The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Found as an old speedy doing September cleanup. Bringing here for a discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
um, split? The most obvious outcome would be to simply upmerge the lot to Category:Sui Dynasty since we have one battle, one war, and two general articles on periods of conflict. I don't know to what degree the China history articles are maintaining a "if we have categories for the other dynasties then we keep small categories for this one too" guideline, but simply renaming this category doesn't seem like a reasonable resolution. Seyasirt (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. Small category of writers on a generally-derided fringe theory, probably defunct. The word "researchers" dignifies the topic more than it deserves. – FayenaticLondon 19:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge per nomination. Both categories are on the small side and I agree that "researchers" is a bit pretentious. Seyasirt (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge per nomination. The theory is now considered not serious and small. I wouln't say the word researchers is an overstatement, but I still agree cat. has little potential. DGtal (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Honorary Fellows of St Antony's College, Oxford[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete - category creator agrees and it fits with the recent consensus for the rest of these, so no point in stringing this one out. BencherliteTalk 00:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At CFD 2013 November 7 it was decided to listify all the other categories of honorary fellows of Oxbridge colleges, because being made an honorary fellow of any of these institutions is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic as contemplated by WP:OC#AWARD.
Delete No problem, delete, sorry, I didn't see that CFD when I started the category. --Canley (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I noticed this category when it was used to apparently vandalize a BLP. The value of the category seems questionable, more for the purpose of vilifying people than providing any meaningful encyclopedic content. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete one guy is in here because he apparently beat up a car after a night of drinking. Not defining at all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need to categorize by all crimes. Plus, without a "convicted of" caveat, it is open to being put on articles of people who were never actually charged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we need the category at all, it should be "People convicted of vandalism". In England, the crime is officially "criminal damage", but I suspect it has a different name elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Bollywood lead actors launched in 80's[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Categorising performers by when their career took off in particular field would lead to massive category clutter.. This is afollowup to CFD 2013 December 1, when this category was added long after nomination and not processed ar closure. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. All the same reasons as the last discussion apply here. --Geniac (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, and then delete, due to the incorrect apostrophe usage. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 19:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We have consistently rejected categorizing actors by year their career was launched.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization. This category consists of nothing but Transformers character articles already covered by Category:Transformers characters, which is a subcategory of this category. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename. Since the Ottoman Turks were overwhelmingly Muslim, one would expect the current name to be a category for Muslim religious leaders. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Over-categorization IMHO redundant. The categorization of Italian stations is still now limited to regions, with categories "by city" limited to the most important ones (Rome, Milan, Naples, Turin etc...), with a lot of stations and sometimes metro/light rail stops. For example, in Tuscany, only Florence has its city category. By now the categories Carrara and Railway stations in Tuscany are IMHO sufficient. Dэя-Бøяg 13:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say, sometimes it happens that new users and/or with few contribs create this "super detail" categories. --Dэя-Бøяg 14:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy delete per WP:G10. This is a blatant attack page, which serves no purpose other than disparaging its subjects. We already have Category:People convicted of incest which groups people who meet an objective test of inclusion, and which doesn't use an inflammatory description. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dubious - no definition for what this means, creator adding it to the article of someone who raped his 10 year old daughter so I can't even guess what he intends it to include. Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It refers to people who engage in incest. I will clarify it. Pass a Methodtalk 11:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale. These two categories were discussed at CFD 2012 July 2, where there was a consensus to delete and listify them. There is a significant backlog of categories to be listified, of which these 2 are the oldest.
I have been clearing some of that backlog, and looked at these categories. In each case, there is a huge layer of sub-categories, amounting to a total of 419 pages in Category:DC Comics immortals and 426 in Category:Marvel Comics immortals. My first thought was that there was a lot of work making such a list, and then I realised that a list that big is a bit unwieldy; to be useful, it would need to be heavily annotated with an indication of which publications these characters appeared in.
However, on reflection I think that idea of a list is misguided for a more fundamental reason than the organisational difficulties. The July 2012 CFD was a followup to CFD 2012 June 3, where it was agreed to delete and listify the parents Category:Fictional immortals and Category:Fictional immortals in comics. (Those lists do not appera to have been created). However, the nominator in that June discussion (User:Jc37) noted that "immortality" was a broad concept, asking . Does being immortal mean they don't die due to "natural causes"? does it mean they can't die? Did they die and now exist as a sort of undeath/unlife? Were they never "mortal", such as mythological and legendary characters? Do they have superior regeneration? and so on.
So for the same reason that this made an unwieldy category, it would make an unhelpfully diverse list. Rather than that keeping the categories for goodness-knows how long in the forlorn hope that some editor will spend the huge amount of time required to create these lists, it would be better to just delete these categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it would be possible to create a list starting with a short list of the current sub-categories; only the articles which are not in those sub-categories would beed to be listed individually. – FayenaticLondon 15:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Fayenatic london: That would still be about 100 entries in each list (110 and 86 at current count), and the lists would still have the same problem of covering a huge range of yes of "immortality". Unless someone is actually going to put he time into creating and annotating these lists, then a decision to listify is pointless: the real choice is between keeping and deletion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: For what it's worth, I'm willing to create a bare list in alphabetical order, but not to add any further details or general information. – FayenaticLondon 16:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@BrownHairedGirl: Not a lot, otherwise I would have done it last year. I made the offer now so that if people still want it listified, then there is at least a realistic prospect of the decision being implemented at a minimalist level. Moreover, once that is done, it may then be easier for other editors to rearrange the list into something more interesting, compared to starting a list from a category. – FayenaticLondon 18:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Listify The characteristics assigned to fictional characters, especially those in comics, are strongly defining. The creators fashion these characteristics for the specific purpose of defining these characters in the minds of readers, and the fact that the creators of these characters have gone out of their way to define them as immortal is a defining characteristic that should be tracked and grouped to allow users of our encyclopedia to navigate across these articles. This method of grouping articles for comics characters is one that is part of a longstanding and well-defined structure (for DC Comics characters) at Category:DC Comics characters by superhuman feature or ability that includes corresponding structures for Category:DC Comics characters with accelerated healing, Category:DC Comics characters who use magic (and its various magical subcategories), Category:DC Comics characters who can move at superhuman speeds, Category:DC Comics characters with superhuman strength, Category:DC Comics telepaths and Category:DC Comics characters who can teleport. I agree that immortality is "a broad concept", and with enough specious argumentation you could create ambiguity in the exact definition of the term. I have no problem with categorizing by superhuman speed or strength, despite the mind-bending breadth of both categories. A character who can travel at the speed of light or fling planets around would have superhuman speed or strength, but then again so would any character who could run 10% faster than the fastest human or lift a few pounds more than the strongest mortal. We categorize such characters by these traits because these traits are exactly what defines them and in accord with WP:CLN we should both categorize and listify so that we can gain the benefits of each of those methods of grouping articles. Being defined as "immortal" is far more specific than virtually any other trait, despite the best efforts at word games to manufacture some measure of confusion and ambiguity in what it "really" means to live forever. Alansohn (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn, I don't care either way whether these categories are kept or deleted. Two previous CFDs have supported their deletion, and I'm happy to go with that unless it is overturned. However, this nomination relates to the proposed listification. If you think that the lists are such a great idea, why not create them? Because having the categories languishing for another 6 months in the listify area is no help to anyone. As to your uncivil allegation that other editors are playing "word games to manufacture some measure of confusion and ambiguity", see immortality in fiction, which emphasises the enormous range of meanings to which the title may refer. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl It's not my job to listify anything any more than it's yours to delete all of the categories you propose for deletion. If the obstacle to this category is a hard and fast definition for the term "immortal" and if you really believe that my comments as to the silly wordplay about the definition of the term constitute an "uncivil allegation", then we really do have a complete and total failure to communicate. My goal here is to foster the use of categories as an aid to navigation. What exactly are you trying to do? Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn my goal here is to foster the use of categories as an aid to navigation, by managing them in accordance both with the long-standing community consensus set out in a range of policies and guidelines such as WP:CAT, WP:OC, WP:DEFINING, and in accordance with the consensus developed at CFD in specific cases. That includes deleting or listifying inappropriate categories, such as those which are not defining, or which are based on arbitrary or subjective. You routinely rail against most parts of that consensus, and repeatedly allege bad faith in those trying to uphold it. Editors in the previous discussion had genuine concerns about the subjectivity of this category. You are of course free to think that they are mistaken, and to explain why; but instead you chose them of manufacturing confusion. That allegation of malevolence poisons debate, which is why it WP:AGF is such a long-standing guideline. My concern in this case is that a decision to listify the categories has prevented the implementation of a decision to delete them, so consensus is not being upheld. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Besides the reasons already noted, since this nom is specifically about the comics characters, let's look at this from a "real world" perspective. Comics companies are companies, so they are in business to (among other things) make money. So if they are making money from their characters, then they will want those characters to continue to be around. And making a character "immortal" is one way to do that. Recently DC Comics had Batman drink from a type of "fountain of youth" for this obvious reason. As it is, comics tend to have "slow aging" in effect for ALL characters. And finally, this is just one more example where we shouldn't be categorising fictional characters based upon "in-universe" aspects of that character. Especially in situations where the character is handled by more than one author (which is true of comics), the aspects of any particular character can change based upon a new author's perspective. All that said, while I think a massive list wouldn't be a good idea (for reasons already stated), this nom shouldn't prejudice against the creation of specific well-defined lists for certain types of immortal characters, if an editor so chooses. - jc37 19:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, if these cats were to be diffused into their subcats, I wonder how many entries would still exist in these parent cats... - jc37 20:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not listify. In the discussions above the case for deletion appears to be the stronger one. While a listify here could be an option, it is off the table, in my mind, due to the problems discussed above. As a note from a small sample, 2 of 6 articles were already in one of the subcategories. As a second note, several more of these articles were also included in other DC Comics child and parent categories meaning cleanup if anyone wants. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge Chugiak is too small to warrant a separate category. Pichpich (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I created the category and there's only ever been one article in the category. I don't see that anyone will be searching for people by using this cateogry that won't be able to easily find them using the Anchorage category. OlYeller21Talktome 21:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and per WP:SMALLCAT. A single-article category is a hindrance to navigation, rather than a help. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge We do not need one entry categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete The scope of the category is unclear and does not seem to be based on a defining quality. Pichpich (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Regardless of whether any other change is workable, this one doesn't look good to me. How many of those assassinated had ever been charged with anything? Or threatened with charges? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-proposal [Withdrawn]: I agree that use of the term "terrorist" can be problematic, and would not argue for an open-ended category. I created Category:Terrorists by status to aid navigation by gathering together the 5 already-existing sub-categories for people, which were scattered throughout Category:Terrorism and creating visual clutter. It seems to me that rather than deleting/merging Category:Terrorists by status, it should instead be Renamed - perhaps to Category:People accused or convicted of terrorism, by status. (Please feel free to improve on that wording.) Cgingold (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That fails WP:LABEL, because that title doesn't attribute the accusation. People are accused of many things, but there is a long-standing consensus not to categorise on the basis of accusations. Similarly named categs have been deleted many times before: see User:Good Olfactory/CFD#Alleged. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The key to the whole thing is the inclusion of the words "by status", BHG. Your concerns would be valid if we were talking about an open-ended category such as "Category:People accused or convicted of terrorism". But we're not. The category I created can only be used as a container category for existing sub-cats -- so all that is actually needed here is a rename that avoids use of the term "terrorist". Cgingold (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A container category should only be used for subcats. However, it can be used for articles. In any case, there remains the long-standing consensus against "accused" categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?? You seem to be ignoring the words "by status", which is the key to the whole thing, BHG. How could this particular category possibly be used for articles?? As for the word "accused", it merely sums up the common factor that is absolutely implicit in the already-existing sub-categories. If you can suggest another, preferable term, by all means please do! In any event, the bottom-line question here is whether this category will in some way cause the sort of harmful categorization that we want to avoid. And the answer is clearly, no, it won't. Cgingold (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This category can be used for articles simply by adding articles to it. That's not how it is intended to be used, but it is one way in which it can be used. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming my basic point, BHG! Literally any category can be mis-used -- and the remedy for that is very simple: just remove the wrongly-placed article from the category. Cgingold (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't confirm your point. No great harm is done by miscategorising a jazz pianist as a punk rocker, or an engineer as an accountant, or a sailor as an astronaut; but categorising someone as a "terrorist" is adding a severely prejudicial label to them, which we do not otherwise attach to anyone via a category. This is the only unqualified category which labels people as "terrorist", and as such it provides a unique opportunity for both honest mistakes and malicious mislabelling. A good faith editor may well assume that "terrorists by status" is just our way of categorising them. Try this yourself: use WP:HOTCAT to add a new category, and type in "terrorist". It will autocomplete to "terrorists by status", with no explanation that it is a container. So it invites misuse. Delete it or rename it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, BHG. Why on earth are you still going on and on about "terrorists by status", while completely ignoring the fact that I immediately offered a counter-proposal to RENAME the category? It seems to me that Category:People accused or convicted of terrorism, by status deals with the concerns you've raised, and is extremely unlikely to be misused -- even less likely than the current category. Cgingold (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh>There was a time when I knew that I could rely on you to engage in constructive discussions here, BHG -- regardless of our often differing views on various issues. Alas, that appears no longer to be the case. I have both acknowledged and done my best to address your concerns, but you have repeatedly ignored crucial elements of my responses, choosing instead to repeat the same tired, formulaic comments. What a waste of time. Here, once again, you've ignored the crucial distinction between this (proposed) category -- a container category by status covering subcats for individuals who have indeed been accused and have suffered a variety of consequences -- and the sorts of categories you allude to, which were rightly deleted. Again, if you can come up with another, possibly better, way of wording it, by all means, please do. Cgingold (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing this rename proposal. Please see below. Cgingold (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cg, this is not complicated. You have not persuaded me that those distinctions you make overcome the problems. That's all. If you choose to sign and label that as unconstructive, so be it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This comes up with criminal categories all of the time. If I recall correctly, an individual should only be assigned to a criminal category based on conviction, not suspicion. Placing someone in a category as loaded as "terrorist" should not be based on subjective viewpoint (even if it represents prevailing public opinion) and definitely not be based on political interests. Plus, a category can be useful but also be invalid according to WP categorization policies and practices. LizRead!Talk! 22:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too long of a comment Whether or not people feel this is a useful category, and I'm neutral on this, WP:LABEL is still the wrong policy and is being cited incorrectly for these kinds of decisions about category names. WP:LABEL is for articles and the text of articles. According to WP:ARTICLE, article space does not include Disambiguation Pages, Category Pages etc. I fully agree that WP:LABEL must be considered when deciding to add a label to the text of an article. When deciding to add an article to a category, consideration should be about whether it is fully supported and directly attributed in the article. Categories are for navigation. I think everyone can agree that "murderer" is a deeply pejorative label that must have in-text attribution to a reliable source in an article. As an example look at John Christie (murderer). This subject is in a host of categories with pejorative labels, the article's title contains a pejorative term (even in my link, with no citation given in any secondary page where it could be inlinked). WP:ARTICLE is why we can mention the word "murderer" in links containing Article Titles, Disambiguation Pages, Category Pages etc. without direct attribution on those pages. If he were added to a "List of Murderers" article, there would be no on-page citation of a reliable source confirming our labelling, because it would be in the destination article. If WP:LABEL actually demanded on-page citation on every page the word appeared, we could have no controversial, crime-related, or even mildly pejorative words in our category names. We'd have to get rid of all of the sub-cats of Category:Murderers to start with. This doesn't mean I'm taking WP:LABEL lightly. I think it's extremely important that there's attribution for contentious labels, in the articles. It could be that Terrorist is too hard a word to get clear attribution for any article, but then the argument is that there are no clear subjects for the category, and not because of what WP:LABEL asks for directly. If someone adds Queen Elizabeth to Category:Murderers, the problem isn't that there was a category named Murderers, the problem is only if there was no clear and reliable citation in the subject article. If a label that can be considered pejorative can still be reliably sourced, we can have a category using that term. Maybe terrorism isn't one of those labels, by consensus, but there are others that can be. WP:LABEL doesn't apply in reliable-source-verifiable pejorative labeling. If it's a word we could put it in a title, even if it's negative, we can categorize by it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you'll take a moment to respond to my counter-proposal, above. Cgingold (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see the merits of renaming the category acceptably instead of upmerging, but as there is no longer an intermediate category Terrorists, and the top category is not too cluttered, I think it would be best to move the sub-cats up into the top cat. They can still be grouped together at the beginning, using an appropriate non-alphabetic sort key. – FayenaticLondon 11:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, Fayenatic. I was about to ask you a followup question, but I've decided to hold off. Rather than pursuing this discussion further, I am going to withdraw my counter-proposal and allow this CFD to come to a conclusion without further comment on my part. Cgingold (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
