Talk:List of German supercentenarians

Rank?

What is the meaning of the rank in the table at List of German supercentenarians#German supercentenarians, which skips many people listed? Is it perhaps based on an incomplete external source? We should either rank people correctly or remove this column. — JFG ^talk 02:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Beats me - it should count 1-50 or whatever without breaks. Legacypac (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

People with numbers are scientifically investigated cases, people without numbers are only mentioned in media without scientific investigation. —77.20.253.147 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have added a note to that effect for readers. — JFG ^talk 18:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Emigrants

The article currently has separate lists for German residents and German emigrants. However, the subject matter is "German supercentenarians", so that the places they have moved during their life should not matter to their German nationality and ranking as supercentenarians. Therefore I suggest merging the list of emigrants with the main list of oldest German people ever. A similar reasoning was recently applied to the French and Italian lists. — JFG ^talk 18:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 13:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think it's best to merge the content from Gustav Gerneth here; an attempt to do so got reverted. Said page now is a relic of longevity trivia, and the stripped-down version removing irrelevant details (he lives in a house with a steep staircase, seriously?) is only a couple paragraphs. This page isn't overly long, and that way we'd have a decent minibio somewhere with a bit of context. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support: obviously the best solution here. --Randykitty (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose All of the mini-bios and ranked people here have been validated by GRG, while Gerneth has not been. I have my issues with the GRG, but that is the system in place here. We are also waiting for Guinness to announce a new worlds oldest man, and if it's not him or an older man, then his claim would no longer be considered even credible on any of these lists and he will be removed. As of right now, it is irresponsible to incorporate Gerneth's dubious article into this otherwise good page. AfD under WP:NOPAGE grounds would be a better solution for his article. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Support The AfD I created reached no consensus, but out of respect for my fellow editors, I will go with the consensus here. @The Blade of the Northern Lights @JFG Counting the nominator there are now eight votes to merge and only two opposing, so it's justfied for either of you to close this out now. Probably a good idea to make a formal close like here so it's clear this discussion is over. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Gerneth's bio fits in here better than on a standalone page. If his age claim later turns out to be wrong, we'll simply remove him. For now he is widely considered by German sources to be Germany's oldest man; his world ranking does not matter. — JFG ^talk 16:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG If he is older then the worlds oldest recognized man by Guinness, then he will be removed from this list as well, not just global lists. His page will stay listed here as having been merged and will serve as temptation for fancruft lovers to keep re-creating like they have done with many pages over the years. It's better to rip weeds out by the roots at AfD, not a sloppy half-way measure that's a gateway to future headaches. Think ahead, mate. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

We'll cross that bridge when we reach it. — JFG ^talk 07:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Gerneth is the oldest living man on earth wich makes him noteworthy. The facts in the article are by no means irrelevant or trivial! Metron (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Not trying to be a prat and supersede this discussion, but I just nominated his article for deletion since that is what I feel is the best course of action and that can't happen in this discussion. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  Honestly, to have it all out there at once will probably simplify things; whatever the result, it'll be clear all options were out there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural note: The AfD was closed as "no consensus", and the closer Jo-Jo Eumerus stated that a merge discussion would be useful, while perhaps unaware that such discussion was already open here. AfD participants @Darwinek, Metron, Newshunter12, Randykitty, Reyk, Schetm, and Stefka Bulgaria: Please comment here if you haven't yet done so. — JFG ^talk 17:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support I still think the best way forward with this is merging. The article incorrectly states that Gerneth is "the world's oldest living man since the death of Japanese Masazō Nonaka on 19 January 2019" (Kane Tanaka is the current verified oldest living person), Kane Tanaka is the oldest living person (woman), and salvaging the most notable aspects of the page and merging to a relevant article seems like the best solution. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per my comments in the AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Enough support for the merge. I have preserved the full text. — JFG ^talk 04:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per my rational at the AfD which, stated simply, is that there is sufficient context here to warrant a stand-alone article. I have undone the merge. There certainly doesn't appear to be consensus in the discussion above (4 support (not including a double *vote) vs. 2 oppose. The procedure at WP:ANRFC was not followed when the article was merged. The allotted time was not allowed to elapsed and, while discussion had slowed, no clear consensus had emerged to merge. According to the guideline, both are required before a discussion is closed early. schetm (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  This was not a formal RfC, which is why I did not request a formal closure. Additionally, I made sure to WP:PRESERVE all the content from the article in the merged mini-bio. Accordingly I don't think the dedicated article should be restored; the redirect does the job, and interested readers can learn about other German supercentenarians on the same target page. — JFG ^talk 08:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

We had the formal AfD, which resulted in no consensus to merge, delete, or keep. I think that, at the very least, the formal RFC self-closure procedures (wait 30 days, seek an uninvolved closer if the *votes are tight) should be followed. That's the procedural bit. At any rate, my concerns against the nuking of minibios against consensus are documented, which is why I generally oppose the creation of new minibios over and against a stand-alone page. schetm (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

At any rate, the 30 days will be up tomorrow, so I'll drop opposition to a close if the tide turns in one direction or the other. I have serious WP:Votestacking concerns with today's notification of the longevity cabal and no one else, but it's tiresome being a lone voice on these matters. schetm (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Schetm: It's been over a month, and more support opinions have been added below. Would you now accept that this merger has community consensus, and allow the matter to be closed? — JFG ^talk 13:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@JFG:, yes. My concern was that proper procedure was followed and now it has been. schetm (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support- I don't believe there is enough properly sourced material for a standalone article and I somewhat opposed a merge at the AfD because this person was already covered in sufficient detail elsewhere. But this merge now seems the best way forward. Reyk _YO! 08:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - if notability is their age, then inclusion in this list is all that's needed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Defining the 100 known oldest people

There is a clear consensus that this list should enumerate the up-to-100 known oldest German people over 110 years old as reported by various reliable sources instead of assigning a ranking only to GRG-validated people and keeping the other entries unnumbered.

Cunard (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this list enumerate the up-to-100 known oldest German people over 110 years old, as reported by various reliable sources (proposed change), or should it assign a ranking only to GRG-validated people, and keep other entries unnumbered (status quo)? — JFG ^talk 08:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Rationale

This rationale is mirrored from the recent RfC about the oldest Italian people.

The oldest people from Germany are being tracked by various sources: news reports on birthdays and deaths, articles and studies about longevity, and various special interest groups and forums. A prominent tracker of supercentenarians worldwide has been the Gerontology Research Group (GRG), which maintains a network of correspondents in several countries dedicated to discovering and validating cases of extreme age. The present article, and various others, have been historically largely sourced to the GRG's public lists of supercentenarians by nation, and a usual practice has developed of assigning a ranking only to persons that have been validated by the GRG. However, since 2016, GRG correspondents in most countries have stopped documenting people under 112 years old, so that recent cases are mostly sourced from newspaper reports; this is apparent when sorting our list by death date. As a consequence, this list is giving undue prominence to cases that were documented earlier, while newer cases are unranked, including most of the living people on the list. On the other hand, we have ample and adequate journalistic sourcing for many elder Germans, and few cases are actually disputed in this country. Accordingly, we should re-number the list to include all well-sourced cases, irrespective of whether they are listed by the GRG. The list would then be current and truly represent the "oldest known" Germans. The current list would not change, but the 25 unranked people would be numbered, reaching 96 currently-documented German supercentenarians. In the future, new people who reach their 110th birthday would be included, and the list would be eventually trimmed at the top 100 oldest, just like the French, Italian, British, American and Japanese lists. The proposed change is also in line with general Wikipedia policy, whereby all relevant WP:RS should be considered in order to enhance our coverage of any particular topic area. — JFG ^talk 08:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Please express your preference with Support (for ranking all well-sourced people) or Oppose (for ranking people from GRG only) and a brief rationale . Longer comments should go to the #Discussion section below.

• Support There is adequate journalistic sourcing for many elder Germans. The page no longer functions using the GRG alone and it is important to point out that the GRG has seemingly stopped validating native Germans as the last on their list died in May 2015 and over a half-dozen German SC's have reached 112+ since then, none of whom have been validated. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support There is no preference in WPP for a single source, and logically it would seem GRG has to rely on old records just like anyone else. If there is a controversy, report it in DUE weight, but do not limit the sources. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - well sourced/verifiability meets our requirement; being reliant on a single source is actually advised against in our PAGs. To include a separate ranking tends to give it more credence while lessening the credibility of those not listed but reliably sourced. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Johanna Rehfeldt deceased

According to this url https://the110club.com/austrian-german-and-swiss-centenarians-t480-s1545.html, on page 104, Rehfeldt is marked as "deceased" in 2020 without an exact date of her death. I did not find any other source stating her death. Should she still appear on that list?--2A02:8108:41BF:A028:FA:5EBC:BDEA:773A (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Gustav Gerneth's actual date of death

There's a discussion going on at Talk:List of the oldest people by country concerning this topic. Renewal6 (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Asta Hasses's date of death

Asta Hasse died between January 1 and September 18, 2022. Since the date is (currently) uncertain, I figured that it made sense to place her on the ranking list at 24th place (the youngest she would have been at death, with a death date of January 1, 2022). I did indicate that she may have lived up until September 18, 2022. I am not sure if this was the best way to handle her uncertain date of death. Is there a different, more proper way to have done this? Wiki O'Ryan (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)