From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 23 December 25 >

December 24

Category:Extended centaurs

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 to Category:Centaurs (minor planets) and Category:Trans-Neptunian objects, but in light of the result of the discussion immediately below this one, merge to Category:Centaurs (small Solar System bodies) and Category:Trans-Neptunian objects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category was created as "Ejected Centaurs", and moved without discussion without formal discussion to "extended centaurs". Centaurs are, in non-technical language, things between comets and asteroids. On some definitions centaurs are within Neptune's orbit. The members of this category are considered centaurs by other definitions, even though they are Category:Trans-Neptunian objects. – Fayenatic London 23:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. And here I was, trying to imagine a horse with a long body and a man's head. Grutness... wha? 00:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, some of the objects in the articles are described as trans-Neptunian objects, others are described as centaurs. If they really are all of the same kind it would be helpful to harmonize the articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Additional note: Although there was no CFD discussion, and no link in the edit summaries, I have just found that some editors did confer before the move to the current name, see User_talk:Kheider#2012_DR30_and_orbital_classification and following. – Fayenatic London 10:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • To nominator "Trans-Neptunian centaurs", is this term ever used in literature? A quick google search only gives me two hits of minor importance, while Extended centaur seems well documented. Also ping @ Exoplanetaryscience:, just in case. — Rfassbind – talk 07:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment As an add-on to this: The nominator's description seems to indicate that centaurs are a mutually exclusive orbital body to trans-Neptunian objects, and this is simply not the case. Centaurs are simply defined as any object whose average orbit is beyond Jupiter but closest point is within Neptune, and not in an orbital resonance with one of these planets (hence Pluto and the rest of the Plutinos do not count, nor do the Uranus or Neptune trojans) whereas a trans-Neptunian object is just any asteroid whose orbit goes beyond Neptune. All this is to say that they are all still technically centaurs, even if individual articles do not say as such. I've also definitely seen the term "extended centaur" used quite prevalently in scientific literature. Still, I don't have strong opinions one way or another. They are the same thing regardless. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 07:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This classifications is based on the simulated behavior of the orbit when extended over 10 million years. The extended centaurs are non-resonant objects whose closest approach to the Sun is less than the semi-major axis of Neptune (~30 AU) at any time during the simulation. But since creating the category the Minor Planet Center has combined Centaurs and Scattered-Disk Objects into a single generic list making the category much less Wikipedia-friendly. Changing it to "Trans-Neptunian centaurs" might make more sense for people taking a quick glance at a category. This category (the semantics) has driven me crazy for 5 years. -- Kheider ( talk) 16:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • I took more than a quick glance: I read the page history and the talk page, and there was no indication of any discussion anywhere. It would have helped if some clues had at least been left in edit summaries. I only noticed the discussion on your user talk page when I went to give specific notice of this nomination to editors who had worked on the category page. – Fayenatic London 10:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Based on the above comments, it seems that the intersection between centaurs and Trans-Neptunian objects is not a clearly recognized class of objects. If that is correct, then merge the category to its parents Category:Centaurs (minor planets) and Category:Trans-Neptunian objects. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I do not object to merger, but the Centaurs target should not be that one but the astronomy category (nominated below). I have not looked into whether the member pages also necessarily belong within Category:Damocloids; Kheider, please advise. – Fayenatic London 10:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks, I have fixed the merge target. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Most of the ext-centaurs are already listed under damocloids so I do not see a need to merge the remaining ones. Merging them to Centaurs (minor planets) and Trans-Neptunian objects seem like a good idea. I have not messed with damocloids in about 3 years because I was hoping for a more Wikipedia friendly definition to develop. -- Kheider ( talk) 01:41, 30 December 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.

Category:Centaurs (minor planets)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename, corresponding to centaur (small Solar System body). This could be nominated speedily, WP:C2D, but I am listing it on this page for completeness along with two of its sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 23:34, 24 December 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.

Category:Politicians from Hopkinton, Rhode Island

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Small community (Under 10,000) people with just four entries. In fact this subcategory has more entries than its parent. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge but do we need another target reflecting them being politicians? The two I looked at seemed not to need that. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge we do not need this type of category for 4 people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 10:20, 31 December 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.

Category:Pop-folk albums

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 13#Category:Pop-folk_albums

Category:People from Moreau, New York

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Small one-county community with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Definite maybe I’ll run a search to see how many other people might fit in this category. Peter Flass ( talk) 14:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Approve After a search, I only found one other person. Peter Flass ( talk) 16:19, 24 December 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.

Category:Movie memes

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category is somewhat misleading, as it doesn't contain memes themselves, but films or franchises that contain them. Brandmeister talk 12:59, 24 December 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.

Fiction about astronomical locations

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Full hierarchy, 62 renames and 30 not changing
Just the renames, formatted for the closer

This nomination revisits Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_23#Category:Astronomical_locations_in_fiction, when Category:Astronomical locations in fiction was renamed to Category:Fiction about astronomical locations, and all its subcats likewise. A Speedy renomination was opposed partly on the grounds that the locations are the settings rather than the topics of the fiction concerned. This is therefore a combined nomination to deal with all the similar categories. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Copy of Speedy discussion

@ LaundryPizza03 and SMcCandlish: pinging other participants in previous discussion. – Fayenatic London 18:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Support-ish per nom. I think this would be an improvement, but I think an even better one would be to upmerge these back to "Vega in fiction", etc. though the original mass rename was an improvement itself, over "Vega in fiction", etc.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC); revised:  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    'Vega in fiction' suggests that it is fiction about Vega which is clearly not the case. Note that all of these are borderline WP:NONDEF cases anyway, there is hardly any reference to geography in this type of fiction and the main feature is that they are set in space. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    "Foo in fiction" just means that foo is mentioned or referenced there, not necessarily that it's about Foo. "In" has more general meaning, "about" is more specific. But I'm neutral here anyway. Brandmeister talk 08:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    Right! And in the previous round there was a counter-argument of sorts that also militated against "Foo in fiction" for such cases: "There is precedent for renaming this type of category to prevent misuse for minor references." I.e., people will stick things in these categories if these astro-places were even passingly mentioned. So, while I think the proposal is a bit clearer and more narrowing than the current names, reverting to "in ficton" would be a mistake twice over (two different groups would misuse the category two different ways). Sorry I didn't think that through sufficiently on the first pass. I'll blame it on Xmas Eve. PS: I don't disagree with the point that some of these may be NONDEF, but we might have to approach this on a case-by-case basis when it comes to deletion.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Tentative support Makes sense to turn into setting categories. Though in some cases, the fiction concerns aliens from these locations. Should Canopus be disambiguated from fictional depictions of Canopus, Egypt? Dimadick ( talk) 12:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 10:24, 31 December 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.

Category:Fiction about Earth

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This one is worth reconsidering separately. It includes subcats for each continent in fiction, along with other aspects. – Fayenatic London 13:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Category:Earth in fiction could be the target (in line with similar parent articles Mars in fiction, Mercury in fiction and Venus in fiction), but then for consistency the entire category tree up to Category:Fiction about astronomical locations should be moved to "Foo in fiction" format (per Category:Locations in fiction). Brandmeister talk 14:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, it contains subcategories like Category:Africa in fiction which should be addressed before we change this category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as-is. As noted in the larger related CfR above, "Foo in fiction" as a category name for an astronomical body has a problem: one group of editors will think it means only fiction with that body as a central focus (which is also what the current name conveys), while another group will think it means any passing mention. As I said in the prevoius CfR on this stuff a month ago: "I'm not sure there is any utility at all in the one about Earth. That would seem (broadly interpreted anyway) to account for all fiction ever, that did not take place in outer space or in a fantasy alternative world. Even narrowly interpreted to require considerable treatment of Earth as an astronomical body, that would still include the vast majority of science fiction ever written, probably." That applies especially to "Category:Earth in fiction". I was originally arguing that it also applied to the current name, but this category has largely been repurposed to hold subcats like continent ones. While the above larger CfR makes great sense for most cases, it would fail badly for "Category:Fiction set on earth", which would be the ultimate case of what I was taking about in the old CfR.

    So, this is one case where our preference for consistent category names has to take an IAR/COMMONSENSE break and permit a divergence that will be too confusing if we do not. There's much precedent for this, e.g. when things have names like "English billiards", and we have Category:Snooker players, and Category:Pool players, and Category:Carom billiards players, which have to diverge to Category:Players of English billiards to avoid confusion with a "Category:Billiards players from England". There are many clarity exceptions like this. Earth, from a fiction-setting standpoint, is completely unlike all the other categories nominated above, because almost all fiction is set here.

    Side proposal: We could create an additional subcategory, to "net" a certain class of sci-fi, e.g. "Category:Earth as a astronomical body in fiction", or "Category:Fiction about Earth as an astronomical body", or something like that, then make Category:Fiction about Earth a container category that must diffuse. I think this would take care of all of the "loose" articles presently in the category, except for a couple that already have another subcategory to go into (e.g. Earth-Two belongs in the subcat Category:Counter-Earths, I would think).
     —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Split to Category:Fiction set on Earth and Category:Fiction set around Earth to match the parallel nomination. There are plenty "set on" <planetary body> (such as Category:Novels set on the Moon), and Category:Novels set in outer space, but no good category for space "around" them.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 18:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as-is There is no way to change the title without changing its scope. Dimadick ( talk) 12:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. -- Just N. ( talk) 10:26, 31 December 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.

Category:FT-Class articles

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 13#Category:FT-Class articles

Universities by city and district in Sri Lanka

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/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Propose merging
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two universities / colleges in each of these cities / districts. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • That is a fair point, I have added the provincial merge targets. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support (with the provincial target). This is a clear case of over-diffusion, whose solutuon is upmerging. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 10:29, 31 December 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.

Suicide by period

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
more year categories
Nominator's rationale: rename, these are set categories, almost without exception they contain articles about individual suicides. Note that I created a few "older" (pre-1940 and 1950s) decade categories just now, but the larger part of the tree already existed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Rename All Per WP:SETCAT. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Rename — wow, that was a lot of work! But do we really need the "by decade" categories? Simpler to have "by year", then group the years into centuries, without the double tags on each article. Or we need to have better tagging instructions, so that they are only "by year" for larger categories or "by decade" for smaller ones, with both grouped into centuries.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 11:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • That is food for a next discussion. I think at least we should diffuse all 20th century decade categories to years. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Done diffusing mixed decades/years 1940s–1970s by hand. All the years before that are in decades only, so no hand checking needed. Better to handle after the rename is completed.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 21:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks! At second thought it may be too soon to diffuse the pre-1940 pre-1920 decade categories as well. Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Meanwhile I have diffused the 1930s and 1920s after all. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Rename - I don't share the objection to 'decades' (which has been made successfully elsewhere); this, as a subcategory of Category:Deaths, should follow the (exemplary) structure of Category:Deaths by period. Oculi ( talk) 14:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support Simpler titles tend to aid navigation. Dimadick ( talk) 12:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom and commentary of Dimadick|. -- Just N. ( talk) 10:30, 31 December 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.

Category:American scientists of Italian descent

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEGRS. I am quite skeptical that being "of Italian descent" is a WP:DEFINING feature of the American scientists in this category. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 07:55, 24 December 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.

Category:Musicians who committed suicide

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. No notable WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death, even though the death itself may have been notable.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children. See previous:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:Chefs who committed suicide
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 12#Suicides by occupation
  3. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 21#Category:Suicides by occupation
  4. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#Category:Drivers who committed suicide
  5. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#Category:Clergy who committed suicide
  6. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#Category:Academics who committed suicide
  7. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 23#Category:Students who committed suicide
  8. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 23#Category:Royalty who committed suicide
  9. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 23#Category:Models who committed suicide
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 04:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We can categorize by each, but the intersection of the two does not seem defining. Generally, they are notable for being singers and, since they already have an article, their death is defining. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: there's also a potential can of worms here... Nick Drake died from an overdose of prescription drugs, but the coroner was about the only person who believed it was a suicide, and not an accidental overdose. So to have a category explicitly stating that he died by suicide would not necessarily be correct... if kept, it should be xxxx musicians ruled to have died by suicide. Richard3120 ( talk) 14:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't see this as trivial, and the sources cover it. Dimadick ( talk) 12:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 10:33, 31 December 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.

Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Double Cross

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders visit Slovakia, or vice versa, the Order of the White Double Cross is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Harald V of Norway, Margrethe II of Denmark, and Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg, are not remotely defined by this award. (There are a handful of Slovak winners— 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6—but all of their articles mention the award in passing with other honours so it's not defining for them either.) There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:39, 24 December 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.

Category:Recipients of the Prime Minister's Medal of Appreciation

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
The Prime Minister's Medal of Appreciation is an award that given by the Prime Minister of Jamaica that falls outside of the Jamaican Honours System. The PMs must be big fans of boxing since 3 of the 4 recipients here are professional boxers who are already under Category:Jamaican boxers. Within the articles, 1 mentions this award in passing while 3 don't mention it at all so it doesn't seem defining. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:39, 24 December 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.

Category:Fortified frontiers

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Identical scope for this category and its parent, as frontier is understood to mean border, and barrier implies some sort of fortification. What is a border barrier that is not fortified? Place Clichy ( talk) 00:15, 24 December 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_24&oldid=1073192478"