Talk:List of German supercentenarians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Orphaned references in List of German supercentenarians

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of German supercentenarians's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Alive":

• From List of Portuguese supercentenarians: living as of 1 December
• From National longevity recordholders: living as of 1 February 2010
• From List of oldest people by year of birth: Living as of 31 December 2009

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the ref-name "alive". It did not have any associated reference within the article, I could not find a reasonable place it may have been copied from, and the "references" in those articles are footnotes claiming a date the person was still alive. The person the ref was associated with, Frieda Schmidt, was the only one in the chart whose age was being footnoted, as well. Salamurai (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I forget about some really unlogical arguments you are joying - so many useless and completly wrong argument are giving so many advices your only interest is to kick all supercentenarians themes out of wiki: (cur | prev) 22:31, 11 December 2015‎ Legacypac (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,667 bytes) (-1,134)‎ . . (→‎Living German emigrant supercentenarians: deal with them on brazil and usa lists. They were not born in Germany anyway, but the no longer existing German Empire) (undo | thank)

But you forget about the fact that GRG does science and it is necessary to know about cases that are not verified but should be in future... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatGreen (talk • contribs) 06:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Chronological list of the oldest living person in Germany since 1989

Well, it is the question, wether we should leave immigrans out of this list. If we do so, there is at least one woman missing:

After the death of Emma Joisten in November 2008, the oldest living German-born person living in Germany was Elisabeth Schilling from Bavaria. She was born September 3, 1899 and died December 27, 2008 at age 109 years, 115 days.

So, "FRIEDA" Schmidt was already 109 years old, when she took the title of the oldest German-born person living in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.224.2 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The list counts OLDEST LIVING PERSON IN GERMANY. That means, in my opinion, it doesn't matter whether they are born in Germany or not. It's a bit too much to count only those who are born in Germany AND live in Germany until their death. I would really vote for keeping the immigrant cases. ~D.Hermann, 01:58, 10 March 2010~

As TIM doesn't discuss but changes I only want to admit that Mrs. Schmidt's name is FRIEDA not FREIDA. I won't add it to the article as it would be undid soon. Poor wikipedia. ~D.Hermann, 01:30, 11 March 2010~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.188.100.18 (talk)

Also is Rosalia Hasenkampf in this list but she isn't validated yet - we don't have a birth or baptism certification or another early document proving her age. We also have to talk about the unvalidated cases under 110 in the list.
--Statistician (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hasenkampf isn't considered verified by Epstein either. She is, however, on the pending list for GRG. I'm not sure why she's considered verified on this list. This page is about supercentenarians, I strongly object to adding people under 110 to this unless its for the chronological list.Tim198 (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rosa Rein...?

I don't know who it was to undergo this page a bigger change but as nice as it may have been intented, I see just the opposite of improvement! For example: Where's Rosa Rein? She was born in Germany! Why deleted?? ~D.Hermann, 02:30, 10 March 2010~

State or Country of birth

Who added the columne "State or Country of birth"? Why are there big changes on the page without a discuss?
The most states given are not correct - the most german states where founded after WW II... so the information given ist historicaly complility wrong.
--Statistician (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I started to correct the place. Some where complitly wrong like "Berta Zeisler" - the place is today France (but was then part of Germany) and not Rhineland-Palatine.
--Statistician (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The old list was historically correct, the new one is not. The conflict results from the then existing administrative organisation and the modern federal states. Charlotte Benkner f.i. was born in the Kingdom of Saxony, she can't be born in the freestate Saxony. If the List by birth of Germans is not of common interest, so the list should be changed into a List by oldest from Bundesland, but it would include immigants and exclude emmigrats. It might be that both lists are interesting. 15 September 2010 (CEST) 00:01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.5.250.120 (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oldest by Bundesland

Would it be possible to create a table for the oldest persons by birth and nowadays Bundesland, as there are some for other countries? To let you see what I mean, it would be like this: Nordrhein-Westphalen (Northrhine-Westphalia) -> Maria Laqua Hessen (Hessia) -> Irmgard von Stephani Baden-Württemberg -> Lina Zimmer Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatine) -> Karolina Krüger Hamburg -> Elsa Tauser Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony) -> Berta Lindemann Bayern (Bavaria) -> Gisela Metreweli Sachsen-Anhalt -> Erna Hennigsen (if she was born in the Regierungsbezirk Erfurt, then she would be the recordholder for Thüringen) Brandenburg -> Frieda Müller Sachsen (Saxony) -> Arno Wagner Thüringen (Thuringia) -> Ottilie Aleith

and with footnotes for these persons who emigrated: Sachsen -> Charlotte Benkner Rheinland-Pfalz -> Adelheid Kirschbaum Hessen -> Berta Rosenberg Berlin -> Helen Johnson Hamburg -> Johanna Frank

Oldest by Bundesland

Would it be possible to create a table for the oldest persons by birth and nowadays Bundesland, as there are some for other countries? To let you see what I mean, it would be like this: Nordrhein-Westphalen (Northrhine-Westphalia) -> Maria Laqua, Hessen (Hessia) -> Irmgard von Stephani, Baden-Württemberg -> Lina Zimmer, Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatine) -> Karolina Krüger, Hamburg -> Elsa Tauser, Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony) -> Berta Lindemann, Bayern (Bavaria) -> Gisela Metreweli, Sachsen-Anhalt -> Erna Hennigsen (if she was born in the Regierungsbezirk Erfurt, then she would be the recordholder for Thüringen), Brandenburg -> Frieda Müller, Sachsen (Saxony) -> Arno Wagner, Thüringen (Thuringia) -> Ottilie Aleith

and with footnotes for these persons who emigrated: Sachsen -> Charlotte Benkner, Rheinland-Pfalz -> Adelheid Kirschbaum, Hessen -> Berta Rosenberg, Berlin -> Helen Johnson, Hamburg -> Johanna Frank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.35.20.90 (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Incumbent

If there's anything in the wikipedia or wiktionary entries for "Incumbent" that suggests the use of that word in a succession box about longevity, it's exceedingly well-hidden. This is all of a piece with the deeply unencyclopedic view that old age is a contest, whose "winners," "record-holders," and "record-breakers" are inherently notable. David in DC (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Karolina Gröber

How about Karolina Gröber? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%84ltester_Mensch#.C3.84lteste_lebende_deutsche_Frauen Mami (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wilhelm Schorner

Why is Wilhelm Schorner not on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.18.16.247 (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

update

Maria Löw passed away on March 14, 2012 [1] (newspaper article of March 17, 2012 says "afternoon of last Wednesday"). Why is Friedrich Wedeking not on the list of German supercentenarians?--91.39.46.219 (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Germany's borders

In 1943 the allies of World War II defined the borders of Germany at the last day of the year 1937 as those which were defined by the treaty of Versailles or the voting in Northern Schleswig, in the southern part of East Prussia, in Upper Silesia and Alsace and Lorraine. That means, at least until this day, the more until the the days in 1944/45 at which those regions were freed by the red army from the nazis East Prussia, Eastern Pommerania, Lower Silesia and the western part of Upper Silesia have to be seen as parts of Germany. Until 1918, the borders of Germany had been those of the states of the german empire and the territory which was given to Germany by France by the treaty of Frankfurt/Main in April 1871. So if we make this a list mentioning supercentenarians of Germany, we have to take the people who were born and/or died in the borders of Germany at the time of their birth/death.

On the other hand, we could make this is a list of german supercentenarians, but then it has to inclued all (ethnic) german supercentenarinas, those who were born/died in the borders of Germany and those who were born/died outside of them. In this case, all the polish, french, danish, cashubian and lithuanian people who were born in a german state don't have to be on this list, but as all the people on it who were born outside the nowaday Germany's borders later went to nowaday Germany, we can call them germans and so they have to stay on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.253.255.205 (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Persons that never became Germanys OLP

What do you think about the following:

Would be good to include in section "people" also German supercentenarians who where not the oldest living person? e.g. Mrs Elsa Peck, Else Aßmann > both never became Germanys oldest person but they were reported by the media a lot. And especially Mrs. Peck was a very special woman. Or should this section only deal with Germanys OLP? GreatGreen (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want you can also create an own article for there persons and link it to this site. I think you can also write a short article in the "People" section. But at least, the person's age should be verified. So if you want, do it, but maybe you should try to verify her first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.253.229.242 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies

There is currently a discussion about what constitutes encyclopedia content on longevity related biographies at Talk:Gertrude Weaver#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies please comment. I am One of Many (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Page needs update

Frieda Szwillus has passed away: http://gedenken.freiepresse.de/Traueranzeige/Frieda-Szwillus --Xquenda (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Johanna Klink

Johanna Klink's date of death is not certain (she either died on 19 or 20 February 2015). See this source. She is also listed as being in "limbo" by the GRG - see here.

I therefore propose that she is removed from this list for the time being, or a footnote is added at least until her date of death is known. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Oldest person in Germany

Is the woman from Hamburg (born October 1904) still alive? his article confirmed Lydia Smuda, who turned 109, as the oldest living person from Hamburg. --Nixus Minimax (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Databases and the RSN discussion, the GRG pending claims are not a reliable source and I have removed them. There is no reason to allow GRG "unverified" claims to be reported here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Working together is something different than deleating without notice. You are welcome for new inputs and also some critics but you should have started your discussion before doing on your own.

Firstly there are living German supercentenarians. It is easy to find out by text, that these are no verifieds at the moment. The colours also identify this. It is quiet important to notice them, because the chance of getting verifying them is not big: the reason of this is not that these cases aren't reliable - it is typical German behaviour of protecting sensitive and personal data. Most families could hand in reliable document, but they want to keep privacy and they do not trust any institution to use their data for only science. So it is also important to keep pending cases, because as you can all pending cases have died, no one is alive anymore. The chance that they will become verified is characterized by a quiet long term, having a look at Elsa Peck. Media reported early and such a long time about her, many fotos - the eraliest of 1904 - were published. Her case seems to be very very true, she also took part of Elevation in 2013, and if there would have been any doubt about her person - also her age - there would have been no chance of electing for her. Also the acutal list of OLP by state is quiet important because is shows the development of Bundesländer and the chance of new SCs. The same goes for the list of OLP by state of birth. You have extracted cases and the way you have chosen is not clear, please explain detailed for every case/Bundesland. Last but not least: having a time line with many terms, that do not name the OLP for this time is incomplete. The different individual paragraphs are good for some important and remarkeable mentions, e.g. that Gertrud Henze gave her death body to science research.

So the list have been changed and developed over years and you deleated good and also reliable work without notice of the interest by people reading these articles. It is important to have an actual article, you degraded to a stiff one. GreatGreen 15:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact that information has been contained here against the general policies is not a reason to keep it that way. You don't WP:OWN the article. Again, there is no policy reason why claims that are pending or unverified by the GRG should remain in the article and that has been discussed since January at least with discussions at RSN and other places. Also, coloring has been removed for months under a similar argument, namely that Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between what particular sources (in this case, the GRG) believe, just whether or not reliable sources have confirmed the claim. Here, if the GRG hasn't confirmed it, it shouldn't be listed absent some other source confirming it. The other country articles have already been changed to remove all pending and unverified claims. If you want to re-argue pending claims, you can discuss it at the WOP talk page or at RSN or wherever but it's been discussed to death at this point. At to Peck, if you put in the actual citations, then we're done and I have no issues here. I don't dispute the individual paragraphs nor the listings in general, just those based solely on the pending or even unverified claims tables. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly I have to mention the article is not named “List of VERIFIED German supercentenarians” – so the indication of just presenting verified SCs is not a must. It is good to present them but the article before has named clearly the cases that were pending and unverified. So the reason you’re giving are not really entitled. As you can see it is not my own opinion to save the other cases. You might imagine why: Especially Germany keeps privacy to the maximum and although German SCs get a high media attention they or mostly their families do not want to hand in personal data. WHY: Because the GRG is a foreign institution and it is not enough to have some people in Germany working on this. Try to tell German people that some strangers need personal documents to be sent to USA. Secondly many German SCs have lived in nursing homes. These institutions are not allowed to give private information (also contact data) to third people. There are rules for, called protection of data privacy.

Because I am blocked now by your behavior I write some marks for you, you should work on.

1. You didn’t put the intern wiki links correctly > links were given after the “…” has been named before. Links have to be given by first mention. 2. OLP by state Bavaria: Auguste Ehardt > enough sources… North Rhine-Westphalia: Hildegard Henke > of course, she is one of three living SCs in Germany Saxony Anhalt: Gustav Gerneth > of course, he is the one of three living SCs in Germany

3. OLP by state of birth How does you order work? You deleted many cases – what are the reason? Please explain everyone! *e.g. Else Aßmann, Frieda Szwillus, …

4. Chronological list of the oldest living person in Germany since 1989 As you can see the list is named correctly, so the list before you changes was in contrast of the topic head line correct. There is no mention of SC, Verification as must, … It is important to give a time line without any missing time. What are the reason you only left verified? Are there any reliable sources you can really use for correctness? No, because no source can really proof by 100% any person to be the actually OLP, they only can think of, but they do not know. The way you list is now indicates this – what is false…

What I is my wish: Please explain your changes detailed. Giving a link is not enough because this doesn’t proofs your changes the way you did.GreatGreen 15:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatGreen (talk • contribs)

Do not restore the chronological list section unless you provide sources that state "Person X was oldest from death of Y" as per WP: OR and WP:V. The "oldest living by state" needs to go as only three names are 110+ (subject of article is German 110+ year olds) and it duplicates information in the first table (which should be made sortable). CommanderLinx (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No it is not a must because as mentioned the list of Oldest by state is not named "Supercentenarians by states" - it should show actual development and as you can see the list involves cases to become 110 in next time. So it is not necessary to correct always the things you may want to if there is a correct explanation. And the same goes for supercentenarians. As is is mentioned, the introduction explains that the list includes at the moment only living SCs being unverified. Here we go again: The article is NOT mentioned Verified SC. You destroyed enough of work by years that was done with deleating all cases being not verified. If you want to make this a general rule of wiki, than you have to think about all biographies to prove birth dates of all. A thing you cannot do.

And as mentioned for chronological lists you have to think of: what source would always name someone being the oldest after another one? The list became incomplete by deleating many unverified cases and now you are crumbeling. GreatGreen 06:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatGreen (talk • contribs)

No problem with listing unverified cases as this isn't the GRG. If you have a reliable source that states they are 110+ then add them to the article.

Here's the thing. The "oldest by state" isn't needed. The subject of this article is "German 110+ year olds". First sentence of this article. Only three of the names in that second table are 110+ and those names should be listed elsewhere. Secondly, if the main table is main sortable then readers can sort it how they want and we won't have duplication of tables. The less tables that need updating, the less to keep an eye on.

And thanks for confirming there are no sources for the chronological list. So do not restore it. Discretionary sanctions are in place for longevity so it's not a good idea to continually revert and restore unsourced information. Work on improving the article, don't revert. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned the articles has been changed by people like you and now you are claiming "oh look there are no sources" - yeah, why? Because you deleted articles like Charlotte Klamroth where this was sourced. And also have a look on the article Gertrud Henze - there you can find sources claiming her as the OLP and the same goes for many others. I just said that the sources are not that scientific like GRG. So it is no wonder and the same goes for many other cases. And that it also the reason why unverified cases have to come back. GRG and so on are institution working on their own. Firstly they do not try to work on every case and secondly many SCs or their families are not interested in working with such institution. You cannot say these cases are not 110+ because they are not only verified. This might be your personal opinion but I am convinced when media are reporting for some years about people reaching centenarian, later supercentenarian - why should there be any doubt - e.g. Elsa Peck, Margarete Dannheimer etc. Really I do not understand.

And as mentioned the list of oldest by state will come back, because it shows the official development. It is also mentioned above this short list that it deals with the actual development. As said - potential future SCs. If you want you can create a sorteable list but I won't do because the list is good. The only you try with your warning is setting me under pressure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatGreen (talk • contribs) 10:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

If you want to keep a list of old people that might become super old people, keep it outside the article. There is no reason to have oldest by state, especially when the info for the 110+ can be seen by state on the main list. 02:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

"Verified" claims

"Verified" is redundant and unnecessary. "Unverified" (which I'm sure mean verification by the GRG and nothing else) is meaningless. If it has no sources at all, it shouldn't be listed at all. If it has reliable sources, then it should be listed. There is no basis for calling these "verified" claims unless there are "unverified" claims somewhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. Only verified information should be here. I don't care who verifies it, as long as they are a WP:RS. No need to say these are verified. Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You don't care about many many things. So especially no wonder about Legacy who wants to claim people to be born in German Empire are not German. This is only one point to draw out you have firstly no idea about national history and secondly (and thats the main point) you try to find any point to kick out as many cases as possible.

And it doesn't matter what the other articles says because these are all "rules" you "developed", but the problem is some of your so called rules are contradictorying. You were active enough to change all article so do it again for the other ones. See, if you say only verified cases should be involved you are only implying that there only such individuals and no others. Headlines have to underline that there also unverified cases because the way you are going to argue but also to write sentences/headlines etc crash all those cases down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatGreen (talk • contribs) 05:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll stack my knowledge of history against anyone. I'm struggling to understand your point GreatGreen. You seem to want to list non-GRG verified people and I'm fine with that. We just need good sources for everyone listed. We don't need the word verified because we only list verified sourced names. I think we are like minded here but language gets in the way? Legacypac (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the problem not to underline that this list only is built by verified SCs implies there would be no more people who reached 110 what is curorsy by thinking only of the fact "verification" by instituion X. Now you may repeate you need to look for such "reliable" sources. But that isn't the fact, because to give a full research you have to mention at minimum these SC because being 110 years and older doesn't depend on a persons verification, it is a question of its real age. Just why these people are "ignored" by institutions like GRG or one document is missing for a full verification doesn't claim these cases are wrong. But the way you guys treat all the articles is implying this. The easiest way of this is to combine verified and unverified cases again to give national articles characterized by good and full research. The only point is (and that's where I understand you) to point out validated cases. E.g. unverified cases could be colored grey. And the other cases are characterized by the ranking numbers of verification list as it was before. Because this shows the whole development and not only a small part (in Germanys less than 50%!) of the SCs average. It would be useless to built another article/liste for unverified cases because this would split contents. Finding a solution is good but the way you guys crashed into the articles showed you are only thinking of your own opinion without working on the topic itself for many years. I only mention that many single SC articles of verified cases were deleated by you: why didn't you integrate them in the lists as smaller articles. Now data are lost and you made sure by yourself to give incomplete information to readers. GreatGreen 11:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Not treating the GRG as some super-source is not ignoring them. No one even knows what the GRG's verification process is, other than anonymous individuals here when it's convenient. Their website says nothing about it, it doesn't explain why some are verified, some are pending and some are unverified. Your solution ignores literally everything done at WP:V, everything done at WP:RS, everything that's been discussed at [{WP:RSN]] and numerous other discussionboard solely for the purposes of the German supercentenarian page being a complete outlier just so the GRG's status is maintained. It's not productive as this has been discussed extensively again and again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't wish to built an article with other rules like the others have. I'm looking for logical statements I can understand for all. It is the easiest to get an example by this article because I am German and worked on this article almost two years. Wiki does not ban media like the one this article was characterized by. So I wish you give me a complete answer instead of giving me the articles I already knew. So please give an statement on your own. It seems to be you don't have one so you only give the link and thats it. But as said I already knew and I really don't get that conclusion you seem to have. There is a difference between writing classic articles that are based on Historical Sciences, Natural Sciences or something like this. The lists are rankings of lifespans itself and do not belong to classical science fields. I would understand you critics if in this articles would be written something about aging process itself in a biological, social way, what it depends on and more. But this isn't the content of the list and article. And stop twisting my words. You are the one to accept only verified cases (mostly by GRG), not me and others. You underline this also with ignoring to mention the lists and articles are dealing only with verified cases. GreatGreen 12:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You are either interested in making an article that follows the other policies here or you're not. Those other policies have been discussed and argued repeatedly with numerous users and follow the general guidelines of this project. You haven't bothered to do that and that's precisely why these pages are so problematic. Now, what is it you want? No one cares about GRG verification. If the GRG has verified the claim, we'll list it, equal to when other reliable sources have a claim. That's policy here. If the GRG hasn't verified a claim, no one here cares and it won't matter. That's why the "verified claims" language is nonsense, it's purely a game so that any claim that the GRG hasn't verified can be excluded. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

looks like enough refusal to follow Wikipedia policy here in this thread for an ArbComm DS request? Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

So in fact you are the one to crash wiki rules about source acceptance by dismiss all articles not dealing with SCs being verified by the GRG. All of you arguments are not well-thought because the way you treat the articles is not well planned. On the hand you say GRG is not the top, nobody care abouts etc. Although you want only to list GRG-cases. You forgot about that GRG also deals with other cases - have a look on pending cases. You also delete them although these are cases docs have been handed in. Now to what I expect the whole time: A real statement and not at first question of you. You changed the article - you have to explain. And give an answer how you treatment of sources confirms the official rules of reliable sources written down by wiki. It isn't! Sources that were used corresponded to it. What happens now, doesn't. Your so called discussion, by the way, is not a discussion between different people. It is only a fight of crashing down the others, over and over. And the reason you don't own constant and consistent statements implies you don't have the background of logical arguments you pretend to have.GreatGreen 22:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Order of people

What order are the people in there? It's not alphabetical or chronological or by anything I can tell. I think it'd be preferable to go alphabetical. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Why you have no plan of the order: because chronoloigcal lists have been deleted by you so stop requesting consequences of your behaviour... As you can see and read these people were the OLPs. That's what the order is working. If the list would exist like before this would be logical. Having an order by ABC would dislike many verified SCs because I am pretty sure you would prevend introducing all of them.GreatGreen 15:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have an actual point here or are you just being nasty to be nasty? I'm asking for one. The Japanese article goes chronologically so that it's almost a story from the oldest old person onward. Others like the American one go alphabetically. There's no right answer here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

As said chronological. Do ask such things I have answered and that are logical by reading the paragraphes.GreatGreen 18:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

People

E.g. Irmgard von Stephani and other cases - claiming the "rules" of AFD - if you think of von Stephani it was critisized about the sources and her noteability. As you can see this has been changed, different sources from diffrent publishers and different contents. Von Stephani is important because she is Germanys OLP ever to live on her own, she is the OLP ever to have live in Germany and she was Germanys OLP for more than 2 years. So it consequence of the topic she is quiet important and noteable.GreatGreen 15:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

If you wanted it merged, then you could have voted in the AFD about the matter. There were only three people involved and all voted to delete its contents, not merge them here. You don't get to ignore all other discussions just because you want to complain and make this article into your own pet project. If you want your opinion taken more seriously here, then actually participate in the discussions with everyone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Your arguments are such rubbish, really! Firstly if you want to delete articles then also point this out on the main pages the article is linked to. How should someone know about this plan when there is no information? Secondly "only people" shows you only informed your friends and they voted - by the way other users writing for different articles gave up on this whold topic because of your cussed behaviour. Back to the topic: The reason you gave for deletion were that is was a single article and a link would have been violence against a German article. I looked up for others sources and as you can see von Stephani is a quiet noteable German SC as you can read above. So give me all of you reason you collacted before. As I mentioned 100000000 times I don't want to have an own article, it is for me the only way to work against you bullines by working on cases I share the same natioanlity. And thank for getting unpolite! It shows what you are and what you are thinking about who you could crash down my endurance.GreatGreen 18:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification was correctly placed on the article nominated for deletion. (not here). Articles need to meet guidelines for articles. Legacypac (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The reasons for deletion were not nutritious and well-thought. You didn't give comprehensible arguments for a missing noteability. You just critisized the sources itself, so you disregard you own claiment of correct wiki-behaviour.GreatGreen (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The deletion reasons were policy based. Legacypac (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Another useless answer of you ignoring what I said what shows you do not own any argument.GreatGreen (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Hamm

One source from 10 months ago, no mention of a 111th birthday, strong indication that she was deceased in 2016. No sources that she is living in 2017. Removing Elizabet Hamm as a "limbo" and most likely deceased case. TFBCT1

I am removing Elizabet Hamm as a "limbo" case. I am NOT stating that she is deceased, although I strongly believe that she is. There is no mention of her exept for one source from 10 months ago. In order to add her back, provide mention of her 111th birthday, that she is alive in 2017, or has been alive within the past 6 months, this is standard procedure. TFBCT1

CommanderLinx is the really hero of the Wikipedia's supercentenarians pages. Unless a source is provided that is ok for him/her, he/she thinks, dead people should appear on the list. For CommanderLinx: This is Wikipedia, not CommanderLinxPedia. CommanderLinx, show me/us a source which states that 111-year-old Mrs Hamm is still alive and everything is ok. If you don't show such a source, stop editing, go inside your mind and think about clearly what you do ;) --41.202.177.24 (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of German supercentenarians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610165926/http://www.grg.org/Adams/Deaths2008.HTM to http://www.grg.org/Adams/Deaths2008.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

Is any question or oppose opinion for this edits? [2][3] If without reasonable oppose opinion for 10 days, then I'll be undo this edit. Thanks. Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Over a week as well as around 10 days of time has passed, while reasonable oppose opinion was nothing. As promise, I removed that contents. Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)