Category talk:Scientologists

Over-categorization?

Why does this small category have so many subcategories? ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with the implication that there are just too many narrow subcategories here. I would just have them all under the higher-level category of Scientologists. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Object, because these sub-category people would strongly oppose being categorized as "Scientologists". Best to avoid controversy and sub-categorize them. -- Cirt (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

But they're already categorized as "Scientologists" since these subcategories fall under the umbrella of the category of Scientologists. I just don't see the need for such granularity, especially when these subcategories have so few members. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There are many more notable entries that can and will be created, so that these subcategories will not have so few members, and the categorization will become increasingly useful and helpful in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would Scientology officials strongly oppose being categorized as "Scientologists"?--Collingwood (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

They wouldn't, but former members might. -- Cirt (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Then "Scientology officials" is unnecessary, given that Scientologists+Scientology officials only has nine entries in total, two of which are in both categories. Als, wouldn't it be a kindness to former members not to label them, unless it's relevant to the quotes?--Collingwood (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly relevant to the quotes in many cases. The "Scientology officials" is necessary, as a most appropriate way of identifying relative weight of their comments about the organization they serve/have served. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)