Initially, the plan for unvalidated supercentenarian claims is to have three categories:
Unvalidated supercentenarians (110-114)
Longevity claims (115-130)
Longevity myths (130+)
We certainly don't want to, for example, categorize "Old Tom Parr" as a "supercentenarian" (when he probably was about 80 years old).
But things become more problematic for the gray area cases.
Should we go ahead and categorize someone such as Maria do Carmo Geronimo as a "unvalidated supercentenarian" as well as a "longevity claim"?
One way to do that would be to make two sub-categories for unvalidated supercentenarians: "Unvaldiated Supercentenarians (110-114)" and "Longevity Claims (115-130)". Whatever we decide, I think the rules need to be made clear and consistent for everyone.
A second problem is that of national data grouping: should we move Maria do Carmo Geronimo from "Brazilian supercentenarians" to "Brazilian longevity claims"? We could also rename "Brazilian supercentenarians" to "Validated Brazilian supercentenarians" (but that wouldn't include those aged 110-114).
It's been difficult to find a consistent application of policy in situations like this, which is one reason I'm asking for comments before we finalize our policy in this area.Ryoung122 (talk) 15:54, March 13, 2017 (UTC)