Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 22



Category:LEGO DC Comics Movies

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:LEGO DC Comics Movies to Category:Lego DC Comics films
 * Nominator's rationale: Bring name in line with other film categories, correct capitalization of "Lego". Trivialist (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Musical quintets

 * 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. I see three groups of approximately equal membership advocating for keeping, deletion, or modification in some other way. I am unable to find consensus to to anything at this time, so the status quo will remain. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 23:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting musical quintets


 * Nominator's rationale: In the on-going project to deal with the various "groups by size" categories, we've finally reached a case where there are significant groups organized to play music written for a five member ensemble of specified instruments. With the exception of the string quintet, of which we have only one example (the Boccherini Quintet), these are all in subcats. Evrything else is, yes, a five member band, or at least a band which had five members at some point in its history. And as for the larger numbers, this isn't defining. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted from CfD 2017 Oct 6. It may be helpful to notify WikiProject Music and/or other relevant WikiProjects, if no one has done so already.
 * Delete: trivial category.  This categorization isn't helpful.  If we are going to categorize bands based on the number of members, why not "bands with two men and three women" or "bands with an odd number of members"?  Bands containing five members have important in common with one another (with the possible exception of string quintets, which is a more specific category).  Yes (band) is a good example:  It is tagged as a "musical quintet", which is 99% correct (Yes had five members over most of its history, with brief exceptions) -- but tells us nothing interesting about the band.  If you were to list the bands most similar to Yes, they would have various numbers of members.  Deep Purple (five members) is much closer to Led Zeppelin (four) than it is to Yes (five).  And many bands have changed their number of members without changing their sound. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 23:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This was previously at CFD and kept only seven days ago. What has changed since then?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The previous nomination was an omnium gatherum of something like thirty categories of musical groups by number; the primary reason given for keeping by almost everyone was that it was to much to deal with at once. The decision accepted that smaller nominations might succeed. Mangoe (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – my reading of the recent cfd is that editors thought that each should be considered separately: that at some point the number in a band becomes irrelevant. IMO quartets should be kept and octets deleted. I note that Category:Musical quintets has 3 subcats which appear to be entirely valid, whereas Category:Musical sextets (and larger) have no subcats. So I would keep 5 or fewer (possibly as container categories) and delete the rest. Oculi (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The possibility of a container cat did occur to me, but it seems to me that it would be an attractive nuisance which would eventually fill up with bands again. Perhaps you could suggest a rename. Mangoe (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is considered defining enough to be mentioned in reliable sources that a band is a quintet, or a quartet, or a trio, etc - and also if a band changed from one format to the other. Our own articles will often mention in the opening statement the style and size of a band (do a Wikipedia search for "five piece band" for example). And while different styles of music are played across different sizes of band, the sound that a trio makes tends to be different to the sound a quintet makes due to the increased instrumentation.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Containerise and purge of all articles that do not fit into the existing subcategories or any new ones that may be suggested. Except in classical music where the group is playing pieces written for a specific combination, the number of players is largely random. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The amount of players is considered important, and often defining, in pop and rock music. See Power trio and Musical_ensemble for some indication of the relevance of the number of players.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The two problems I'm seeing are that already mentioned (the variability in numbers) and that it is common for the various small-number groups to be backed up by session musicians, so that the number stated isn't the real number of musicians. And when you read the article on ensembles you will find that the power trio and the three most common variants on quartets are the only really standard configurations; after that the article more or less admits that there is little or no pattern. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree people can have personal opinions on the importance of the number of people in a rock group; nevertheless, the number of people is mentioned in reliable sources, so it is seen as significant enough by enough people for a cat to be useful, even if only to create lists like these:, . Though numbers higher than five are mentioned, it is not with any frequency, but numbers one, two, three, four, and five are common enough to be useful cats. Agreed that bands can fluctuate in their numbers, as they can fluctuate in the nationality of their members, so bands like Fleetwood Mac are always going to be a problem. But we don't decide to do away with nationality cats such as American blues rock musical groups and British blues rock musical groups because some groups straddle both cats.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  17:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – There are a number of performing groups, classical and others, with "Quintet" as part of their name, so it can't be regarded as trivial or non-defining. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you will re-read the nomination, this was addressed. Wind quintets et al. live in their own categories currently beneath this. What's left for this cat are pop groups where the number of member is not, as a rule, defining or even constant. Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Stand by previous vote -- If there are other varieties of music where being a quintet is defining, they can be moved to new subcatogories, but in many cases the number of players will not be particularly defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Containerize, I looked into a dozen random articles and in none of these articles the editors had made an attempt to prominently display that it is about a quintet or about a 5-people band. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete the number of members of a musical group is not defining, and for some groups changes throughout the group history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename to Classical music quintets or similar (word order?) and throw out all bands as only for classical music ensemble size is truly defining. Why? Classical music ensembles most usually play from instrumentation-defined repertoire in an attempt to be as true as possible to the source. Instrumentation rules. Pop-rock is largely music tailored with a specific ensemble in mind and variations in size per band era, tour, or recording are common. Jazz does work with standards but improvisations rule. gidonb (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Ojarumaru

 * 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: relisted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting ojarumaru


 * Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which area already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Toriko

 * 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: relisted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting toriko


 * Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Sket Dance

 * 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: relisted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting sket dance


 * Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked to the main article, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:The Disastrous Life of Saiki K.

 * 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: relisted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting the disastrous life of saiki k.


 * Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Beelzebub (manga)

 * 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: relisted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting beelzebub (manga)


 * Nominator's rationale: With only five articles, all of which area already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:World Trigger

 * 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: relisted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting world trigger


 * Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which area already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Saint Lawrence

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting saint lawrence


 * Nominator's rationale: Category that's a bizarre conflation of two WP:OCAT violations at once: mostly it's an inappropriate WP:SHAREDNAME category for things that happen to be named after St. Lawrence, although there are also a few inappropriate WP:OCASSOC entries for things that just have a vague and non-defining association with St. Lawrence (e.g. the chalice that Jesus used at the Last Supper, on the basis that Lawrence is claimed to have later had it in his possession for a short spell.) Neither of these are even valid bases for a category on their own, let alone smooshed into one catchall category that's trying to do both things simultaneously. Bearcat (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a disambiguation page masquerading as a category and we already have Saint Lawrence (disambiguation). RevelationDirect (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: this was renamed, not deleted, at a recent discussion in August. Pinging as participants there. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Convert to list  like others in Category:Lists of things named after people. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete the category. On a different subject, I doubt we should have a "List of things named after ..." article. Few of those are of value, and in the case of Saint Lawrence the disamb page suffices. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. Delete. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Usually I think of such a list as a disambiguation page. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of redirects to less obvious members of the category. I think the only current category members not on the disambiguation pages will be Holy Chalice and Holy Cross Church, Lehre, where the connection with Lawrence is incidental. (However, others may have been removed already.) – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The nom pretty much sums this up. This is a mixture of things linked for no really good reason, at multiple levels.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Bearcat's rationale convinces me. The last CfD I only put forward to match the article move. No objection to deletion here. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * DElete -- We do not like thinkgs being categorised by SHAREDNAME. The usual way to deal with them is by a dab-page.  I note that others have prepared for that outcome.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Batiscanie

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting batiscanie


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:INDISCRIMINATE category for every lake or river, and some isolated bits of weirdness like historic geopolitical entities and an article about tourism, that happen to be located within one particular watershed. This is not a useful basis on which to categorize rivers or lakes, and it's doubly not a useful basis on which to categorize past or present town or city governments — Batiscanie is not and never has been a political entity, so it's not a valid or WP:DEFINING basis for categorizing things within it. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NONDEF. We might have kept the category if items in here would clearly identify themselves as being located in the region of Batiscanie, but that is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:States and territories by year of establishment
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:States and territories by year of establishment to Category:Establishment of administrative territorial entities and Category:Political geography
 * Propose merging Category:States and territories by year of disestablishment to Category:Former states and territories and Category:Political geography
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, unneeded category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Restructure: populate these (by editing templates e.g. Template:State establishment category) with single-year categories which are currently categorised only under each decade; and place the nominated categories and the current subcats (by century / by millennium) into new "by date" categories, e.g. Category:States and territories by date of establishment. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (as nom) That is also a possibility. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The top categories use
 * "time" instead of "date": Category:Establishments by time, Category:Disestablishments by time
 * "administrative territorial entities" instead of "states and territories": Category:Administrative territorial entities. The term "states and territories" is problematic
 * as for the USA, Australia, India, Mexico these are terms for high-level country subdivisions, see e.g. States and territories of Australia. But the category contains all kinds of administrative territorial entities.
 * Also, in the "by language"-tree (Category:Administrative territorial entities by language) the term "countries and territories" is used, which is problematic as well, since it somehow restricts it to sovereign states and special territories that sometimes are treated like countries (Macao, Hong Kong, British Overseas Territories, Puerto Rico etc.).
 * So one could have
 * Category:Administrative territorial entities by continent
 * Category:Administrative territorial entities by language
 * Category:Administrative territorial entities by time
 * Category:Administrative territorial entities by time of establishment / inside Category:Establishment of administrative territorial entities
 * Category:Administrative territorial entities by time of disestablishment / inside Category:Disestablishment of administrative territorial entities
 * 78.55.239.138 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While this sounds quite reasonable, it is not proper to unilaterally move the nominated categories while the discussion is still going on. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I accept the suggestion that the parent should be Category:States and territories by time of establishment, and have proposed at Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 29 that Category:Administrative territorial entities by time of establishment be renamed to that name. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: The "Administrative territorial entities" hierarchy has been set up by sockpuppets of the blocked editor user:Tobias Conradi, and is itself under discussion for renaming, see Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 29. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment whatever the first category it is going to be, Category:Political geography, would be a super category. Not a parent! gidonb (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to question weather merging both indepdent states and sub-national territories ever really made sense. This always had the feal of a category created by an American who had not considered Wikipedia as a world-wide project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merging them definitely makes sense from a historical perspective. Assessing whether, for example, duchies and later kingdoms within the Holy Roman Empire should be treated as independent or subnational territories would become a very subjective task. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nomination. It becomes too confusing to discuss a merge while the nominated categories have been renamed without consensus and the validity of the names is being discussed elsewhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment it appears that both Category:States and territories by year of disestablishment (nominated) and Category:Former states and territories (target) are empty now. Is there some way to detect what the former content was in order to move it back? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Found them. This formerly contained Category:States and territories by century of establishment and Category:States and territories by millennium of establishment. They are now in Category:Administrative territorial entities by time of establishment which was created in good faith by, at the request (here at AfC) of an IP sock of Tobias Conradi. That category was then edited and populated by 85.181.157.241, 78.51.219.148 and 85.179.115.65, more socks of user:Tobias Conradi. Note: as the latter is unable to create categories, he has been asking others to do it, using AfC and directly to KGirlTrucker 81 (see here), who is an innocent party in this. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As suggested above, I have gone ahead and populated this with sub-cats by year, by editing the relevant template. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What a mess, thanks for solving! Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Music in Christian worship
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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, as WP:SOFTDELETE due to lack of participation. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Music in Christian worship to Category:Church music
 * Nominator's rationale: downmerge, the scope of the two categories is largely overlapping and Church music seems to be a better name, per article Church music. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted from Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 10.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Templatonian football clubs
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting templatonian football clubs


 * Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what this category is supposed to contain, but the majority of category pages are user pages so it is my belief that this was intended to be some sort of user category. If so, Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. If it isn't a user category than it should still almost certainly be deleted as not useful for the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is not a user category, but rather one created in error due to new users copy-pasting and/or adapting the wikicode located at WikiProject Football/Clubs/Template. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we do something a bit more organised about templates which generate dud categories? Rathfelder (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The content appears to be specimens for the sort of articles that might be written on football clubs. It may belong in the template section mentioned by Black Falcon; no view on that.  It certainly does not belong where it is.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:Tsundere Wikipedians
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting tsundere wikipedians


 * Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. "Tsundere is a Japanese term for a character development process that describes a person who is initially cold and even hostile towards another person before gradually showing a warmer side over time." This is not a useful feature to categorize users by.  If users wish to convey this information, they can do it on their userpage; there is no need for a grouping of such users by way of a category. VegaDark (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, as a user category that does not facilitate collaboration. In addiion, this is a single-user category for an editor who was last active in 2013. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.