Talk:List of Danish supercentenarians

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Longevity Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, 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.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Denmark Low‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark 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.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 1 August 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Supercentenarians from Denmark to List of Danish supercentenarians. The result of the discussion was moved.

Untitled

I created a list of the oldest living person in Denmark since 2008. For my informations I used http://perhag.mono.net/8806/Ældste and the Photo album of this site. I didn't gave informations for the time befor 2008 because the deathdays of some people are not given good enough on this siten for doing so. If anyone has the informations to add Magda Hedetofts Predecessors, he or she should do this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.35.20.90 (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of Danish 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 Danish 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 oldest people by year of birth: Living as of 11 November
From List of Portuguese supercentenarians: living as of 11 November
From National longevity recordholders: living as of 1 February 2010

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 ⚡ 14:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo section - Agnes Steenstrup

Hi, can someone add a limbo table for Agnes Steenstrup? The oldest in Denmark reference states she was confirmed alive as of 1 January 2014 and passed away prior to 1 April 2014. Thanks. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She died at her home on the 1st of March 2014 according to the official registration. In Denmark, anyone can ask for a birth certificate or a complete extract of recorded information for a person of 110 years of age or older (dead or alive). Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Danish 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/20010224073235/http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM to http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.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) 17:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Links set by Guaraparinga

Over all the months and years before Guaraparinga began to "correct" lists in supercentenarian pages on Wikipedia only one link to historical and actual regions and subregions of a country was done in all of the tables here. What is the advantage to link everything double, three times, four times or more? Only that more words are shown in blue colour? Is this consensus here in supercentenarian pages? I think it is better first to discuss such changes instead of doing so, which forces unfortunately edit wars... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:41C0:50D8:A431:A5E0:A254:D728 (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the advantage to link everything double, three times, four times or more?
As I indicated in my edit, it is MOS:DL:
Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom.
I think it is better first to discuss such changes instead of doing so
That's just statusquoism; it's not the WP editing WP:CYCLE. In fact, it's the very first example of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR:
An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article.

— Guarapiranga ☎ 04:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved third opinion, I support the duplicate linking in this and the other supercentenarian tables, because it's consistent with the latest manual of style guidelines for tables and because it's more usable for the reader. MOS:DL and the examples in MOS:TABLES favor this. See similar formatting at List of Danish records in athletics. Single-linking may be the status quo for these lists but that just means we have discovered room for improvement. Goffman82 20:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Delinked places of birth and death

Lists of supercentenarians pages seem to have arrived to a status quo in which places of birth and death are wikilinked only once on the table (in a perhaps misunderstanding of MOS:OL, when that applies to prose, while MOS:DL applies to lists), causing the reader to, when reading a row, have to look for the same place on another row to follow its link. Should each place of birth or death be linked only on one cell of a table, or on every instance so that readers can read tabular data tabularly? — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, MOS:DL states:
Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom.
— Guarapiranga ☎ 03:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There's a discussion about this above at #Links set by Guaraparinga ― Qwerfjkl talk 06:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]