Category talk:American women centenarians

Intent for this category to be non-diffusing by gender?

@Omnis Scientia: Is the intent of this category to help make the women centenarians category easier to navigate? A.K.A. should the American women centenarians also be in American centenarians? Mason (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I found the CFD for the men's version. I've decided to be bold and diffuse the categories. Mason (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

You should note that I changed my mind after seeing the large sizes of these categories. I think diffusing would make it easier on navigation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison, I made this to diffuse Category:American centenarians and because there was already a men's category. It would make navigation easier.

Though if there are any dual nationals, I would keep it in Category:Women centenarians while moving it from Category:American centenarians to Category:American women centenarians (and same for the men). This is so people who wish can still search for women or men centenarians who aren't American. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Though I do have a mind to create more categories of "Fooian men centenarians" for bigger categories to make navigation easier. But I was going to do it after these categories had been diffused properly. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha! My working assumption for gendered categories is that they're diffusing unless there's a compelling reason not to, (like how to for sports and acting they're diffusing). And frankly, as I started to go through them, I'm starting to come to the same realization that you've had. That there's just too many folks for non-diffusing to be helpful.... and now that you mention it, there's definitely a compelling reason to split by gender, given how longevity is very much gendered. Heck, I'm revising a paper right now where we normed by gender... Mason (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, that sounds like an interesting read! Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) It's been a rewarding experience modeling longevity; I'm using pretty much all of Utah and their ancestors https://uofuhealth.utah.edu/huntsman/utah-population-database . I wish I could post a pre-print, but the fancy journals, we're targeting tend to frown on posting pre-prints. Mason (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

If it will get printed in those journals - here's hoping they do! - then I will be sure to read it. I find the topic of longevity quite fasinating! Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

So you think making intersections between gender, nationality, and centenarians where required is the right approach here? Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep. The more I think about it, the more I agree with you. In case anyone coming along later wants some non-academic citations: (e.g, https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2023/11/harvard-gender-gaphttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-life-expectancy-gap-between-men-and-women-is-growing/) Heck, even the social security administration only presents quantiles by gender. (https://www.ssa.gov/oact/HistEst/Death/2024/DeathProbabilities2024.html). Mason (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)