Talk:Twilight Sparkle/@comment-27176288-20161226060549/@comment-7345250-20161226164445

So perhaps it would be wise of us to take a step back and reconsider the following:


 * "Categories should cover intrinsic or defining attributes of the subject of the page. Categories should not describe minor, incidental, or marginal properties of a page or subject, and they should not encompass every detail that is present on a page. Always make sure categories describe the most important characteristics of the page or subject."

All of the ponies mentioned above fit the "circumstantial antagonists" bill, but their forays into villainy are hardly intrinsic or defining to their characterization.

The category was proposed and approved as a measure to account for characters who were firmly seated with "reformed antagonists" as an intrinsic property, even though they were good from the get-go, causing no end of confusion among newer contributors. It was to be a middle ground: a special term for the pages that no one could safely remove but no one could soundly defend either.

So, while the antagonists situation overall has been a total dumpster fire, my attempts at cleanup succeeding only at getting people talking about the elephant in the room, I don't think the category is necessary here unless someone is going to crawl out of the woodwork and say Ponies of Dark Water was a truly defining role.