician. This link (in Italian) [[7]] lists him as turning 103 on October 29, and seeing that he has an English article as well, I'll let everyone else have a go as to his listworthyness. Longevitymonger

Seems notable enough. Added. Cheers, CP 00:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking for some help on Takeshi Watanabe, (1906-????)

I am trying to find out whether or not the first president of Asian Development Bank (1966-1972) is still alive. The man's name is Takeshi Watanabe and he was born sometime in 1906. I am leaning towards him being alive based on a picture that I found on the ADB website provided below. [[8]]

The most recent ADB President, Tadao Chino, is in the picture; as is Mr. Watanabe, who is seated in the middle. With these two pieces of information in hand, I've deduced that the picture was taken sometime during President Chino's tenure (1999-2005.) If this be true, Watanabe was alive in 1999-2005 and possibly may have made it to 99+ years of age.

I have scoured the web for info on this man and there is absolutely no reference of him dying, or celebrating a 100th birthday. This is a shout out to anyone that may be able to help!Longevitymonger

I can only add a little piece of information: Mitsuo Sato, who is also on this picture, died in 2002. So we can date the picture 1999-2002 making Watanabe 93-96+. --Dangermouse600 (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Having several people of the same name does not help: given his position a Wikipedia page would probably be justified. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the japanese wikipedia-page for him (also not having a death date) to provide the kanji of his name. I could not find anything useful in japanese either though, especially with his name pretty much being the japanese equivalent of "John Smith"... http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B8%A1%E8%BE%BA%E6%AD%A6_(%E5%AE%98%E5%83%9A) Yubiquitoyama (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Otto von Habsburg

Not quite a hundred yet - but would he be listed under politicians or royals? (Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is probably the only other possible such dual role - King Michael of Romania would be just under royal.) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he should be placed under whatever he is most known for, which I admit is somewhat tricky. On one hand, I would say that most people would think "royal" if they thought of the name "Habsburg". On the other hand, his most effective role was that of a politican, so it could go either way. In any case, by the time he is eligible to be added to this list, it will have been dived into several lists that are alphabetical, so it won't matter anyways. Cheers, CP 00:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There will probably always be a few people who fall into more than one category (other potential candidates include Norodom Sihanouk (royal and politics), and, in 'religion and politics' Pope Benedict XVI and the Dalai Lama - and a few 'writers plus other capacity' (ie more than 'My life' or 'What I think' books). Might as well get the point resolved within the next 3 3/4 years (g) - though there are only three royals mentioned.

What might be interesting is 'persons active into late age' - OvH falls into this category, and I think both Lord Manny Shinwell and Lord Denning did too. Jackiespeel (talk)

Should topics on this page, given its length, prior to December 2008 be archived? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well technically we're still working on this list, so a lot of the stuff prior to December 2008 is still relevant. Unless someone has an objection, however, I think we can archive everything up to "To Do List For FL Status!", which will at least give us some breathing room. Cheers, CP 16:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a summary of "active discussions" from earlier periods, followed by the list of persons born in 1909? Then, repeat as necessary "any subsequent January 31."

Could this page be developed into something more than "list of persons of varying notability who have reached at least 100"? It is useful to have lists which lead one in unexpected directions, but more could be done. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no one else has objected, I'd say archive up to (but not including) To Do List for FL Status!. I will try and prepare a summary of the other stuff, which might be very helpful for cleaning up the rest. As for the page itself, once we split it into alphabetical, then we'll have more leeway to do more with the list, but it's gigantic enough already as it stands. 17:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

For the 'active very elderly' would add Dame Elizabeth Murdoch and Manny Shinwell; any further nonagerians? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for this list

The present inclusion criterion for this list is exactly opposite to that set forth by Wikipedia policy. In particular, Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people states:

Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, lists of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism.

The intro to this article, on the other hand, states

The following is a list of centenarians ... known for reasons other than their longevity...

Note that these two statements are exact opposites. This topic is presently being discussed on the AFD for this article, but I am raising the issue here in anticipation of the possibility that the article may survive AFD. In fact, making this adjustment might help it survive AFD. However, regardless of the AFD result, as a matter of content policy this change really needs to be made. In a nutshell, this list needs to be totally redone as a list only of people who are notable specifically for being a centenarian, as opposed to people who are notable for totally other things and just happen to have also been centenarians. The best way to establish this would be an external reference that specifically discusses or focuses on the individual being a centenarian: that would suggest that they were notable specifically for their age. This is a big change and a big project, so I am writing it here since it will take a giant collaborative effort to accomplish. Locke9k (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your points above as a reason to alter the description of, or the criteria for inclusion in, this list (or lists, as appropriate) and perhaps the title of the article. The criteria for inclusion has been that the person is sufficiently notable to have their own wiki article regardless of age AND has also reached centenarian status thus being doubly notable. A person whose only justification for a wiki article is that they achieved notability BECAUSE of their advanced age is not considered sufficient (for this article anyway). This appears to be the exact opposite of what you are suggesting for this article. I would welcome the input of User:Canadian Paul on this matter as he has been largely responsible for maintaning the list. DerbyCountyinNZ 00:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, what I am am stating is that the present inclusion criteria for this article are the exact opposite of those clearly and specifically delineated in the policy on free standing lists. In particular, Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people makes it unambiguously clear that only people who are specifically notable for their age should be in this article. I am thus proposing that we must essentially reverse the inclusion criteria to comply with policy. Locke9k (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Locke9k. While I understand where you're coming from, I have three problems with your analysis:
  1. If I understand what you are proposing, then essentially this page would be transformed into a variant of Oldest people and all of its associated pages. That's the last thing that we need, since most, if not all those pages are, quite frankly, appalling in the manner in which they abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
  2. WP:SALAT is not, as you have suggested, a policy, but a guideline. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, this is much more than an issue of semantics. A policy is immutable and must be abode by in all but the most exceptional situations. A guideline, however, is, to quote the page "more advisory in nature". What that translates into, in my opinion, is that guidelines are more flexible in individual circumstances, are subject to a healthy dose of WP:IAR and are lower than talk page consensus in the hierarchy of an individual article.
  3. Consider a list such as Lists of Canadians. It does endeavour to include individuals who are famous for other pursuits and just happen to be a Canadian - Frank Gehry is famous for being an architect, not for being a Canadian; that's just something that he happens to be. The reason that list exists is because the consensus is that being Canadian and being X is a non-trivial intersection and thus worthy of existence. That is the purpose of "List of centenarians" and, indeed, the very question up for debate in the current AfD: Is the combination of reaching 100 years of age and being notable for something else a trivial or non-trivial intersection? Seeing as how this list survived one AfD and is on track to surviving another, I suspect that the answer is yes. This is a list of those people.
Does the lead need to be improved for clarity and explanation? Absolutely! It's been on our "to do" list for quite some time now and I do appreciate that you've pointed out another of its many problematic aspects. And also, as I've suggested many times, this list needs to be split or else it's a fair target for another AfD; I simply don't have the time to do it right now. In the end, however, I think that the consensus is clear that the inclusion criteria of 100 years old + external notability is sufficient and appropriate for this list. Cheers, CP 23:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is a guideline. My apologies - I was writing hurriedly at the time and did not carefully make the distinction. As far as your Canadian example, the guideline contains a specific loophole for geographic lists - it states that lists of people from a country are the only case in which this sort of thing is allowed. Also I would dispute your characterization of the AFD- the AFD is not a test of whether this page should exist in its current form; it only speaks to whether an article with this name should exist, and whether that article should contain any content from the current page. If the article survives AFD it should not be taken as a consensus supporting one particular form of the page.
Finally, while it is true that it is sometimes acceptable to violate a guideline, there aught to be a very good justification. I just don't see that here. Note that the present form doesn't only violate that guideline; it arguably also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. In fact, I would argue that the Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people guideline is basically just clarifying what sorts of lists of people are and are not directories as per WP:NOT. Thus there is a policy question in play as well. Finally, often when we violate guideline or policy we are doing it obliquely - there is a policy or guideline which only advises something in a side-note or somewhat opaque manner, and so in violating it we are really just saying that there's not really a consensus for it applying in some particular case that was not thought of when the policy/guideline consensus was formed. However, in this case, the present article is precisely what the guideline in question 'prohibits'. There is no real possibility that this sort of article was not thought of when the guideline was formed, and there is no real possibility that the guideline was not intended for this sort of article. This is exactly the case delineated by the guideline. The point is, a guideline presumable represents Wikipedia consensus, and in this case there is do doubt that this issue is addressed by the guideline, so the guideline represents a presumed community consensus view of how we should deal with this issue. In other words, the existence of this guideline says to me that the consensus of the Wikipedia community is essentially unambiguous in saying that this article should include only people specifically notable for their age. I would argue that in this kind of clear-cut case, if you disagree you should actually go to the guideline page and open an RFC on changing the guideline. If a consensus for the guideline stands, there would clearly be a consensus for changing this page as I have suggested. If not, then the present page would become acceptable.

Locke9k (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A few extra notes. First, I don't agree that guideline/policy consensus is 'lower' than talk page consensus in priority for an article - in cases where the guideline/policy clearly applies to the article and there is no question of interpretation or applicability. To me, arguing that it is lower is tantamount to an argument in favor of cherry-picking editors for a debate. Active editors on a specific article talk page are most often frequent or at least regular editors of that page; they thus are more inclined to have some investment in the present state of the article; in other words, they have a bias and do not likely represent a broad consensus of Wikipedians. Guidelines and policies, on the other hand, are presumably formed through the broadest possible consensus of all or many Wikipedians. Thus a 'consensus' on the talk page clearly represents a minority relative to a consensus on a guideline or policy, and deference should be given to the guideline/policy except in extreme cases - and I just don't see how this is one.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by saying "appalling in the manner in which they abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines". Perhaps you could clarify? Thanks Locke9k (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Rita Levi-Montalcini

Her entry could mention that she is the current oldest senator in office, which is an interesting and important fact, and the entry including that information would be still shorter than other entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.26.71 (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose. First of all, it is an interesting and important fact and it's more than welcome on her talk page if it can be properly sourced. Secondly, since this is already a gargantuan page, the aim is to keep each entry as short as reasonably possible... her prime method of fame is as a scientist, not a senator, so even the mention of her political career may be a bit excessive. Yes, there are entries that are longer, but that only means we should work on trimming those, not extending others. Finally, the way that it has been entered onto the page is a violation of WP:DATED: avoid statements that will date --> "Avoid such items as [...] currently and recently". Cheers, CP 04:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Being the oldest at/of/for something in a particular country is only notable in that country. This is an international page, being the world's oldest ever "might" be worth including, nothing less. DerbyCountyinNZ 07:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That last reason has no point, because she is the only centenarian senator in office in the world. Before her, Strom Thurmond was the last person to do so in the last 10 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.46.137.70 (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And you'll notice that in this article the description for Storm Thurmond says only "American Senator"! DerbyCountyinNZ 05:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly new candidate

What about Lady Gertrude "Trudy" Bliss, born April 02, 1904. She was born as Gertrude Hoffmann in the USA and married british composer Sir Arthur Bliss (1891 - 1975) in 1925. He was Master of the Queen`s Music from 1953 until his death. See also his wikipedia-article. Lady Bliss is the President of "The Arthur Bliss Society", even at age 103. She would be a candidate for the table "relative of someone well-known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.191.238 (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well she died November 21, 2008 at the age of 104. She may yet get an article so it's a good idea to keep this in mind and not lose it to archiving. Cheers, CP 23:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry Evans Maude

This link, listing the contents of Volume 17, the 2007 edition of the Bulletin of the International String Figure Association, claims that Henry Evans Maude, born 1906, died sometime between 2006 and 2007. Without the actual journal, however, it's impossible to tell whether he made it to 100 or not. Does anyone have access to this journal, or any other source that might tell if he made it 100? Cheers, CP 15:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody has added a date of death on the page, with an online source, clearly stating that he died aged 100. He should be added to the article. Cheers --Jkaharper (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll be adding some names soon, so I'll be sure to add him as well. Thanks for the spot! Cheers, CP 18:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Notable enough for addition?

Olive Riley and Ruth Hamilton, who were both centenarians and the world's oldest bloggers at one point in their lives both have Wiki pages and seem quite notable, including Riley who was quite well known before she became "the world's oldest blogger" but does anybody else see them as being notable enough for an addition to the list? --Jkaharper (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Riley was removed about a year ago (see the section "Hastings Banda"). Generally, someone who is notable only for being the oldest of something doesn't qualify for this list. A good rule of thumb is: if this person did everything they did, but died 50 years younger, would they still have a Wikipedia article? In these cases, the answer is no for both. If they do something truly special in their old age, like Philip Rabinowitz (runner) or The Delaney Sisters, then it could go either way, but being a blogger is nothing otherwise noteworthy. Cheers, CP 23:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... while we're on the topic, I just noticed that what was formerly Sadie and Bessie Delany now is split into two articles. I'll update the list later tonight to correct for that. Cheers, CP 23:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I dont know if these are technically notable for inclusion on the list but I will throw them out thier.. --Tommieboi (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
They all seem fairly notable to me. If no one has any objections, I'll add them in a day or two. Cheers, CP 00:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Added them, cheers --Jkaharper (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Did Elena Ceausescu's mother live to be at least 100? If she did, is she notable enough for this article?

Frederica Sagor Maas

Is there any evidence that she is still alive? I can't seem to find any from the last several years.

If she had died we would have definitely found out by now. She was alive as of 2003/4 when she appeared in several documentaries. That's good enough for the article.--Jkaharper (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

To Do List for FL Status!

Please add anything else you see fit to this list!

I object #9. This article is 70KB and can be 100KB if it is done. Georgia guy 20:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a pretty fair point. I'd never noticed how large the article has gotten. Wikipedia:Featured list criteria says that "It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text and acceptable copyright status." Maybe one really good picture to illustrate the point of the list would be better? Cheers, CP 20:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have an idea of who the one or "main" picture should be? Obviously a free one, but who do we choose to represent "centenarians?" Cheers, CP 19:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

When doing the professions, I tried to strike a balance between over and underlinking, not certain how well that turned out. In any case, if anyone has any suggestions on how to improve this, I hope that they'll enact them! Cheers, CP 05:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Criteria #8

Here's a list of people that I've found in the "Centenarians from country X" categories that are not on the list. I've excluded anyone who has no other claim to fame other than being old (war veterans, world's oldest golfer etc. etc.), since this list is supposed to consist of notable centenarians. I also did not include any individuals from earlier centuries if there were valid reasons to disbelieve their age (example, other texts saying they only lived to be 77). There were nine names remaining after I added everyone else, listed with the reason that I haven't added them to the list:

  1. Leonard Blumenthal – I could find no evidence that he reached 100, let alone is still alive. SSDI indicates at least one individual who died long before reaching his centenary who might be the above person. Case solved: he indeed died at the age of 83 in 1984.
  2. David Davies (clergyman) – Not certain if he is notable
  3. Gilbert of Sempringham – Many different dates of birth and death, and there's one possible combination that would make him less than 100 years old
  4. Godric of Finchale – Some sources state that he was born in 1070, which means he may not have reached 100 years
  5. Ramon A. Estella – Could not find any evidence that he reached 100, let alone is still alive. Actually born in 1911 and died in 1991.
  6. Alexis – No concrete source for birth and death dates that I could find; most seem to claim that he was "around" 100-106
  7. Wayan Limbak – Not certain if he is notable
  8. Malatesta da Verucchio – While the birth and death years span a century (1212-1312), I could not find a source that said that he actually lived 100 years (ie. he may have been only 99 when he died).
  9. Ahmet Kayhan Dede – I have no idea where the 1891 birth date comes from, but the citation says that 1897 or 1898. The official birth date says 1903. Not remotely sure what to believe, but there's a fair enough chance that he wasn't a centenarian to leave him off for now.

If anyone finds some better sources or believes that Davies and Limbak are notable, I hope that they will add them to the list. Otherwise, they will remain on the talk page as possibilities. Cheers, CP 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm scoring out Davies for the reason that his date of birth was confused - he was born 1741, as opposed to 1714, so he was by no means a centenarian, cheers --Jkaharper (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Criteria #6

If no one objects, I'm going to remove the five names listed in the "to-do" list under Criteria 6 in about a week. Saadi's age is suspect, the Countess has no article and the other three don't particularly seem notable aside from their age. That's just my opinion, and I'd really like to hear others! Cheers, CP 02:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed, since no one objected in about a week. Cheers, CP 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inserting a comment here so that the To-Do list doesn't get archived! Cheers, CP 23:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Another no-archive comment! Cheers, CP 16:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Commenting to prevent archiving. Cheers, CP 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln Maazel (born February 12, 1903)

Lincoln Maazel is 106 years old and not just known to be the father of conductor, violinist and composer Lorin Maazel. He is an actor, co-starred in George A. Romero's horror movie "Martin" in 1977.

I agree that he is notable enough for the list but he does not yet have a Wikipedia page. If somebody does create an article for him then he can be added to the list. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
He died on September 15, 2009.--91.39.82.52 (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Extra people

Name Lifespan Age Notability
Ralph Waldo McBurney 1902 – 106 American Bee keeper
Lou Kenton 1908 – 116 British potter

McBurney and Kenton aren't known for anything other than their age, Brook Astor is already on the list and Malinosky isn't 100. Cheers, CP 02:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Waldo McBurney was the oldest working man in America until his death on July 8 2009. And Lou Kenton was a veteran of the Spanish Civil War. He is on the page: Surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War. Added to that, he is the oldest living veteran of that conflict. Signed- User:NickOrnstein

Exactly, they're only known because of their age. A good metric for inclusion in this list is this: would this person have a Wikipedia page if they accomplished the same things but died 40-50 years ago? In both of these cases, the answer is no. Cheers, CP 21:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Frederica Sagor Maas is alive

She has been confirmed by the grg, she is at the bottom of the centenarians link page. Signed- User:NickOrnstein— Preceding unsigned comment added by NickOrnstein (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Pola Illery

Likliness is that she is dead. There is not a single place on the internet that provides evidence to suggest otherwise. Therefore, I'd be in favour of removing her from the list. Thanks--Jkaharper (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed this already on your talk page and I presented a solution that you agreed to months ago but never followed through on. Until A) it gets approved at the noticeboard or B) a source appears claiming that she is deceased, or C) The source that claims that she is alive (it's reliability is irrelevant for purposes of making claims about someone being living without reasonable evidence to the contrary) no longer does so, I will consider any removal of Category:Living people from her page a violation of WP:BLP and will act accordingly. Cheers, CP 21:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ann Nixon Cooper

I'm trying to decide whether or not Ann Nixon Cooper belongs on the list or not... is she well-known only because of her age or does she have legitimate claims to notability per her activism. In other words, if she had died at the age of 65, but otherwise accomplished everything else besides being mentioned in Obama's speech, would she still have a Wikipedia page? I've skipped by a couple lately who are obviously notable only for their age (Sona Babai, Wook Kundor, Eva Ostwalt), but I'm undecided on Nixon Cooper... thoughts? Cheers, CP 18:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Her article was created immediately after Obama's speech and if it had not been for her extreme age it is unlikely she would have been mentioned. It is only her age that got her mentioned in the speech which then resulted in her wiki article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Another 1

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

He's already listed under "Scientists and mathematicians". Cheers, CP 17:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mary Rundle

To support that she lived to 100 years old (and, ostensibly, is still alive), the author of the Mary Rundle article noted that "In 2007, she was listed as a Vice-President of the Women's Royal Naval Service Benevolent Trust" and sources this PDF file, which indeed does what is quoted. It was actually released 2008, so there's no chance that she hadn't reached her 100th birthday if she was still alive. Question is, is this good enough evidence for the list? Cheers, CP 17:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Marjorie Okell

I recently created this article but thought I would wait in case it came up for deletion before suggesting her for this article. I think she is notable enough. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else, the British Empire Games appearance should qualify her under WP:ATHLETE. I'll add her now; worst-case scenario is that we have to remove her later, which is really no big deal. Cheers, CP 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Stevens Stevens

(1900-2000). Scottish chemist. Could someone please create an article for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.222.9 (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sudhakar Chaturvedi

The more I look at Sudhakar Chaturvedi, the more I think that he probably doesn't belong on this list... he seems to be famous mainly for having known Gandhi and being a Vedic scholar, neither of which would have gotten him a Wikipedia article had he not lived to be really old... I'm thinking that it should be removed, but I wanted to hear any opinions, since that'll be one less name to move for the impending list split. Cheers, CP 23:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would even argue that his article barely qualifies for inclusion in wikipedia. He seems to be no more than a teacher/religious elder who was around at the same time as a famous person and a notable event. If his age was to be verified he would be notable as an Indian supercentenarian but no more. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there an Indian equivalent of Shetlopedia [www.shetlopedia.com] and Manxwiki [12]?

There will always be 'borderline articles.' 17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed. I think that I might go through the talk page in a day or two and manually archive some of the threads that are complete. I'd start a thread to discuss which those should be, but that might be a little self-defeating... Cheers, CP 16:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 candidates

When should the list be started - for those of us who want to pursue obscure lines of inquiry? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's already been started. Check a couple of threads up. Cheers, CP 22:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

1909 births, still living

Since 2008 is just about over and only two names with notability still have a centenary to reach this year, might as well get a 1909 births section for 2009.


However, I'm not sure how to list Mae Laborde, as she has a specific range to what her birthday could be but no exact date. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, amazing! I added Laborde at the end with Coffey for now; we can look for a 100th birthday notice when the time comes around. Also, an anonymous editor added Coffey's DOB as October 27, 1909, but it was reverted for lacking a source. It's not reliable, but it's as good a guess as any for when to look for news of his 100th birthday. Cheers, CP 21:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Howdy! I've added three other persons who will turn 100 in 2009 who have articles on the 'pedia: Rogers McVaugh, Yutaka Katayama and Henry Sheldon Fitch. There's also a certain Diana Keppel, Countess of Albemarle who was born August 6, 1909. I can find no evidence of her dying, or of her celebrating a recent birthday. According to Burke's peerage website, appears to be still alive. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And as for 2008 birthdays, Isha Basant Joshi an Indian authoress, turns 100 on December 31st. Cheers!Longevitymonger (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't seen a reference for Isha Basant Joshi's 100th birthday, but we should give it at least a month before we move her into "Possibly living people". Cheers, CP 17:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A few names I came across who may or may not still be living:

Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Dominy is still alive per this link, which also indicates that his birthday cannot be before May. Guillet was alive in 2004 per this and there's no evidence of death and the Italian Wikipedia says he's alive, so I guess we'll see if he's still around on his 100th birthday. White is alive per the first reference on his page. I couldn't find anything for Keppel, Campbell, Gagnon, Leboe, O'Keefe, Tucker or Houghton. I will added Dominy, Gullet and White in a moment. Other potential 1909 centenaries can be found on my Nonagenarian list. Cheers, CP 03:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Using Debrett's Keppel is still alive. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed Jadot, who is now deceased, and added Keppel. Cheers, CP 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And Rogers McVaugh makes it as well, a pretty successful year so far! DerbyCountyinNZ 03:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Added White, no confirmation for Keppel yet that I could find. Cheers, CP 19:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of sites out there claiming that Richard L. Bare was born in 1913 (search his name +1913 on Google). Maybe we should take him off the list for now if there's no confirmation of a 100th birthday soon? Cheers, CP 05:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Since no one has objected, I removed him. Cheers, CP 17:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a 100th birthday cite for Bowie: http://www.gilman.edu/news/detail.asp?pageaction=ViewSinglePublic&LinkID=4413&ModuleID=36. Also, the date of October 26 has been re-added for Coffey. Cheers, CP 04:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Added. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a 100th birthday cite for De Blaes: http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=DMF16092009_038. Cheers, CP 20:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Added. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been over two months since her "100th birthday" and nothing has come out, so I've moved Diana Keppel, Countess of Albemarle to the "possibly living" list. The last evidence I can find that she was still alive was in June of 2004. Cheers, CP 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that Floyd Dominy is still alive, since there was plenty of news about his impending 100th birthday, but then no stories afterwards... can anyone find anything? Cheers, CP 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Splitting the list

Well, it survived AfD, but I do agree that it probably needs to be split into smaller lists. The question is, how do we do it? With bigger lists there are many precedents. It could be alphabetically (ie. List of Centenarians A-F) or by occupation, by country, by age etc. etc.

If nothing else, it will make it easier for us to produce some featured content. We can also add more pictures to smaller lists. So, what are the thoughts? Cheers, CP 01:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think alphabetical would be a good idea. I'll gather the free-use pictures on the articles listed here and include them on a subpage. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be any objection to alphabetical... now the question is, how do we split up the letters so that the divisions are neither too small nor too large? Cheers, CP 23:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Well A-M (inlcuding Miscellaneous) and N-P would be 'fairly' close to 50:50 at the moment but either could potentially approach 100k within a year or so. A-E, J-R and S-Z would probably be better just in case there is a flood of new entries! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I say if there are no objections, I say we do this ASAP, before someone complains or tries to delete the list again... then we can get back to providing references and weeding out the problematic entries. Cheers, CP 03:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Doing it alphabetically has negative effects on the usefulness of the list I'd prefer splitting by nationality or profession. Anything that makes it less of a category-looking list would stop future spurious nominations. - Mgm|(talk) 08:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I also think catagorising what the centenarian was famous for (artist/politician etc) is a useful way to organise the information, so I think we should retain this. As this is a list of notable centenarians, it's important to list what they were notable for. Organising alphabetically would make this information hard to find. I think it should be either split by nationality (doesn't necessarily have to be by individual nations - eg. continents), or by profession. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well it's the end of 2009 and the list is now 188k, so Derby's prediction off two 100k lists from a year ago wasn't that far off. I think it's about time to do this... the question is merely alphabetically or by profession and, if we use the latter, how do we divide them and what do we name the pages? Cheers, CP 17:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest List of centenarians by profession (A-H), List of centenarians by profession (I-R), List of centenarians by profession (S-Z). This article could explain the splitting of the list and have a list of professions linking to the appropriate section in the new articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I like that solution, but we'd have to decide beforehand how to alphabetize each profession (most aren't a big deal, but the broader ones might be ie. "Educators, school administrators, social scientists and linguists" or "Social scientists, educators... etc."). I'd say we alphabitize by using the broadest category first (like the second way I organized the example). We could then use this page as a disambiguation page to all the actual lists and the talk page as a central location for discussing all the things that we usually discuss here, so that people don't have to follow discussions that concerns the lists in general on four different pages. I think we should see if there are any objections, and then split the list in a week. Thoughts? Cheers, CP 16:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed on all points. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well no one has argued, so I'm going to set this up soon in my user space and then link it here for everyone to see. Cheers, CP 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are the proposals: User:Canadian Paul/List of centenarians by profession (A-H), User:Canadian Paul/List of centenarians by profession (I-R), User:Canadian Paul/List of centenarians by profession (S-Z). I tried to change some of the titles to be more concise, more accurately representative of who is on the list, and in "Social scientists..." and "Visual artists..." to help fill out the third page. I'm welcome and open to suggestions of course. The only missing table is the miscellaneous one... we could add it onto the end of S-Z, since that is the smallest, but we'd have to give it a name so that people could find it in the section, like "uncategorizable" (or, perhaps, a real word). I also think that changing "military commanders" to "military professionals" will allow us to shoehorn in a couple of individuals from the misc list. Maybe the chess people can be placed under "sportspeople" as well, I'm not sure. One problem that this makes it more difficult to find a specific person, but my thought on that is that if you're looking for Bob Hope, you don't need to guess what category he's under, you just need to look at his own page. I think people coming here would be more interested in learning about names that they didn't know. Anyhow, I've rambled enough... Cheers, CP 00:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd really like to do this ASAP, but I know that there was some opposition to splitting by profession during the page move. If anyone has opposition to the above proposal, can they voice it in this section that we can come to a consensus? If not, I'd like to have the page split by the end of the week. Cheers, CP 16:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Lambert Mellon

Rachel Lambert Mellon is still alive (or at least was at the end of 2007, and there's no entry for her in the SSDI), but I can't tell whether she's really notable for anything, or how she'd be categorized if she were. She's obviously not famous for merely being elderly, but she seems borderline notable to me. In any case, I'm in need of suggestions/opinions. Cheers, CP 00:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

She appears to be notable only for being a gardener for the Kennedys and, with her husband, collecting and then donating paintings to the National Art Museum. In my opinion this is insufficiently notable for a wiki article (there must be innumerable people more worthy of an article who don't have one), but I could see how some Americans, and perhaps a few others, might disagree. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Marie-Claire Heureuse Félicité; one hundred year old empress

She lived in 1758-1858. I could not insert her, as I am not a computer expert so it did not look very good. --85.226.40.64 (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Are we certain that she reached 100? She died on August 8, but there's no date of birth... she could have been only 99. Cheers, CP 19:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Uhh

Why are there supercentenarians on the list when it is a list of centenarians? We should just remove the people aged 110+ years old. Makes no sense to have them on here. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you joking? All supercentenarians are also centenarians by definition, hence the reason that the latter word is included in the former, and even 110+ year olds meet the stated list criteria: "The following is a list of centenarians (people who lived to be or are living at 100 years or more of age) known for reasons other than their longevity". To leave off supercentenarians would be needlessly technical and would be detrimental to a reader's understanding of the topic covered by this article (since there would be missing names) and thus it's an excellent opportunity to apply some common sense. Cheers, CP 04:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Commenting to prevent archiving"

There's no point in adding meaningless comments to old threads specifically for the purpose of preventing archiving. The reason that discussions are archived by bots is that no-one sticks around for 365 or 250 days to respond comments. Wikipedia talk pages aren't the place for conversations that have comments every 364 days, or even every 150 days. That went out with modern postal systems; say, sometime in the late 1800s. If no-one responds to you after 120 days, then the conversation is over. Jayjg (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but have you even read these sections? I added comments to ongoing discussions (such as the to-do list, people who will be added in the future, names we need to keep in mind) etc. from being archived. The only person being disruptive around here is you, and if you continue to do so, I'm simply going to bring this up for dispute resolution. Cheers, CP 20:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
If you keep having to add "Comment added so this thread won't be archived" comments to various threads so that they aren't automatically archived, then it's quite obvious that there is no ongoing discussion, except you talking to yourself about how you're going to fool the bot. I've brought this issue up here. Jayjg (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The sections under discussion have not been resolved. It may take some time beofre they are. As this article deals with people who may still be living assuming they have died (so they could be removed from discussion) would violate BLP and we have had cases where it has taken several years to establish whether they reached 100 or died beforehand. There are only 3 regular users on this talk page and I'm sure that none of us would like to see those sections archived while there is still a reasonable chance that they will be resolved. If those with no specific interest in this article are unhappy with comments being used to prevent archiving the alternatives are to remove the bot (which I added); extend the bot archive length to a timespan agreed by consensus; or to retrieve the relevant sections from archiving when the dicsussion resumes (which would be unnecessarily tedious for the regular users of this article). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why, if there are only "3 regular users on this talk page", they would each require up to 199 days between comments. Meanwhile, Equazcion has removed 35k worth of old discussion from the main Talk: page (and placed it in a sub-page), and it's now down to a more reasonable 21k. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to archive anything unless the page gets to long. If something is a to-do list then it makes perfect sense to keep it around. These bots are here to serve us, and we are allowed to disobey them. Equazcion's solution looks good. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem, and I've seen it many times, is that editors chance upon ancient discussions and respond to them, expecting that the issues are current, or that the editors still remember or care about the discussion. I've seen Talk: page sections sputter along literally for years, with new editors responding to old editors who haven't edited Wikipedia themselves in years. This clutter wastes time and effort, and detracts from efforts to improve articles. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
When I added an archive bot to this talk page it was specifically to archive those discussions which had been dealt with so that the size of this page could be reduced and inactive discussions removed. There might have occasionally been comments by editors on older discussions which ahd not been archived but that, from memory, was pretty rare. There were far more discussions which have been ongoing (by which I mean that one or more regular users returned to it even after months) for many months, even years. With the impending splitting of the article I would expect the number of sections on this page to be reduced considerably. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Jayjg: That often is the case, and it can be a problem -- and although we both jumped to that conclusion here, it turned out not to be the case. Anyway, whatever this was appears to have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, I think. Equazcion (talk) 05:56, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Further discussion needed for some of the other proposals noted here (and I agree that the page is unmanageably large). Ucucha 14:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


List of centenarians → List of notable centenarians — I noticed that other list articles with a notability requirement are named like this. In addition to conforming to the standard, and being more technically accurate, the new name might cut down on confusion when editors feel compelled to add non-notable people to the list. Equazcion (talk) 16:11, 4 Feb 2010 (UTC)

We discussed this a long time ago and, at the time, we decided against it as it was supposedly not looked upon well if an article title, especially a list, had the word "notable" in it. From typing in "list of notable" into the search bar, however, I can see that that is no longer the case, so I agree with the proposed move and suggest that we combine it with the splitting of the list. ie. Have List of centenarians redirect to list of notable centenarians, and then have List of notable centenarians be a disambig. page to the three "List of centenarians by profession" pages. That still leaves the issues, however, of what to do with the "miscellaneous" and "relative of someone famous" sections. Cheers, CP 20:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that the top of each of the new, post-split, articles could have a list of all the professions which would link to the appropriate section on the appropriate article. If it is not possible to move all the "miscellaneous" person into other sections then I would include it at the bottom of the other professions. Possibly some users would be confused by the jumping between different articles but I would hope not. I am also starting to think that relatives are not particularly notable and should be excluded unless they can be included in another section. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Something does need to be done to help the size of this page. It's nearly 200 kilobytes long, and my old computer nearly froze up trying to load this page! Bcperson89 (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

CP's proposal is good, but it begs the question, how would each page be named? Listing all professions included on the page, from within the title, would make for pretty long titles. The simplest thing to do (from an editing logistics standpoint) would be to ditch the listing by profession thing and move to alphabetical listings. List of notable centenarians would then redirect to List of notable centenarians (A-G) (for example), and contains links, in the lead, to the other page(s). I'm not sure what the history of the decision to arrange by profession here is, how attached everyone is to it, or how much it helps readers (it may very well help, I'm just offering food for thought). Equazcion (talk) 19:25, 5 Feb 2010 (UTC)

The listing by profession thing is a good idea; however, it does lead to a situtation like this where the page becomes too large. I think the idea of list of notable centenarians (A-G) (or (A-H) or (A-K), whatever works best) is a good idea to manage the size of this page. Perhaps listing them by profession on the alphabetized pages would be appropriate? Bcperson89 (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No specific comment as of yet on what to arrange the new pages by just yet, but I wanted to make everyone aware of the section a little higher called "splitting the list", just so that everyone knows about some of the stuff that has been brought up in the past. Cheers, CP 22:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The structure of the otherwise gigantic List of computer viruses (all) might also be of interest to some people. Cheers, CP 02:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Intro sentence

The sentence I have attempted to correct several times over the years was (and is once again) stupid, its oafish "(mostly)" parenthesis inexcusably bad writing. I take it that CP is its proud ownership-taking author. But there is no need to define a word (a sound that means something in a language) when the word itself is linked to its defining article, and anyway readers (mostly) are going to know what it means. Is baby-talk required here? I must admit that the long acceptance of CP's dirty diaper is a bit of a puzzle to me. Eye.earth (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than dignify any of this with a response, I'll simply point out that Eye.earth has been a long time disruptive editor as evidence by his threads on the ANI board here and here and by all of the complaints on their talk page. Since they've now taken up a series of personal attacks on people who have been criticizing them, I think a third one is in order, which I will be writing up right away. Cheers, CP 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oldest on this list

Should this page have a section for anyone 110 or older, or the 10 oldest, or anything else like that? Matchups 04:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I see no point. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Neither do I; it's not really relevant. A "rank" really isn't relevant to the topic of the article and it seems fairly trivial to me. Cheers, CP 15:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional person(s)

I hope you guys didn't forget about Senator John McCain's 112 year old mother Roberta Wright McCain, along with her twin sister Rowena, who was born the same day month and year as well? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

She hasn't been forgotten, it's just that she is only 98, so she still has 2 more years to go before she can be put on this listBcperson89 (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, once we come to a consensus about the "relatives of someone famous" section, she might not even qualify at all. Cheers, CP 15:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Jane Ising

I don't think she is notable for anything apart from her age. If there wasn't a report on her 108th birthday would she even have a wiki article? Does she even deserve an article? There must be thousands of fromer Economics professors with no other claim to notability. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted Jane before I saw this. They have to be notable for something other than living past 100, and she doesn't appear to be. Also note the person who added her here is also the person who just created Ising's article. Equazcion (talk) 23:51, 2 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Well, we do have a "relative of someone famous" category, but these are people who are generally very well known for their activities as a relative, or who accomplished something else. It might not be a bad idea to do a review of that section though. Cheers, CP 04:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping her on this list, in the Relatives of famous people section, as her husband was famous and that automatically qualifies for her to be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.222.9 (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is a better argument for removing the "relatives" section rather than including Ising. I think I might go through that list next week when I have the time and voice my opinion on which ones to keep (and where to move them to) and which ones to get rid of. Other people should do the same if they can. Cheers, CP 01:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I've checked the list for foreign language articles. Rose Kennedy has 8, Terentia 5, Ruth Poole 3, Jolie Gabor and Jean MacArthur 1 each, the others have none. Whether this is a useful criteria in this case I'm not sure. Really, I think being the relative of someone famous is transferred notability rather than achieved notability and should probably be treated here in the same way as persons known only for their age and excluded. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
My proposal would be to move Rush Limbaugh, Sr. to Jurists, Anthony DePalma to a new section for Medical Professionals that could include some of the Scientists and some of the Miscellaneous, and remove the rest. Terentia seems like she might be notable under Politicians, but it's unclear from the article itself. Same for Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy and Philanthropists. I'd like to get a consensus on this by the end of the week so that we can clean up the section and proceed with the page splitting, which is LONG overdue. Cheers, CP 16:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This has been done now; I kept Terentia and Kennedy, since I figure 5 and 8 foreign language articles probably make them notable. Hopefully splitting the list can be done this weekend. Cheers, CP 19:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I might hold off for a bit on splitting because of the misc section. Does anyone oppose me removing the following from the list?

  1. Dan Keating - Seems to be notable only for his age (would he have had a Wikipedia article if he died even 10 years ago?)
  2. Ida May Fuller - Kind of a tricky one... she's not notable just for her age, since she'd probably have an article either way, but she didn't really "do" anything
  3. Gregorio Fuentes - Seems to essentially be a "relative of someone famous", except it's just a friend.

If there's no opposition, I'll proceed in a couple of days. Cheers, CP 23:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with removing Dan Keating. Disagree with Fuentes as he does seem to be the basis of an incredibly famous piece of literature, and that to me seems more than enough to reach notability standards. I would say agree with Fuller but then that would mean that Edith Kent, the first woman in the UK to receive equal pay would have to be removed as her notability is on the same level as Fuller. Just my thoughts, would like to hear what everybody thinks? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Fuentes is only one possible inspiration for a character in "The Old Man and the Sea". This has probably been exaggerated as he grew older. Hemingway never admitted that any one person was his inspiration. I'd see this as a dubious claim to notability at best. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Well there was no objection to removing Keating, so he's gone. I agree with Jkaharper that there's really no difference (in terms of this list criteria) between Fuller and Kent, so if there's no objections, I'll remove them both tomorrow. Fuentes is 2 !votes for remove, 1 !vote for keep... I'll leave that one open for a bit more to see if anyone else comments. Canadian Paul 16:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
All removed now. Canadian Paul 06:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

101 yr old

  • Name: Milan Herzog
  • Lifespan: 23 August 1908 -
  • Nationality: Croatia
  • Occupation: Retired Doctor of Philosophy (Ph. D.)

Go to http://www.grg.org/ > Centenarians for additional info on him.

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be better to create an article on him first. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why every single person on the list needs an article. As long as the source is sited. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
That would violate WP:List. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

More centenarians

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence that Calloway or Vainitoba have turned 100 yet, yet alone that they were born in 1910, yet alone even still that Calloway is alive! Gurjar died around the time of Indian independence according to his article, there's no evidence that Centenera is alive (and the Tagalog Wikipedia thinks that he was born in 1914 anyways), Haraguchi isn't 100, Nogueira is deceased according to a worldfootball.net, and Whittemore is only notable because of his age. Having said that, however, I think I may be reconsidering my earlier assertion that Erwin Jaskulski and Philip Rabinowitz (runner) belong on the list - are there any objections to removing both of these individuals? Neither of them pass the test of being famous if they had accomplished everything they had in life but died 50 years earlier. Canadian Paul 01:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There was no objection, so I removed both Jaskulski and Rabinowitz and I will strike Haraguchi from the Potential Candidates section. Canadian Paul 15:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_centenarians/Archive_1&oldid=1136957740"