Category talk:American women centenarians

Intent for this category to be non-diffusing by gender?
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-gap https://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)