Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 7

3178:- because of a) neoconservatism's lack of solid definition, and b) the use of the neoconservative label as a political slur, any inclusion into the category would have to be well-sourced or based on a person's self-designation. Also, the category is essentially black-or-white, allowing no room for former neocons (e.g. Fukuyama). Becuse of this, applying the category "neoconservatives" is essentially tendentious and based on either speculation or POV-pushing. Since neoconservatives are essentially quite few in number, those seeking to know who the major neoconservatives are will be better served by simply reading the neoconservatism article, whereas the category is of limited usefulness at best (misleading or libelous at worst).— 2401:. I come to this as an outsider - I haven't touched articles on this topic until the category merging. I was surprised that the Ku Klux Klan members category didn't include ex members. The categories of member of Senate and Congress, for example include many people who were not in office when they died. Arnold is in the category Professional bodybuilders and American film actors although he now works as the governor of California. I don't think it's necessary or accurate to have an "ex-clan" category. After all, it would not be accurate in regards to people who quitely leave the Klan vs. those who publicly "turn" on the clan. Wouldn't it be better to put 3455:

hear some professionals misuse the term, they should know better. People are not their diseases. Medically this category’s name is not the most accurate. Everyday conversation should not determine how a medical category is named. If we cannot agree on a rename, we need to delete this unfair categorization just like we delete lists by hair color, height, allergies, etc. People are not their diseases. Everyday conversation should not determine how a medical category is named. If we cannot agree on a rename, we need to delete this unfair categorization just like we delete lists by hair color, height, allergies, etc.

3067:. The conservative label is far more ambiguous that the much smaller compact group of neoconservatives. While some think the term neoconservative is controversial, most are self-admitted neoconservatives and many have written prominent books on the movement. All labels can be used pejoratively, thus that shouldn't be a reason. But there are replacement categories that are more succinct, so it may be best to move towards those. I have saved a copy of the current members of the list for now, so that won't be lost. DLand's belief that the term neoconservative is loaded is offbase, he should read the article on 2994:, the term "neoconservative" is extremely controversial and the category in question is primarily being used on Knowledge (XXG) as a political statement instead of as an impossibly objective categorization. Perhaps those who self-identify as neoconservatives would qualify for the cat, but even that seems like a stretch. It is one thing to call someone a "conservative," as that is a far more objective and verifiable description, but neoconservative is an undeniably loaded (and thus unacceptable) term. 2166:- ""local affilate"" is charitably an understatement. All Televison in Canada was under the control of the CBC from the start of Canadian TV in 1952 till 1961. At that time, CJOH started in Ottawa, CFTO started in Toronto and CFCF-TV started in Montreal. The three stations all had to Import, poach and develop talent in order to run, and they rapidly agreed to share programing, which was the start of what eventualy become CTV. 1276:

does not imply that any others should be kept, even if it seems like a similar intersection. There may be religions for which everyone who self-identifies with that faith only makes music about that faith, and there may be occupations for which everyone who practices it cannot help but infuse it with whatever their faith is. This does not apply to Roman Catholicism and being a musician.

3601:. Also, previous nom mentioned a previous CfD that did not delete these categories; does anyone have a link to that? Anyway, diabetes is not a defining characteristic. In 99% of circumstances, you should never need to know someone has diabetes to interact with them, and their condition should only very, very rarely interact with their notability, which should be for other achievements. 1185:, this simply isn't a categorically meaningful relationship. I agree with Osomec that the description is irrelevant, because people always go by the literal name of the category. In this case, the name invites the inclusion of every musician who has ever lived who has happened to be Roman Catholic, regardless of whether that was actually relevant to their musical career. It is 1543:- For most of the people in this category, their religion has little to do with their music. Grouping them together is inappropriate. (After accusations of both being disruptive and being anti-Catholic in the last vote, I was going to abstain. However, given that this vote is close and given that I have been accused of favoritism towards Catholics 1851:. However, it also seems to broadly sweep up any science-fiction writer who has ever written about the future. For consultants, this category describes a defining characteristic, but for science-fiction writers, it is not defining to be called "futurist". The proposed name change may make the category more useful. Deletion may also be an option. 1676:"Called by whom"? Even if you have a published account of someone calling someone else a cult leader, that could be nothing more than one person's opinion, or worse an unfounded personal attack. Also, note that the category only has one article, so odds are there is another category that you can use to categorize that person. Maybe take a look at 221:

in the parent article, a large part of these are redlinks as it is). It also happens that there are several contributors working on these topics, and the category already has 6 articles (it could easily have double that number). Furthermore, at least one article included is an abstract one, and refers to a concept in Eliade's thought.

529:. I think there has been consensus that being a native of a place is not always a defining characteristic for a person. This category by its name presents an even weaker case. While some may want to know this information, I'm not sure that another category is the way to do this. If this is really encyclopedic information, then 2445:)? Never mind categorization issues, this will result in false categories on each page as text. Any reader who saw someone with "KKK members" in the footer of an article would quite naturally assume that they are in fact members. The distinction between member and ex-member is massively important and verifiable. 3195:

realm of accusing someone falsely of being a plagiarist or a bigot. Also the issue with "former neoconservatives" is no different than with other designations like "doctors" or "politics" whose designatees retire or are politically defeated. All the issues you bring up are applicable to other categories such as

3471:. Er... huh? I mean, I support deletion too and agree that categorizing by most ailments like allergies is ridiculous. However, I don't see what the category's name has to do with the price of tea in China. You think it's misnamed; fine, but as they say, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet... 3907:

using it in Knowledge (XXG) would show that the encylopedia was in the hands of fringe diehard Brit-haters. Also a new UCI complex should not have an article. No category should have a name that asserts that it contains the more important members of a group because that is a POV judgement - one which

2388:

As per the nom, categories normally aren't supposed to distinguish between "current" and "former" members. (I don't remember off hand which guideline talks about that though.) However, I can understand if other editors want to possibly make an exception in this case due to the distinct difference in

1316:

if this gets deleted. Although I think that kind of specifity would only be necessary because so many Wikipedians are, frankly, either sophomoric teenagers or too literal minded to live in the real world. (Partly tongue in cheek. I really do dislike much about Knowledge (XXG) and wonder why I haven't

1285:

You have a right to the opinion that sexuality will be reflected in writing more than religion will be in music, but it's just your opinion. It's not something you've demonstrated or proved. I could give you counter-examples as easily as you can cite counter-examples here. In any event exact matching

1530:

As a Catholic myself, I suspect bigotry in the nomination for deletion. That's a problem I see with WiKKKipedia. Did you nominate Muslim or Jewish musician categories for deletion? No. I think the nominator is anti-Catholic, and I oppose the nomination. I'm praying for him, though, that he see

1168:

I would like to suggest that contributors should ignore the description quoted above. A category should contain all the articles that fit its name, and not those which meet a set of criteria which are too long to be included in the name because they way Knowledge (XXG) is produced means that one can

588:

Actually do we have a source for the definition of home state? A quick look was not productive. The best I found was the country where a company is currently based in from the EU. Looking at that usage of state in global terms, it's use in this category is ambiguous since not all players are from

3896:

Trouble with the non-historic Cinemas of the United Kingdom category is that it makes no distinction between entries linked with cinema heritage and a new UCI complex. Such a distinction would be a useful categorisation for cinemas with some distinction, architectural merit or significance. "United

3122:

How far do we want to go with regards to deleting categories relating to individual ideologies? This is a serious question, because the arguments being used to delete this category apply equally to the categories listed above and dozens more. (Oh and I've had few edits outside of this topic area,

2789:), the honor is only one of many general achievement awards that they have received. Moreover, membership in the honor society has little to do with these people's later achievements (such as managing the United States or managing the Indianapolis Colts offense). This category should be deleted. 1388:

Keep, but it should be restricted specifically to musicians whose Roman Catholic religion is notably mentioned in their article as playing a significant role in their musical career. An example of a possible article would be a classical Roman Catholic composer who specifically did musical work for

1248:

That states "For instance, in sports, German-Americans are not treated differently from Italian-Americans or French-Americans. Similarly, in criminology, a person's actions are more important than their sexual orientation. While 'LGBT literature' is a specific genre and useful categorisation, 'LGBT

220:

Although I am not a fan of his work, Eliade has written a series of influential works, both in Romania and abroad (people forget that he was initially a novelist and short story writer). He was a prolific writer, and many to most of his works could/should/will have distinct articles (as you may see

3454:

per previous discussion over possible rename. "Diabetic" is an adjective. Using it as a noun is professionally inappropriate and medically inaccurate. Category:Diabetics and its subcategories because "diabetic" is an adjective. Using it as a noun is professionally inappropriate. Even though you'll

1275:

I for one do think that an individual's sexuality is much more likely to be reflected in their writing than an individual's religion is to be reflected in their music. Each of these intersections need to be considered on their own merits, because some are more meaningful than others. Keeping one

4278:

is in the process of discussing a few new categories that would more effectively handle what this category could be used for (like categories for Quaker organizations). Further, from my review of the Naming conventions this category does not match the typical conventions used around nationality.

2853:

I beg to differ with several of you. Phi Beta Kappa is still an important honor, achieved/received by only a very few in American education. It is extremely significant and identifies notable people in an important way. I have trouble believing this is any less important than members of social

1402:

that has that relationship spelled out in the title, or wrongly assuming that whatever description we type out for the category will somehow control who gets included rather than the actual wording of the category title. "Roman Catholic musicians" will inevitably include anyone who happens to be

3194:

neoconservatism doesn't lack a solid definition any more than any other designation (remember we are not dealing with the realm of axiomatic mathematics.) It shouldn't be considered libelous to be a neoconservative, it is a real political movement and while some may not like it, it isn't in the

3163:

Whether someone says they are a neoconservative doesn't necessarily mean that they are one in a meaningful sense any more than someone who claims to be a moderate. Self-identification is too slippery and too self serving, and will probably depend entirely on who the audience was at the time the

1438:

Probably not the same complaints, I don't think, Instead other reasons would likely arise and it'd be deleted for those. So I'd be wasting my time. At the moment religion/anything is not seemingly like a good thing to work on. I kind of knew that months ago and quit on doing anything relating to

1189:

titled "Musicians whose Roman Catholic faith was important to their music." Even among those for whom it is a significant intersection, the category's lack of historical specificity will cause it to equivocate very different relationships. A modern musician who consciously decides to focus his

898:

issue?) by including people who were anti-communist because they were in a time and place in which everyone declared themselves to be anti-communist, as well as people who were critics of (for example) the Soviet Union, but were not necessarily opposed to communism as an ideology. Accordingly, I

2866:

As the oldest, and perhaps most prestigious, honor society in the United States, membership in PBK is in and of itself a notable acheivement; much more so than any particular sports team movie film, or award (like the Oscars or the Grammys). The catgeory is both appropriate and informative. --

869:

continues to exist in its present form, this category seems to be necessary. Although arguably any U.S. politician active in a certain era could be labeled "anti-communist," there is a subset whose political careers were largely defined by their opposition to Communism. To the extent that this

2473:

Fair enough, and I can see why that'd normally be policy... but this case may be the exception that proves the rule. It's helped that while "former liberals" is a very fuzzy distinction (when, exactly, did someone stop being one?), most notable people who leave the Klan have to do so rather

1652:- We do not want categories labeled with "people referred to as". These are weasel words that may be used to hide ad hominem attacks. Imagine how many U.S. Republicans would land in both "people referred to as freedom fighters" and "people referred to as terrorists" (simultaneously). 1495:

Maybe if the title of the category clearly identified the criteria for listing and it does not become a catchall category. But there is no way anyone can say this would be OK. If you create it and someone nominates it here, there is noway to predict the result of that discussion.

995:

Most individuals should not have their own eponymous category since almost all the significant links related to that person are already found in the main article or a sub-article. (Also imagine the situation of having hundreds of thousands of categories, one per notable person.)

3503:. Most other disease categories tend to bear at least somewhat on relevance (though surely some could also be deleted). Schizoprenia or epilepsy are relevant to many people's notability. Diabetes, gout, or male pattern baldness? Doubtful those are defining characteristics. 3550:

there are people on Knowledge (XXG) who are actually notable, at least in part, for having diabetes, then the category should be kept for those people. If, however, there are no such articles, then the categories should simply be deleted as having no appropriate articles.

2496:

from some folks that may be able to help clear up to what degree libel would be a factor in having renounced members of the Klan in the "Klan members" cat. I have kept the request neutral and made it clear that I did not care if the editors agreed with my opinion or not.

1034:

A substantial number of directly connected articles are needed for an eponymous category to escape the charge of overcategorisation. Three are far too few. If more relevant articles are created over the next months then this category may be justified—but not

1237:. The existence of other categories doesn't mean this one should exist. You may, in fact, be inadvertently making the point that they need to be deleted too. Let's get through this one first on its own merit according to Knowledge (XXG) policy and guidelines. 142:

does not seem like he is famous enough to have his own category. Moreover, the six articles in this category could all easily be interconnected through the text rather than a category structure. As the articles are currently written, they all link back to

1190:

music on his Roman Catholic faith is in a very different position from a Medieval composer who could not have done otherwise. Without focusing on those for whom it is meaningful, and giving context and explanation to that meaning, it becomes mere trivia.

1257:

states "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." So you think

1459:(Changing). If the musicians music is directly affected by their religion, then it would be okay to categorize them by this way. However, any people whose religion does not affect their music, that are in this category, should be removed from the cat. — 3199:, which it has been decided to keep in Knowledge (XXG) and which serves as a clear precedent for keeping this category. (Oh and I've had few edits outside of this topic area, blah blah blah, I have a dynamic IP and I don't use a formal account.) -- 4289:

What would be more conventional for nationality ones? I know it may not grow, but it (and other 'by nationality' ones) could be run in parallel with the organisations, individuals etc ones. I principally created it as a denominational subcat for

1371:

and its subcats it might be more honest to do that. I'd oppose that too, but using this is as a test case seems more than a bit irritating. (This was done with scientists by religion too, the Catholic one was deleted first to "test the waters" I

711:- Lumping anarchists in with LBJ, Ronald Reagan, Hollywood executives of the 1950s, and a bunch of other people who are anti-communist for any of a million reasons is not helpful. This is negative categorization & I think it's a bad idea. -- 2124:- Many other TV network categories have also been nominated for deletion, mainly because people work with multiple broadcasters over the course of their careers. See the discussion on Category:MSNBC personalities above or related discussion at 2271:

I imagine this was intended to document that someone had left the Klan, probably renounced it... As labelling a living person a "Ku Klux Klan member" implies that they still are, this may be libelous if they no longer are. Just a thought...

1212:

should also be deleted as not all the writers in it had Catholicism as a literary influence. There's also the significance to the culture of Catholics or most any religion/culture. Therefore deleting this also makes as little sense as deleting

811:

Anti-communist is simply too vague and potentially expansive to be of much use as a category. The whole treatment of 'categorisation by opinion' needs to be looked at, however I think that this sort of 'negative categorisation by opinion' is

2281:

If the article says, verified and neutrally, that they were once a member of the Klan but now renounce it AND the category introduction says that includes current, former and decesed members, then there is absolutely no risk of libel, right?

735:

The category should be for people who actively and specifically opposed communism as opposed to doing so by default, and by and large it is used correctly. It would be ridiculous and misleading to exclude Americans from the overall category.

3524:

agrees that it can be used as a noun just fine. Whether or not "diabetic" is the 100% proper term that medical professionals ought to be using, the simple fact is that if someone says "I'm a diabetic." no one is going to respond "a diabetic

4543:, neologism and not a distinct genre. The category's description: "Action genre featuring at least one main action actress" is not even tailored to the name, as not all female action leads use guns (e.g., Uma Thurman as "Beatrix Kiddo" in 514:

Keep the nominated category, as well as all the existing state subcategories. Create the "state of birth" category as a separate master category, and create new categories of "Major League Baseball players born in (Foo)" underneath it.

748:

This category appears to be part of a larger scheme of dividing anti-communist articles by nationality. Since obviously some anti-communists are from the United States, it makes sense to include this category in that broader scheme.

156:

He's actually quite notable in his field of the philosophy of religion—standard undergrad reading in the U.S. at least. And there are other categories for philosophers to group their concepts and other related articles; see, e.g.,

4298:, in any case. I feel Quakerism should be represented there, which might not best be done by having an international cat like Quakerism as the subcat of a national one (Christianity by denomination in the UK). So, tentatively, 3519:

although I'm hardly married to the category tree. I don't see any justification for singling out this one disease amongst others so categorized. As for the notion that these should be deleted because "diabetic is an adjective,"

695:), its use is very silly. Virtually any U.S. politician who supported the United States during the Cold War, any U.S. democracy advocate, or any U.S. soldier who has fought communist forces could be considered anti-communist. 5339:

There aren't that many people in "space tourists," but should we subdivide that by nationality anyway? Otherwise, we might end up with some people in that who may not have another nationality-occupation category applicable.

185:

Most individuals should not have their own eponymous category since all the significantly related links can easily be found in their main article. (Also imagine having 200 million categories, one per notable person).

3545:

be that there are some people for whom having diabetes is significantly included in their article. I can't think of any off-hand, but given the scope of potential people I'm not entirely ruling out the possibility.

1154:

I would suggest that in this second discussion that the closing administrator ignore all of the 'I like it' votes. The nomination, based on the discussions is for 'over categorization re: intersection by religion'.

1146:. This was a January 19 nomination that had 11 delete votes and 9 keep votes. Since no one apparently wanted to close this as 'no consensus' I'm relisting. When you vote, consider the following from the category: 322:- Grouping people together according to whether they have been on a specific radio or TV network is not useful, as many people work for many different radio and TV networks over the course of their careers (e.g. 200:

A substantial number of directly connected articles are necessary to justify an eponymous category. Notability of the subject aside (with which I agree), there are too few articles to justify this category.

5018:- Categories like these generally contain articles on places that have little in common with each other aside from their names. Since these are essentially recreations, they should all be speedy deleted. 3924:

This category is extremely POV and OR. I could go to one of these cinemas, like it enough, and call it historical. Just like all the other "historic" and other POV title CfDs that have been on here lately.

2426:

problems if people were added to the Klan member category without sourcing, but if the article says that they were once a member, then they should be categorized with those who died while still a member.

699:, the President of Overcategorization, is in this category, as well as many other famous U.S. politicians. Given that the category effectively has overly-broad inclusion criteria, it should be deleted. 2059:

as the first independent TV station in Canada, CJOH was a breading ground for talent that populated many position in North America. Only the CBC network contributed more. It is unique in this regard.

508:

is generally regarded as being "from" Texas, even though he lived in Ohio for the first 15 years of his life. All the existing state subcategories appear to classify players by their states of birth.

2474:

publically complete with lots of disavowals. This makes separating current from former a lot easier. (Aside of course from all the misinterpretation of category name issues mentioned elsewhere.)

3541:

I partially agree with Dr. Submillimeter above that such a large portion of the population has diabetes that it's not normally a characteristic worth categorizing. However, that being said, it

894:) whose careers are strongly defined by their anti-communism , the category could continue to make sense. However, it almost appears that an effort has been made to trivialize the category (a 3013:. Political philosophy is something to explain and source in article text, not something to blandly state in a category name as if it were a precise and objectively factual classification. 1544: 1389:

the Roman Catholic church. Or a notable Roman Catholic choir member. A bad example would be a singer who happens to be Roman Catholic but whose music has nothing to do with their religion.

5956: 5908: 5596: 3598: 3010: 2454:

There's a general preference to include both current and former members in all categories of this type, since otherwise the information can quickly be outdated. Sorry if I was unclear. --

2133: 2129: 2125: 1631: 335: 331: 327: 42: 37: 5541:. Why should a single band with five members and one ex-member have a whole f*ing category, especially when all six people are listed and linked up near the top of the article? And delete 4994: 4095:

This category, as with all categories grouping people by "support" for an idea or institution is highly problematic and subject to POV and OR problems. As a category, there is no nuance;

3164:

statement was made. "Self-identified neoconservatives" will then just be a proxy for "people who at any time found it politically advantageous to self-identify as a neoconservative."

1286:

is not necessary. What matters is whether "Roman Catholic musicians" is "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic." I say it is, but I also say this is not simply my opinion.

4167:

per nom. Generally these people self-identified as segregationists and pursued political policies and/or violence to enforce their beliefs--often to the exclusion of all other goals.

2854:

fraternities, yet we have cats for all of those!?! Indeed, from a notablity standpoint, Phi Beta Kappa is tons more important than your average Greek letter fraternity!! Thanks.

2358:

this cat for members that renounced their membership and the other cat for those that are active members or died as members. I agree with Postdlf's comment, especially in regard to

1254: 3776: 3239:: A very useful fairly-narrow category, unlike 'conservatives'. Making sure that anyone labeled a neoconservative is RS V non-partisan sourced eliminates potential problems. - 2047:. We do not want to categorize people by whether they worked for specific network affiliates, especially since they may later work with other network affiliates or companies. 5412:. In a few years, there should be regular flights into space. So the number of people eligible to belong in this category will show a significant increase. I'm not sure that 4700: 1932:

this category and the various related articles. There are several different kinds of futurists around (including in this category). It would be an insult to call someone like

1720:

Yet another POV category. This category is POV and OR. I could call my mother a cult leader. There could never be a clear set of criteria that would include certain people. —

3941:'Historic' is a POV/OR judgement, implying some sort of special significance. It is also a meaningless term, with no indication on what basis this judgement was arrived at. 3638:

Basing a category on what disease a person has is not the way to categorize. Unless that person died of it, or a significant time in their life came from having diabetes. —

2441:. Perhaps I'm misreading the nom, but I don't see an offered reason for merge? Also, since it's not linked, I assume this is a straight merge (and not a merge of both to 2080:

Those would be very different categories that have nothing to do with whether this is kept or deleted, so create away. Could you please clarify what you want done with

3620:

a significant topic of interest, as in possibly Dale Arnett's example above, a Diabetics category would seem appropriate. So yes, most people wouldn't qualify, but if

1208:

and is well over a year old with minimal abuse. Music can be directly inspired by religion in the same way writing is. Therefore if it makes sense to delete this than

1420:

was deleted, but I've not dared to because I know it'd be speedy deleted because of the discussion. In any event categories can in fact be monitored and restricted.--

903:

from the category. I think many of the other politicians, religious leaders, military leaders, and probably some of the writers listed there also should be removed.--

5001:

But I'm listing here just to make sure that people agree this was covered. Regardless, these just link similarly named subjects that are otherwise dissimilar (even

4551:, this is a colloquialism that is inappropriate to use for a category title. Judging from what pops up when you google the phrase, I think it's more of a fetish. 1169:

have no confidence whatsoever that any such qualifications will be observed over the long term. As for the category itself, religion is of minimal relevance to the

326:, who is listed here but also regularly appeared on CNN). This categories (and other similar categories) should be deleted. Also note the multiple discussions on 4119:'s inclusion is mysterious and illustrates a further weakness of scope; I think it's safe to say he rejects the authority of the U.S. government and seeks racial 5152: 4632:

exist), I don't see a possibility of it being covered by Knowledge (XXG) in the next, say, four or five years. For those interested in the GWG genre, there are

4274:

I think this category is unhelpful, and likely to remain so; currently it only contains 1 article and 1 subcategory, and is unlikely to grow dramatically. The

4248: 4321:

on the best way to organize these categories; however, I did find several additional articles that would fit, and would not be surprised if there were others.-

577:

A persons "home state" is the state they were born in. Moving this category would really do no good, because it would be the same thing as it is currently. —

4127:

is at least sourceable; "Segregationists" is more like "Pro-choice politicians" or "Critics of George W. Bush," the likes of which we've mostly eliminated.-

837:. POV will cause arguments, unnecessary and really isn't nearly everyone anti-communists? It would be hard to define and select people who are and aren't. 416: 4832: 3442:- Most people are not notable because they have diabetes. Instead, they are notable for their other accomplishments (acting, playing baseball, etc.). 3406:

An earlier request to rename these did not meet with consensus. However, at the end of that debate, several people suggested these should be deleted as

21: 3009:, far more POV and used as a perjorative than "conservative," which was itself judged too vague and POV to function as a category. See recent CFD for 489: 2538:

You can change that to a merge, because people, espicially living, should NEVER be categorized without support in the article and reliable sources. --

2112:-- There are many categories associated with people working for businesses and companies (TV stations included), and CJOH should be no exception. -- 1740:

weasel words are as undesirable in categories as they are in the articlespace. The defamatory potential of a category like this is substantial. As

4824: 4239: 4204: 963: 484: 1313: 4291: 2493: 3227:, there should perhaps be a category for those who are "new" conservatives, as in they were once politically liberal. The rest can be merged. -- 4815: 3853: 3836: 3681:. Such categories may be very helpful for someone who study epidemiology of diabetes or hereditary diseases among famous (notable) people. You 661: 3579:

nomination. (Full disclosure: I was the original creator of the article, and the DYK nominator.) However, by the time he left Gonzaga for the

1744:

notes, references for this sort of thing are easy to come by; essentially this is simply a vehicle for expressing personal opinion, violating

1473:. Unmaintainable and misleading. Current implementation of categories in MediaWiki does not allow to define enforceable restrictions on them. 17: 2527:

member, people might think that person is still in the KKK. However, if it is stated in the article, then this category would be redundant. —

2523:

The category isn't explained in the article which it is placed. So, unless it is stated in the article that the subject of the article is a

3100: 3903:"United Kingdom" is not a POV term, it is the official name as recognised by every state in the world, including the Republic of Ireland. 2299:

Just seeing the category on the bottom of an article to a non-Wikipedian, however, could imply to some that the person is still a member.

4972: 4964: 4867: 4859: 3240: 5894:. And I should add that this is a nomination from a couple of days ago that never got a discussion (I hope I'm fixing it correctly). 3909: 3849: 2442: 5049:- speedy if recreated, otherwise still delete them. May be worth a list article if properly referenced, not sure about that though. 3071:. (Oh and I've had few edits outside of this topic area, blah blah blah, I have a dynamic IP and I don't use a formal account.) -- 2894:

Personally, I think the category is better than the list, so we should categorize everyone in the list and then remove the list. --

2652: 2635: 652: 3575:, he was more notable as being a type 1 diabetic than as a basketball star. In fact, his condition was the subject of a successful 4929: 4894: 4256: 3115: 2410: 1287: 1259: 4955: 4850: 1584: 4937: 4902: 3147:

neo-conservatives, which should avoid the problems with the pejorative use of the term to mean "any conservative I don't like".

1413: 3580: 2781:

is a United States academic honor society for undergraduate students. For many of the people listed in this category (such as

1209: 350:

per nom, we should categorize people by what they have done ("talk show host", "news anchor"), not by who paid them to do it.

5062: 2838: 1234: 773:. Categorisation by an opinion, anti-communism is defined only vaguely and is used too broadly, unmaintainable in current WP. 5920: 4920: 4885: 2208: 4179:. One could rename them as "self-identified segregationists", but this is too complicated and also subject of POV disputes. 1117: 3875:- "Historic" is a point-of-view word that should be avoided. Categorization using an alternative name may be appropriate. 5590: