From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject World's Oldest People (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject World's Oldest People, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.


I came across an interesting article on morbidity in supercentenarians, so I summarized their major findings. This article could use more sources on the health and morbidity of supercentarians. I'll try to add scientific sources overtime as I find them. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The result could just be an artifact from the increasing mortality.
About 10% of supercentenarians survive until the last 3 months of life without major age-related diseases as compared to only 4% of semisupercentenarians (age range 105–109 years) and 3% of centenarians.
Phrased differently, supercentenarians die faster from age-related diseases, while the younger centenarians have a better chance to survive those diseases for more than 3 months. This should not be surprising. --mfb (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Tables here and at List of the verified oldest people[edit]

The tables are nearly identical - the table here lists both country of birth and death, the other one just death, but apart from that they are the same. To reduce updating effort, I suggest to merge them. Include the table here in the other article or include the table from the other article here.

I also thought about a template that can do some sorting updates, but without Lua it probably gets messy. --mfb (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The table here is superfluous, it is merely a partial CONTENTFORK from the main list. It is essentially a baseless (there is no given justification for listing people who lived to 115 or older) piece of fanfluff and should be deleted. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Redundant table that already exists in another article. As stated, why is the cutoff 115? Why not 114 or 110? Support deletion of the table. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)