Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
* ] → {{no redirect|List of British supercentenarians}}
* ] → {{no redirect|List of British supercentenarians}}
– I am at my wit's end with Guarapiranga, who has made many controversial edits to longevity articles without any prior discussion. Guarapiranga has edit-warred many times with me, DerbyCountyinNZ, Newshunter12, and others to reinstate their changes over and over again. Particularly contentious were their edits to completely change the tables used and to do many different things to attempt to change the ties in age. Guarapiranga's first edit of this kind was to move "List of Fooian supercentenarians" to "Supercentenarians from Foo" which was completely undiscussed. Should Guarapiranga's moves be reverted or not? ] ] ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 11:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
– I am at my wit's end with Guarapiranga, who has made many controversial edits to longevity articles without any prior discussion. Guarapiranga has edit-warred many times with me, DerbyCountyinNZ, Newshunter12, and others to reinstate their changes over and over again. Particularly contentious were their edits to completely change the tables used and to do many different things to attempt to change the ties in age. Guarapiranga's first edit of this kind was to move "List of Fooian supercentenarians" to "Supercentenarians from Foo" which was completely undiscussed. Should Guarapiranga's moves be reverted or not? ] ] ''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 11:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
:The reason for the move are:
:# It allows use of templates such as {{t|flag+link}}, e.g.:
:# Having the page start with ''Supercentenarian'' makes it easier to find it when searching for pages on this topic, as it will be listed in the search box as soon as one types ''Supercentenarian''.
:{{tq|Particularly contentious were their edits to completely change the tables used and to do many different things to attempt to change the ties in age.}}<br>You mistook error for ill-intent (you should always ] though). That's resolved anyway.<br>{{tq|I am at my wit's end with Guarapiranga, who has made many controversial edits to longevity articles {{uline|without any prior discussion}}.}}<br>(emphasis mine) That's not how ]. — ] ] 12:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity
It appears like Delina Filkins is about to be removed from the list of the top 100 American supercentenarians, as Florence Carroll is also of age 113 years, 214 days as of today (for a joint 100th place). I think that she should still be mentioned in the article. She is significant as the first well documented case of a human reaching the age of 113 (the second one being Betsy Baker, 27 years later, the first recognized oldest person). Renerpho (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Living people should have their columns in green for easy identification.
Living people should have their columns in green for easy identification. This was the case less than 24 hours ago. What happened? WordwizardW (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorting is nothing near as important as: Avoiding HUNDREDS of redlinks, keeping living people green, making sure that ties in age are accounted for, just manually editing the articles, et cetera. 🐔Chicdat11:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I really dislike the turn that this page has taken. Omitting individuals who were born in US territories before they were part of the United States is a mistake, as the individuals became US citizens and in some cases served in the US military (e.g., Emiliano Mercado del Toro). Spacini (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Why are ties suddenly resolved with dead people ranking above living ones?
Why are ties suddenly resolved with dead people ranking above living ones, and people who died more recently over people who died longer ago? WordwizardW (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Right now, 74 (dead) and 75 (living), and 95 (dead) and 96 (living) but the living will keep going up, so that won't last. Other ties which are ranked consecutively instead of as ties, between two dead people are: 35/36, 43/44, 46/47, 51/52, 58/59, 62/63, 72/73, 81/82.
Right now, 74 (dead) and 75 (living), and 95 (dead) and 96 (living) but the living will keep going up, so that won't last. Indeed. So is it even worth merging cells for only a day? Other ties which are ranked consecutively instead of as ties, between two dead people are: 35/36, 43/44, 46/47, 51/52, 58/59, 62/63, 72/73, 81/82. Those are readily apparent by seeing that their age at death is merged in one cell. I replaced the old row numbering bc:
{{Row indexer}} doesn't work in the mobile app; and
I keep track of living people going up the ranks. It was much easier to keep track visually the way it was. More fun. Living people tying and passing the dead is noteworthy, and it happens often, even though each example lasts only a day. I don't understand the technical things you said, but I liked the way it was before, and when two or three people are tied, it makes no sense to give them separate consecutive ranks. That's inaccurate. Since it worked fine before, I don't see why it couldn't be put back that way. Please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordwizardW (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. However, for some unknown reason, I still see ties ranked consecutively instead of as tied ranks (35/36, 43/44, 46/47, 48/49 (omitted before),51/52, 58/59, 62,/63, 72/73, 81/82) and after midnight, there will be a tie between a living person and the dead. WordwizardW (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
And I've reverted you again. I don't know where you get the "don't tie numbered ages" idea from, but these are people not numbers, therefore they have tied ranks. Do it again and I will take you to ANI for disruptive editing. DerbyCountyinNZ06:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
It's me who doesn't know where you got that from; my edit summary said don't number tied ages--and that's exactly what I did--not "don't tie numbered ages" (whatever that means). Now you reverted--again!--to the version in which tied individuals are given different ranks (as WordwizardW pointed out). It is you who's being disruptive! — Guarapiranga☎06:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't know who did what, but Maude Harris, a living person, is currently ranked #74, although she is a day OLDER than #72 and #73 who should be tied, but are not. She should be #72, while they should both be tied for #73. This is definitely broken, no matter what standards one adheres to. Please revert to before all these changes that are not working! WordwizardW (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone else support the undoing of all of Guarapiranga's recent edits to this article (not to mention on all other longevity articles, but that's another matter)? As can be seen from discussions here, on their talk page, and at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Longevity, they have caused a vast amount of damage and disruption to articles they do not even understand or care to learn about. How does the community feel about returning this article to a pre-Guarapiranga editing state and restoring its name? Newshunter12 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Support. However, Guarapiranga seems, in the previous section, to be willing to undo their own work, although it is not in fact "Done." as Guarapiranga said it was. WordwizardW (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Me again. The case is even more urgent for reverting, as the ranking system is broken (see my comment in the section above). WordwizardW (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
– I am at my wit's end with Guarapiranga, who has made many controversial edits to longevity articles without any prior discussion. Guarapiranga has edit-warred many times with me, DerbyCountyinNZ, Newshunter12, and others to reinstate their changes over and over again. Particularly contentious were their edits to completely change the tables used and to do many different things to attempt to change the ties in age. Guarapiranga's first edit of this kind was to move "List of Fooian supercentenarians" to "Supercentenarians from Foo" which was completely undiscussed. Should Guarapiranga's moves be reverted or not? 🐔Chicdat11:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
The reason for the move are:
It allows use of templates such as {{flag+link}}, e.g.:
Having the page start with Supercentenarian makes it easier to find it when searching for pages on this topic, as it will be listed in the search box as soon as one types Supercentenarian.
Particularly contentious were their edits to completely change the tables used and to do many different things to attempt to change the ties in age. You mistook error for ill-intent (you should always wp:assume good faith though). That's resolved anyway. I am at my wit's end with Guarapiranga, who has made many controversial edits to longevity articles without any prior discussion. (emphasis mine) That's not how Misplaced Pages works. — Guarapiranga☎12:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lucy Hannah. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 29#Lucy Hannah until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — JFG 08:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
