Forum:CT Archive/Characters to Individuals (Again?)

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"

 * 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)
 * 4) Only if we have or  replace all instances in thousands of articles. Mauser 19:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) *I am personally offended by this comment. Wookieepedia has other bots, you know. -- KillerRoboLeia3000 20:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) We never fixed this? Bleh. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 20:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Whatever. Green Tentacle (Talk) 20:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Sure.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 23:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Per Chack. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 10)  Grunny  ( Talk ) 23:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Per GT and Chack. Cylka  -talk- 00:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Per everybody. Also, KillerRoboLeia3000 does have a valid point IMO. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 01:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie ) 07:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) This should have been CSD'd . . . oh wait, wrong kind of vote. jSarek 08:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Merc-aculously I will vote for this. ;)--Mecenarylord 13:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Better watch out, Mauser, KillerRoboLeia is angry, now. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 16:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) No-brainer. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 12:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) TheAinMAP 22:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Is this the band-speeder? Well, then, I guess I'll hop on! DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 00:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep "Characters"

 * 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)
 * 2) *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)
 * 3) 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. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm inclined to agree with Dan here&mdash;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)

Comments
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)