This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was No new consensus. Keep "characters" per the current MoS regulations. —Xwing328^(Talk) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that our Manual of Style says something that is contrary to what we've been doing on the site for the past 3 years or so. There was an old CT with a split vote that was closed after a year and a half as "inconclusive" regarding use of the term "individuals" for our categories instead of "characters", but the site went that way anyway in early 2006. Then in early 2007, there was some discussion about appearances lists where the issue came up, and we've pretty much stuck with "individuals" everywhere since. But like I say, the MOS still says otherwise.

So, I propose that we officially change Characters to Individuals in the List for "Appearances" section of the Manual of Style. -- Ozzel 19:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Change to "Individuals"Edit

1. Ozzel 19:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
2. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 19:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
3. I need a name (Complain here) 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
   • Only if we have Whistler or R2-D2 replace all instances in thousands of articles. Mauser 19:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
     • I am personally offended by this comment. Wookieepedia has other bots, you know. -- KillerRoboLeia3000 20:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
4. We never fixed this? Bleh. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 20:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Whatever. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 20:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
   • Sure. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 23:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
   • Per Chack. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

   Grunny ^(Talk) 23:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

6. Per GT and Chack. Cylka^-talk- 00:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
   • Per everybody. Also, KillerRoboLeia3000 does have a valid point IMO. Master Jonathan^{Jedi Council Chambers} 01:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
7. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 07:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
   • This should have been CSD'd . . . oh wait, wrong kind of vote. jSarek 08:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Merc-aculously I will vote for this. ;)--Mecenarylord 13:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Better watch out, Mauser, KillerRoboLeia is angry, now. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 16:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Imperialles 08:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
11. No-brainer. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 12:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • TheAinMAP 22:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Is this the band-speeder? Well, then, I guess I'll hop on! Doluk^{Furthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed.} 00:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • #Aye. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 19:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It doesn't much matter either way but, look out Mauser, she's got Lazah Beamz. NaruHina ^Talk 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Sith Lord 1138 20:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
14. IFYLOFD ^{(Come with me if you want to live.)} 23:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Dark Lord Trayus 05:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Keep "Individuals". Characters sounds out-of-universe.--Gonzalo84 17:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, but why should we write in a more in-universe style in out-of-universe articles like those on movies and novels? —Silly Dan _(talk) 17:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

17. Changed vote. — beeurd ^talk 18:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Having considered both arguments, I pretty much fall just about into this camp. --Darth tom (Imperial Intelligence) 17:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep "Characters"Edit

1. I've always been correcting "Individuals" to "Characters" when I run across it in an article, but I think I've lost ground in that "battle." Also, what do you propose to do with this previous consensus, which this does not address, yet conflicts with? Forum:CT Archive/"Characters" or "Dramatis personae"? —Xwing328^(Talk) 00:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
   • On second thought, I suppose it could simply change to "Dramatis personae" and "Other individuals" if this goes through. —Xwing328^(Talk) 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
2. In out-of-universe articles, Luke Skywalker is a character. In in-universe articles, he's a person or an individual. I don't see the point in trying to make our articles on novels, comics, etc. more in-universe. —Silly Dan _(talk) 17:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
   • You actually have a point here. Mauser 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
3. I'm inclined to agree with Dan here—so long as this vote is not also about categories, for which "individuals" makes more sense. But if we are indeed talking about headings in OOU articles (films, etc.), the more OOU-sounding option ("Characters") just seems logical to me. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 18:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Dan's argument makes sense. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 19:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
5. I always hate vote-switching, but Dan has a point there, which is better than just making a change for the heck of it. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
6. I also hate vote switching, but I hate it even more when it's because I misread the kriffin' proposal, and didn't realize it until I started reading some of these votes. Of course appearance lists in OOU articles should treat these folks as characters. jSarek 09:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
7. I hate vote switching too, but I agree with Silly Dan. Grunny ^(Talk) 13:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
8. I have nothing against vote switching, so I fully agree with Silly Dan. Mauser 14:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
9. This won't make us any better off --Jinzler 17:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Really feels like a waste of time. Perhaps if there'd been more persuasive arguments in favor of the change, I'd have come around. Also, per SillyDan. And there's no shame in vote-switching. Graestan^(Talk) 23:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Din's Fire 997 09:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
12. LtNOWIS 00:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 00:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Reconsidered; should be more out-of-universe for these types of articles. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 19:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Nothing against vote switching here—I agree with Silly Dan. Master Jonathan^{Jedi Council Chambers} 02:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
16. I didn't read Silly's comment before I voted. Heck, I had to make KotOR in present tense for it to be more OOU. Twice. NaruHina ^Talk 12:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

    Dan. The name is Dan. 8) —Silly Dan _(talk) 12:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

17. Tinwe 15:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Because this one makes sense. Wildyoda 06:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
19. As long as Vehicles and Vessels don't become Props and Locations become Stages or Sets. (Btw, someone pissed off the bot didn't they?) -- Riffsyphon1024 06:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    Category names shouldn't need to be in-universe, IMO. — beeurd ^talk 23:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    • This isn't about category names, only in media's appearances lists. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 19:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Oops I misread. Thanks for the heads-up. — beeurd ^talk 18:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

20. Put more thought into it. TheAinMAP 20:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Per the OOU rationale. --Eyrezer 07:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
22. CC7567 http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/thumb/5/5f/Rex.png/20px-Rex.png ^(s)talk 17:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Per Dan. —Lucius malfoy7 ^{(Give it up for Lil' 'Soka Tano, ladies and gents!)} 20:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Per Dan. Drewton ^{(Drewton's Holocron)} 16:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

Note that if we decide not to change it, we should therefore go back and enforce this part of the MOS site-wide. -- Ozzel 19:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Will "Individuals" be moved down the the list for to keep it alphabetized or will it remain the first section like "Miscellanea" is kept the last section? I think the latter makes the most sense. TheAinMAP 22:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I would rather have "Individuals" alphabetized to keep everything tidy. It makes sense to have "Miscellanea" as the last section, since it is the section for the "odds and ends." I really don't consider the "Individuals" section to be more significant than the other sections. Cylka^-talk- 22:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • If it passed, yes, it should be alphabetized imo. However, that will most likely be left to us to do manually, not via bots. —Xwing328^(Talk) 00:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay. I was just wondering since an exception was made with "Dramatis personae" and "Other characters", but I see it was only because they replaced the "Characters" section. TheAinMAP 15:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
      • The Dramatis personae should probably always go at the top, because it's not really connected to the rest of the appearances stuff. Actually, I think it should have its own, separate heading and be completely separate, but that's another issue. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I completely agree with Acky in that "Dramatis personae" should always be the first section, if not a separate heading. I had assumed that the original question was about alphabetizing "Individuals" vs. "Characters." Cylka^-talk- 20:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
          • You assumed correctly, Cylka—the discussion went off-topic momentarily. :) On that off-topic note, though, I agree with Acky also. Master Jonathan^{Jedi Council Chambers} 02:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Another off-topic note: I think this thread demonstrates why the snowball clause is a bad idea. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 19:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • With respect, Acky, I disagree. I don't want to turn this into an off-topic debate, but people have a week to make their case for something. If they can't persuade users to rally to their cause or even be bothered to post on something over a week's period of time, there's no reason why an overwhelming consensus can't be considered valid. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.