< December 29	December 31 >

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: rename. MER-C 04:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buddhism-related television episodes to Category:Television episodes about Buddhism
Propose renaming Category:Christianity-related television episodes to Category:Television episodes about Christianity
Propose renaming Category:Hinduism-related television episodes to Category:Television episodes about Hinduism
Propose renaming Category:Islam-related television episodes to Category:Television episodes about Islam
Propose renaming Category:Jewish-related television episodes to Category:Television episodes about Judaism
Propose renaming Category:Satanism-related television episodes to Category:Television episodes about Satanism

Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:DEFINING, we should only have articles that are about a certain religion; "-related" is too vague for that. It should also be renamed in order to align with parent Category:Television episodes about religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Being "related" to something is less than being "about" something. Now I would be surprised if episodes of television series were "about" a religion. My guess is that at most they contain religion-"related" elements. If that is indeed the case, then that is not really something we should have a category about, and I would propose deletion of these categories altogether. Debresser (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can and should manually purge the categories after renaming. If nothing remains, the categories can be deleted per WP:C1. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and purge per nom. DexDor^(talk) 09:41, 1 January 2020 (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 04:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Template:Wushu-practitioner-stub

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template created in July 2019, no corresponding category Le Deluge (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have moved this nomination from TfD since CfD is the proper venue for stub templates and has an audience more qualified to comment on them. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per non-existance of Category:Wushu practitioners stubs. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That'd be Category:Wushu practitioner stubs, but that doesn't exist either. Delete Grutness...wha? 03:02, 31 December 2019 (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: do not rename. MER-C 04:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English Football League managers to Category:Managers in the English Football League

Nominator's rationale: For clarification. It is not about English managers in what was for many years called (and still often referred to informally as) the Football League, but about managers of any nationality in what is now called the English Football League (although it includes many who managed before that name change) Kevin McE (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - at present the name is ambiguous. Oculi (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 10:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - not ambiguous at all, and if you move this then you will have no move every single other related category (eg Category:English Football League players) for every country in the world (eg Category:Maltese Premier League players, Category:Slovak Super Liga managers and so on). Nonsense. GiantSnowman 10:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. They are all ambiguous. As I pointed out in a similar cfd Category:Egyptian Premier League players could mean Premier League players who are Egyptian, or players in the Egyptian Premier League. Oculi (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it is ambiguous: nonsense to claim that there is only one possible interpretation. Kevin McE (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you are confusing organisation with nationality. The organisation is called the English Football League so it is correct to call the category English Football League managers so that it includes all managers who have operated in the English Football League. In no way, does it limit membership to managers who have English nationality. Same applies to Egypt and to Malta and Slovakia in the earlier examples. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not confusing them (any more: I did previously, which is why I know damn well that it is ambiguous) but I am pointing out that they are confusable in this format. Kevin McE (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree. Makes no sense per above. Pretty clear what the categories name is about, not ambiguous. Kante4 (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The name of the organisation is English Football League (EFL) so it makes complete sense to have a category called English Football League managers for its managers. Nationality doesn't come into it. The proposal is made "for clarification" but the name is already clear and there is no ambiguity. I agree with GiantSnowman that the proposal is nonsense because of the wider implications. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The organisation has been called the English Football League for a little over 2 years. It was called the Football League for 128 years before that, and very many, probably the majority, of those on the list were managers in the league under that name. There are a whole load of names here who are not English, and who never managed in anything called the English Football League. Are you taking upon yourself to remove all of those? Kevin McE (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't see that this really needs moving. Also, the proposed title would make it seem like the category was only for managers currently in charge of EFL teams. – PeeJay 11:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. There are hundreds in the category who are not currently "English Football League Managers", or even alive, and you don't seem to consider that a problem. Kevin McE (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a problem, because the current title doesn't suggest that they are currently in the EFL. "English Football League managers" is no more of a problem than "Manchester United F.C. players". – PeeJay 15:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Totally spurious argument. The word 'in' no more requires present tense than does 'manager'. Nor any less. Kevin McE (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As above. However, I would suggest a clarification be added to the category itself along the lines of "Managers of any nationality who have controlled a team in the English Football League (also known as the Football League) since its inception in 1888. Does not include managers in the Premier League, the top division of league football in England since 1992, for which see Category:Premier League managers." Or something. In case anyone does mistakenly think it's only for English managers in the Football League. Crowsus (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per all of the above oppose reasons given. I would support adding a brief clarification to the category like we have for Category:English Football League players, but renaming the category is not the answer here. LTFC 95 (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But those last two suggestions are only any use once one is reading the category list, it does nothing for those looking at the categories on the bottom of a manager's article. And that will not make sense to the reader in a huge number of cases. Kevin McE (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can't and don't attempt to explain everything everywhere. That is why we have links. People can follow links if they want more information about a term. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is the nominator's rationale because of an actual problem (with rampant miscategorisation), or a perceived one? I think we all know the answer to that. GiantSnowman 16:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What the ~@?:! is that about? Justify or retract. Kevin McE (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @GiantSnowman:: still waiting... Kevin McE (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the parent categories make it clear if readers happen to find the bottom of the category page: "Association football managers by competition" and "English Football League". That said, a simple explanatory sentence on the category page for this and similar categories would clear up all ambiguity. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — The category name is not ambiguous and only refers to managers who coached in the EFL. It would very silly for anyone to think that it only refers to English football managers who have managed in the insert nationality (except English) here Football League. Furthermore, we would also have to change literally the name of every other subcategory within it. The name is simple and not confusing. Changing it to whatever you requested makes it too ambiguous and only 71 people are eligible to be part of the category. If you want it fully disambiguated then the too long and even more confusing than it needs to be. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs)
- No, it does not apply only to "managers who coached in the EFL": it has a vast number of managers (English and otherwise) who coached in the Football League.
- There are no logical or linguistic grounds for the assertion that my proposal is any more restricted to current managers than the present title. If you believe otherwise, explain why. Kevin McE (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2020 (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 04:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Football players from Ma'alot-Tarshiha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Categories with just one or two entries. Don't propose merging to people as most Israeli footballers are seriously overcategorized with player articles in People and sometimes Sportspeople from Foo in addition to Football players from. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - and if it is kept then it should be Category:Footballers from Ma'alot-Tarshiha. Giant Snowman 10:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one entry and I've just submitted that to AFD because I believe it fails GNG. I think that a category based on town or city of origin should have a significant number of entries (at least half a dozen, in my view) to be worth keeping. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2019 (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 04:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Council of Five members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All this category includes is one subcategory, which is already under deletion discussion. Delete as a useless category. JIP | Talk 14:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2019 (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: rename to Category:Controversial elm taxa. MER-C 04:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disputed elm species and varieties to Category:Controversial elm taxa or Category:Controversial ulmus taxa

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Controversial bird taxa etc. Example similar CFD. DexDor^(talk) 07:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - one finds oneself in the world of NotWith and Caftaric (eg Category:Eukaryote taxa). To accompany Category:Disputed elm species and varieties I would expect Category:Elm species and varieties, Category:Oak species and varieties, Category:Elm taxa or Category:Ulmus taxa, Category:Plant taxa, Category:Tree taxa, Category:Oak taxa or ... Where are other disputed plants categorised or is it only elms which are notorious? Oculi (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
support - as per nom. I’m not buying the slippery slope argument.

@User:NessieVL - is that !vote intended for this discussion? DexDor^(talk) 23:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor: indeed it is. --Nessie (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to ;Category:Controversial elm taxa, for consistency with similar categories. Plantdrew (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2020 (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 04:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Pages using infobox building with deprecated parameters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No longer needed. All instances of the deprecated parameter have been fixed and it has been removed from the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete, housekeeping, no longer used. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2020 (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: rename. MER-C 04:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ecole Spéciale Militaire de Saint-Cyr alumni to Category:École Spéciale Militaire de Saint-Cyr alumni

Nominator's rationale: This category was created by a bot and is missing the accent on the first letter to match École spéciale militaire de Saint-Cyr. There are several other categories that begin with the correct accented letter, so this can't be a technical thing, ie Category: École Normale Supérieure alumni. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per WP:C2A. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2019 (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: no consensus. MER-C 04:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland to Category:Civil awards and decorations of Poland
Propose merging Category:Order of Polonia Restituta‎ to Category:Civil awards and decorations of Poland

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, each of the categories only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory of recipients. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They serve a navigational purpose, allowing to navigate from article in question to the categorized list of participants. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That will not change when merging. The article and subcat will just be one category layer higher. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 04:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So where will we put awards about products that enhance the sheen on surfaces, furniture, etc? Kevin McE (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2019 (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: rename. MER-C 04:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Personal finance websites to Category:Finance websites

Nominator's rationale: Not all the articles can be properly regarded as about personal finance, and there isn't another category. Renaming would fit better into Category:Works about finance Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is splitting an option? i.e. making Category:Personal finance websites a subcategory of Category:Finance websites. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I created this category because, as the nominator says, there wasn't anything else really suitable. The suggestion above by Marcocapelle seems a good way forward. Malcolma (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 37 articles. There is Category:Online financial services companies which should be brought in. Rathfelder (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Finance websites is not perfect, but it's an improvement. Rathfelder (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2020 (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, but check whether members are categorized under Category:Beauty pageant winners first. MER-C 04:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Miss Intercontinental winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Articles on Miss International have been deleted. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, being a miss intercontinental winner seems to be the main reason why the biography articles in this category exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~This is a weak oppose, I guess.~~ Marcocapelle (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete winning an award like this may indicate that an article should be in a female models category, but it shouldn't have an award winners category. DexDor^(talk) 07:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is also true. Changing vote to upmerge to Category:Beauty pageant winners or a by-nationality subcategory of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2019 (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: do not rename. MER-C 04:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English cricket commentators to Category:British cricket commentators

Nominator's rationale: Part of Category:Cricket commentators by nationality. English is no longer a nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Part of a large and well-established tree of English people (alongside similar categories for other constituent countries of the UK). i'd have no objection to a parent British category to hold this, Category:Scottish cricket commentators, and Category:Welsh cricket commentators, but a definite "No" to deletion. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. These are not identical. Basically every British category for humans is broken up into the four countries that make up the UK - see Category:British comedy writers. If you want to create a parent category for English, Welsh, and Scottish categories that's fine, but no to renaming English cricket commentators. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Frankly, words fail me. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. – Pee Jay 11:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
English, Welsh, and Scottish categories do not belong in categories "by nationality". The only nationality since 1707 is British. English has to be a subcategory of British. This may, of course, change in the future. Rathfelder (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2020 (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: merge Category:Redirects to insects to Category:Insect redirects. MER-C 04:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Insect redirects to Category:Redirects to insects

Nominator's rationale: No need for these to be separate categories. DexDor^(talk) 19:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose but support opposite merge: I would support merging Category:Redirects to insects into Category:Insect redirects. The latter was created to be more in sync with the naming and ordering of other categories within the Tree of Life project. Many pages within Redirects to Insects fit within the more precise categories of Insect redirects, which contains far more pages. I do agree that both categories are not required. M. A. Broussard (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If only one of these categories is required why did you create the 2nd category (rather than proposing a rename of the category that already existed)?

Your format is more consistent with, for example, Category:Insect stubs, but it's inconsistent with most other redirect categories (e.g. see subcats of Category:Main namespace redirects such as Category:Redirects to monotypic taxa of insects). Given a choice between consistency with categories of a similar topic (e.g. animals) and categories of a similar type (e.g. redirects) the latter is preferable. DexDor^(talk) 08:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or reverse merge, clearly they should not both be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:57, 30 December 2019 (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: rename. MER-C 04:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Crossover science fiction television series to Category:Television crossover episodes

Nominator's rationale: The entries in this category are episodes, not TV series. Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with episodes, but we might rename the category instead of merging it, namely to Category:Crossover science fiction television episodes. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with Marcocapelle's proposal if this category is wanted. My issue was the fact that they were episodes and not TV series. --Gonnym (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2020 (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.

December 30

Category:Buddhism-related television episodes

Template:Wushu-practitioner-stub

Category:English Football League managers

Category:Orchids diseases and pests

Category:Football players from Ma'alot-Tarshiha

Category:Council of Five members

Category:Mega-City One Chief Judges

Category:Disputed elm species and varieties

Category:Pages using infobox building with deprecated parameters

Category:Ecole Spéciale Militaire de Saint-Cyr alumni

Polish awards

Category:Personal finance websites

Category:Miss Intercontinental winners

Category:English cricket commentators

Category:Insect redirects

Category:Crossover science fiction television series