< September 16	September 18 >

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 to Category:Judges of United States courts of appeals. — ξ^xplicit 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States court of appeals judges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename - to be determined -- needs to be pluralized for sure. All of the subcats use the form Judges of the Xth United States Court of Appeal, so for consistency this could be renamed to Category:Judges of the United States courts of appeals (possibly dropping the word "the"). Alternately, it could simply be renamed to Category:United States courts of appeals judges. Cgingold (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment: I just noticed that there's an entire sub-category tree under Category:United States court of appeals judges by appointing president, all of which use that form, in contrast to the form used in the sub-cats by Court number. Again, they will all need to be pluralized, but I'm going to hold off until we figure out which formulation we want to use, since the simpler change could be Speedied. Cgingold (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think the categories should start with the word judges as that's what they are - which court they are in is secondary.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Judges of United States courts of appeals, which seems to be clear and read well, and be in harmony with Category:Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit etc. Occuli (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I like the name, but it's not quite in harmony as the example you give includes the "the" before United States. I would be inf favor of getting rid of the word "the" in both - it's already wordy enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposed rename is in line with the First Circuit example because the nominated category is for all judges for all US courts of appeals and would take no definite article; the First Circuit example is limited to the specific circuit and thus needs the article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but I think that's a distinction without a difference. If I were writing it in prose, I would use the article in both. In a title, as here, omission of the article is acceptable - in both.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the use of "the" would not be unacceptable here, as it can be construed as referring to the US courts of appeal collectively, a perfectly valid use of the definite article. Cgingold (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You lost me with your double negative and your use of the word "here". I can't tell if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or saying something completely different. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Cgingold is of the view that Category:Judges of United States courts of appeals may have a 'the'. I myself have a slight preference for dropping this 'the' but would probably leave Wikipedia altogether rather than countenance Category:Judges of United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Occuli (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. I have trouble understanding such a strong reaction to the omission of the word "the" in the First Circuit example, but I suppose there's no accountenancing for taste in English syntax.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. I am indeed saying that the word "the" is okay in both cases. Cgingold (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The more important question is whether the omission of the word "the" is acceptable to you in both cases. Although, frankly, none of this is really important, except at Wikipedia where apparently we can argue endlessly about the use of the word "the".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Shucks, we're just having a friendly discussion... I have to agree with Occuli -- the definite article is definitely needed in the sub-cats. Cgingold (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh, I didn't say it was a nasty endless discussion. Outvoted again - sigh.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (from a non-US person) Even if there should be categories for each circuit, Category:Judges of United States courts of appeals will be needed as a parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2010 (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.

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: Moot - the only user who commented here is Cow of Pain, who is apparently a banned user. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crazy Loop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

:Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little or no growth potential. Contents are linked through text and a navtemplate. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:31, 25 September 2010 (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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Deluge myths to Category:Flood myths

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the main article. "Flood myth" is more common, which is why the main article was recently renamed to Flood myth. Griswaldo (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to follow the change in the article name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 22 September 2010 (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.

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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 26. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT case law to Category:LGBT rights case law

:Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the parent, the child and many of the siblings in Category:Case law by topic. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per CoP. Roscelese (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2010 (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.

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: keep. — ξ^xplicit 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

:Nominator's rationale: Delete - the only court of appeals with its own category; doesn't appear to be needed at this time. No prejudice to re-creation should an appellate court-wide categorization scheme become useful at some point in the future. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Useful category for articles related to the Ninth Circuit. The category Category:Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should be in it, and Ninth Circuit cases should be so categorized. This should be populated so that it provides a more useful categorization for those readers studying the Ninth Circuit. I don't see that this is the only court of appeal with its own category as a reason for deletion; it strikes me as a better argument to provide similar categories for the other circuits (starting with the Second). TJRC (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* Ninth Circuit cases should be in Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cases and not slammed willy-nilly into this category as you've been doing (and cases in which the appellate court didn't even rule should definitely not be in here). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks; I didn't know of that category (which should also be in Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit). I'm not sure what you mean by "willy-nilly" here. I acknowledge the cases category is the better one, but there's nothing willy-nilly about it. Which cases are you referring to where the court did not rule? Just to make it clear, I'm not trying to slam anything anywhere; I'm trying to make a start at populating the category so that its usefulness can be developed. TJRC (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If the 9th circuit judges go into their own category and the 9th circuit cases go into their own category, what would go into the 9th circuit category? At the moment, all it has are the three buildings. I agree that the absence of categorization of the other circuits is not necessarily important (you have to start somewhere), but I'd like to know how the category would be populated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it's got the three articles on the Ninth Circuit courthouse buildings, and the two categories on the judges and cases. I think there should also be a category for district courts covered by the Ninth Circuit as well. The point is that someone interested in the Ninth Circuit could go to this category, and find material about the Ninth Circuit: its judges, its cases, its courthouses and potentially other articles (maybe local rules, etc.).

Additionally, there are articles on cases that are nominally not Ninth Circuit cases, but that have substantial content about how the case was addressed by the Ninth Circuit prior to getting to the Supreme Court. Take the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. The article is arguably nominally about the Supreme Court case, not the Ninth Circuit case; so arguably it should not be categorized in Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cases. But the article actually has about 50% more material about the Ninth Circuit case than it does about the Supreme Court case (no surprise, since the Ninth Circuit had three discrete cases on the matter, and dealt with the substance, and the substance was what made it such a noteworthy case; while the Supreme Court only had one and dealt with it purely procedurally). Since the article has substantial content on a Ninth Circuit case, it should be in the category, either directly under Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or indirectly under Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cases. My tagging it with the Ninth Circuit category was reverted (and I think that's the one that generated the "willy-nilly" comment), but I disagree with that, based on the article content. TJRC (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::* As I'm reviewing the cases for moving to the new sub-categories as well as a cursory review of articles in the Supreme Court cases and district court cases category, the court of last appeal is where the case is categorized. So a case that is heard at the district level and not appealed is in the district court cat, a case decided at the circuit level and not heard by the Supreme Court whether not appealed or certiorari denied goes in the appropriate Circuit Court case category and a case that was heard by the Supreme Court would go in a Supreme Court cases regardless of how the Supreme Court acts. So, since Newdow was heard and disposed of by SCOTUS it should be categorized at the SCOTUS level and not at the Circuit Court level. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But the Newdow article has substantial content about the Ninth Circuit case; in fact, this is an unusual case where it actually has more content about the Ninth Circuit case than the Supreme Court case that is nominally its subject. Categories aren't necessarily mutually exclusive (although some are). If the article has substantial Ninth Circuit content, there's no reason not to categorize it as Ninth Circuit in addition to (not instead of) Supreme Court. I'm fairly agnostic on whether it should be in the parent category or in the cases category (although I'm leaning to the parent), but an article with this much Ninth Circuit content should clearly be categorized that way.

This is part of why I think the parent category should not be deleted. Even though the case was a Supreme court case, the article is of substantial interest to someone researching the Ninth Circuit. TJRC (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with TJRC on the case issue. I think it would be useful to know the circuit from which a S.Ct. case came. In particular with respect to categorization, it would assist the Wikipedia user in seeing cases that the 9th circuit decided and which were then reviewed by the S.Ct. And I would lean toward putting the case in the cases category, not the main category. Also, as I'm thinking about it, something else that would be useful would be to have all the district courts in the 9th circuit put in the 9th circuit category. Many people don't know which district courts belong in which circuit. Another idea would be to put all the states in the 9th circuit in the category for the same reason. So I'm voting keep.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – it is an example of how the other circuits should be categorised. Category:Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and Category:United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit cases has an obvious absent parent: Category:United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Occuli (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As Bbb23 observes, United States District Court for the District of Alaska etc ought to be in a 'Ninth Circuit' category. Occuli (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "the only court of appeals with its own category" Other categories for other circuit courts (or even federal district courts and state courts, if there are enough relevant articles) can be created. Apokrif (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2010 (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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Court of Appeals cases to Category:United States courts of appeals cases

:Nominator's rationale: Rename - there are multiple Courts of Appeals in the United States so this should be pluralized. It could be a speedy rename but I thought there was a possibility it could be considered controversial. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename, as initial category creator. bd2412 T 14:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Support rename, not only for the plurals reason provided by the nom, but for the lower-casing as well, which is appropriate when not referring to a particular court of appeal. TJRC (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename especially as the related article is United States courts of appeals, and a parent cat is Category:United States courts of appeals. Occuli (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2010 (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.

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: keep all. — ξ^xplicit 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters in comics who use magic to Category:Comics characters who use magic

Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters in DC Comics who use magic to Category:DC Comics characters who use magic

Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters in Marvel Comics who use magic to Category:Marvel Comics characters who use magic

:Nominator's rationale: Rename - for the same reasons as the ones below, "comics characters" is more widely used and the current name is silly. I'm listing these separately because there has I think been discussion in the past as to the utility of magic user categories (specifically the witches subcategories) so there may be issues to discuss here that go beyond that required for the categories listed below. Any rename should be uniform across the two nominations. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all for same reasons as below: silliness not apparent. Occuli (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The silliness is that it's obvious that comics characters are fictional. -- œ^™ 09:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But then the parent category is Category:Fictional characters and a convention is to continue downwards with the same name. Dropping 'fictional' would be another possibility: I don't care for 'comics characters' myself and prefer 'characters in comics'. (I have not paid much attention to comics since the 1950s and have rather forgotten whether non-fictional characters occur. What - Dan Dare is fictional??) Occuli (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::* It is absolutely not the convention that the construction "Fictional characters in..." carries down. A simple glance at Category:Fictional characters by medium puts the lie to that idea. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So the lower ones should be renamed, IMO. Occuli (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• To the closer - please consider my comments in the subsection below (#...in comics) to apply to this discussion as well. - jc37 00:23, 18 September 2010 (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.

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: keep all. — ξ^xplicit 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters in comics to Category:Comics characters

Propose renaming Category:Lists of fictional characters in comics to Category:Lists of comics characters

Propose renaming Category:Lists of fictional characters in comic strips to Category:Lists of comic strip characters

Propose renaming Category:LGBT characters in comics to Category:LGBT comics characters

:Nominator's rationale: Rename - most of the subcats use "comics characters" and "fictional characters in comics" is quite frankly a silly construction. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK.QuAzGaA 16:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC) :* User:jc37 points me to WP:NCC regarding the naming convention but it's clear from a cursory examination of the Comics category tree that those conventions are not anywhere near any sort of standard. Also, the "convention" appears to be addressing List article names only and not category names. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all - this cfd, nom jc37, was a unanimous rename of the first in exactly the opposite direction. I don't see anything silly about any of the present names. Occuli (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* Are there a lot of articles about non-fictional characters in comics? Category:Non-fictional characters in comics could not possibly be populated because comics characters are fictional. Since comic books are a fictional medium it is obvious that characters in comic books are fictional. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a very good point and you're right, however I think for the sake of consistency between other "Fiction" category names,we could tolerate a little bit of redundancy with this one. -- œ^™ 09:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::* But this is not how other fictional character categories are named. We have Category:Film characters, not Category:Fictional characters in films. Category:Television characters, not Category:Fictional characters in television. Category:Theatre characters and not Category:Fictional characters in theatre. Category:Anime and manga characters (directly on point) and not Category:Fictional characters in anime and manga. These categories are the clear divergence both within and without the comics category tree. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Fictional characters and it's sub cats might be worth looking at... And as for film and television, they did that to avoid the "in" vs. "on" dispute. And if you look at the intro to Category:Theatre characters (for example), the first thing it notes is that this is for fictional characters. Which leads us back to WP:NC and accuracy in naming... - jc37 01:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::::* There is nothing inaccurate in the construction "Comics characters" or "Theatre characters". That the ctageory description for theatre characters starts off by saying that it's for fictional characters indicates that it's not only possible but likely that someone approaching these categories will understand that they are for fictional characters without needing to specify that in the inelegantly-constructed "Fictional characters in..." formulation. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...in comics[edit]

According to WP:NCC, the general convention is to use "x in comics" when it's in the created work, and "comics x" when dealing with real world people. This was done after a LOT of discussion in order to prevent confusions of various kinds.

Also, fictional is necessary, because there are characters in comics which are not fictional. - jc37 03:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above note was dropped on the nom's talk page, but apparently removed. I'll expand later when I have more time, if wanted. Also, believe it or not, there is a question of fictional and fictionalised. Woody Allen and Bob Hope are real people who have indeed appeared in comics, same with Roy Rogers. And some appearances are NOT fictional OR fictionalised.

Also: AFAIK, IDONTLIKEIT "because it's silly" isn't a valid reason to nom. - jc37 16:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:: If there were articles for Woody Allen (character) or Bob Hope (character) then they would be categorized as fictional characters in much the same way as Stephen Colbert (character) is. The Colbert character article resides quite happily in Category:Marvel Comics characters. Note that it is not Category:Fictional characters in Marvel Comics, nor are any of the sub-categories of Category:Comics characters by company in the form of "Fictional characters in Foo comics", nor is the container category "Fictional characters in comics by company", nor are most of the sub-categories of "Fictional characters in comics" in this naming format. I addressed this already above, but it is clear that the supposed naming convention is not in widespread usage. Not that this is dispositive, but Googling "fictional character in comics" returns fewer than 8,500 hits while "comics character" returns 121,000. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a question of precision in naming, per WP:NC. The characters (and other fictional content) are "in comics". The comics editors and writers and artists are not.

As for a "convention", the categories were a mess, and at the comics project we had several lengthy discussions regarding the use of fictional.

And by the way, just because someone is depicted in comics, that does NOT make them a character. George reeves, Bob Hope, Roy Rogers, and others have appears in comics, and in some cases these are not fictionalised accounts.

The goal is to avoid having "real" people and places and such in these categories. And having "fictional" in the name helps with that.

As for the "convention": Besides "Fictional x in comics" for fictional content, or "Comics x" for real life people/things, it has indeed been "Specific creative work characters". This follows the convention of several Wikiprojects. But I don't see how that relates to whether this convention is used. They're different things for different purposes. Unless you're referring to the fact that so many lists and such that use this convention were recently summarily deleted for "notability" (and may yet see DRV).

So anyway, it would be Action Comics characters; Fictional orphans in comics; Comics writers; etc.

Another reason for this is that it helps with the UK/US difference in language between comics, comic book, and comic strip.

These things weren't decided in a vaccuum. I suggest that if you're interested, go back into the wikiproject's discussion archives, and you'll find years of discussions. The goal is precision, accuracy, and to reduce confusion, and possible miscategorisation. Since obviously, this is about the readership and navigation, and not about personal preference (like if something my look "silly" to one person.)

Oh and WP:AADD deals with several of AYTCOP's arguments, such as whether the # of hits on google is a good reference as to whether something should exist. But I'll try to spare everyone the alphabet soup of acronyms, both from that guideline, and other policy pages for now. - jc37 01:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::: Except that simply looking at the categories shows us that they are not named as you are claiming that they are. Category:Comics characters by company does not follow the "convention" and neither do any of its 44 sub-cats. Category:Comics characters by protagonist does not follow the "convention" and neither do any of its 15 sub-cats. Category:Comics characters in other media does not follow this "convention" and neither do its two sub-cats. Category:Comics characters debuts does not follow this "convention" and neither do any of its 11 sub-cats. Category:Comics characters by creator does not follow this "convention" and neither do its 91 sub-cats. And on and on. Indeed, it appears that far more categories are named "Comics characters" and not "Fictional characters in comics".

There does not appear to be any rush to categorize real people as comics characters.

I already said that Google results are not dispositive so I don't know why you feel the need to point it out again. However, while not dispositive it does serve as an indicator of how the real world outside the encyclopedia names these things. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAzGaA 16:39, 25 September 2010 (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.