Talk:Ethel Caterham

Did Ethel Caterham surpass Charlotte Hughes on April 6 or will she on April 7?

As of recently, someone made an edit stating that Caterham surpassed Charlotte Hughes in age on April 6, as she is currently 42,232 days old, while Hughes lived to 42,231 days. I do not wish to instigate an edit war, so I am seeking consensus on whether Caterham has already surpassed Hughes's age, or if this will occur on April 7. This clarification will still be important after the 7th, to ensure the correct date is reflected in the "known for" part in the infobox. 586Deluxe (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

What happened??

The messages:

Last surviving subject of Edward VII Last surviving person born in the 1900s decade

keep coming from and going to the infobox. Why?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I have removed them as they are simply superceded by oldest living person and oldest ever British person. What is she known for?? I argue the two remaining facts are obviously the most important, and thus helps keep the infobox clean and tidy. If all trivial facts could be included here, where do we stop? I appreciate that these may be cited, but left alone, supercentenarian fanboys would turn it into another version of longevity milestones. Regards, (MattSucci) 2A02:8388:293E:3400:1197:AD1:BC85:BC5D (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I first became aware of her as the last person from the 1900s decade. That's a milestone very seperate from being the oldest person ever. I can't say I have a specific preference for how the infobox should be organized, but I think we could either have all milestones or simply that she's the oldest person currently alive. If there's a single most important fact, it's that she is - globally - the oldest person. That's the oldest Briton is only of local relevance. Koopinator (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I 100% agree! Would you like to make the edit?

Regards.. 2A02:8388:293E:3400:AE3:B846:1C69:714E (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

A vandal removed them i have added them back 74.209.42.125 (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Your edit warring is reminiscent of any number of longevity fans who have been blocked. Coincidence? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

An experienced editor, not a vandal, removed edits that it had been agreed upon by many other experienced editors that such edits didn't merit being in supercentenarian and longevity pages. MattSucci (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

An experienced editor who was recently banned on an ip for deleting entire bios https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.186.192.54 take the hint when you see this info on all the recent pages that the 10 year old consensus you use an exusce for the edit war you started as the hint that its no longer applicable 74.209.42.125 (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Also the "consensus" comes from a wiki project that is considered inactive so your citing an out of date discussion made by a project that no longer exists as an exusce to justify edit warring 74.209.42.125 (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I have restored the content pending the outcome of this discussion. FWIW, I support MattSucci's general assertion that the infobox contains too many items - especially since some infer others (oldest living person implies oldest living person in the UK, for example). I do not support MattSucci's edit warring to repeatedly remove the content whilst this is still being discussed. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I also don't support my edit warring, but it has brought the situation to this desired point. I simply didn't/don't have the mental energy to go through the entire process of talk page discussions with longevity fanboys and supercentenarian-loving trolls. My position is that the vast majority of supercentenarians do not merit articles, but the ones that have unfortunately slipped through the cracks, should be kept as encyclopaedic as possible and the quantity of trivial info reduced to a bare minimum. "Known for" should be used solely for the most relevant and important facts. I argue that 99% of people don't know Ethel Caterham for anything other than these two facts: that she is 1) the oldest living person and 2) the oldest British person ever. The rest should be, and is, contained in her biography. Once again, I apologise for edit warring, but it served its purpose. Regards, MattSucci (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Oldest living person and oldest ever British person are notable, last British subject of Edward VII is too minor for the infobox, last person born in the 1900s decade is longevity fanfluff. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Bad sources common??

Do sources like telegra.ph often produce fake news about people's deaths?? Georgia guy (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, it is certainly not a reliable source. Look what I just did. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

She hasn't died, I fixed the article. Jake11223344 (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Infobox: living and/or deceased children

In the infobox, should the number of children of a living supercentenarian show only the total number or also how many have pre-deceased that person? What do other editors think? MattSucci (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Sections?

Should her biography be divided into separate sections? "Early life", "Personal life", "Later life or longevity", or be left as it is? MattSucci (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Add this picture to its value. File:Ethel Caterham.jpg

File:Ethel Caterham.jpg 2A00:A041:E612:7F00:39A3:8AF7:1B1E:603A (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Taking a screenshot of a youtube video and claiming you took the picture is against the TOS. Please stop (not saying it's you) uploading these images. Jake11223344 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

When will Ethel Caterham Surpass Inah Canabarro Lucas?

WP:NOTFORUM The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

IDK ~2025-32864-64 (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Why do you care?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• EthelCaterham.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Add a picture to the entry.

File:Ethel Caterham.png ~2026-89182-6 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

This is File:Ethel Caterham.png, a low res image with the description "I took the picture at the nursing home."

It seems likely to be a fake, as it depicts her standing comfortably upright in the middle of a room, where every other picture of her online shows her in a chair or wheelchair. I've nominated it for deletion at Commons. Belbury (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this image is AI generated because there is no SynthID watermark and Google Gemini says that no evidence exists of it being AI generated. The description says it was taken in 2023, 3 years and 4 days ago. There are videos from around that time, when Caterham was 113, of her using a walker to get around. I think it is very possible if not definite that this is a genuine photo taken of Caterham and not artificially edited. The only issue is the low quality but it's not that low and dozens of other language Wikipedias use the image. ~2026-10584-72 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

It was deleted as an AI edit of a photo from the Brussels Times. Dozens of other Wikipedia projects used the image because the uploader put it into Wikidata, which feeds into infoboxes on other sites.

Someone's just uploaded another, similar low res and unnatural image of Caterham in the same green dress, with the same filename, claiming again to have visited her in a nursing home. I've put it up for deletion on Commons. Belbury (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Please find an image that may actually be in the public domain, if there is any. GuyMan529 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

"EthelCaterham" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect EthelCaterham has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 19 § AlexanderLukashenko until a consensus is reached. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)