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:keep. The last suggestion in the discussion may well lead to a new CfD proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: WP:PRECISION. 2009 in British Rally Championship is completely accurate as it encompasses the championship. 2009 in British Rally season could be a correct article title as it would encompass rallying in Britain in 2009 and included non-championship as well as championship events. 2009 British Rally Championship season is a tautology. It's superflous. Should cover the Championship or the season. Championship season as a phrase is a tautological misnomer. Should be one or the other, not both. Consistency with other articles is not enough of a reason for an innaccuracy. --Falcadore (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Falcadore: Would you suggest renaming the other category then? I have no objection as to what they are called, but the inconsistency is somewhat jarring. QueenCake (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would, however this tautology exists widely across Wikipedia motorsport pages. Really needs to be brought up at WT:WikiProject Motorsport. --Falcadore (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2015 (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:delete. – FayenaticLondon 21:56, 12 December 2015 (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.
Delete leads to overcategorization, adequately covered by list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2015 (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:delete. MER-C 20:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sleazy POV category comprised solely of two individuals who are no more anti-Catholic than other Serbs, unless the category creator is meaning Serbs who are "anti-Croatian", but I don't think that's a road we need to go down, especially since there are just as many "anti-Serb Croats". None of which matters, since, in any event, as per this CFD, bias categories mustn't "include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-catholic. Repeat: articles about individuals, groups, or media must not be placed in this category." So this absurd category does not even fit its own criteria and is in violation of precedent. Please kill it as speedily as humanly possible. Quis separabit? 02:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, though we may reinstate the category if more relevant articles will become available. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the category but purge the individuals. If ever an article is written about Anti-Catholicism in Serbia in general, then it can go here. It's foreseeable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged -- that's kinda silly. I never heard of storing up empty categories for possible future use. In any event, given the manifest flaws in the category itself as pointed out by @Peterkingiron this one should disappear rather than be held in abeyance for some future mischief. Quis separabit? 19:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Serbs are Orthodox and write in Cyrillic. The Croats are Catholics and write the same language in Latin script. The Yugoslav conflict was far more about ethnicity dressed up in religious terms than about theological differences. It was much more about nationalistic than religious hatred. It is thus better not expressed as anti-Catholicism. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per points expressed above. 23 editor (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this works as a biography category. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2015 (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.
