Hi, folks! Wow, so it seems like no one, including myself, has utilized this board after its creation. Now the time has come. For people who can't stand lengthy text, feel free to skip to and start from a few paragraphs above the poll at the end, though, for people who'd care to know more about the thinking process about how some things turned out the way they did, I encourage you to try finish the post lol.
Before getting to the actual subject matter, I want to thoroughly explain what led up to that (now seemingly, in retrospect) "oversight." For longtime Wikia/Fandom editors, some habits may be subconscious and ingrained; such as sometimes having the urge to "expand short pages," however, on relatively new communities, virtually most pages are in fact short pages, so at the time, "quality over quantity" feels more preferable. For example, coming across "a dozen of extremely short pages," versus coming across "just a few (but obviously well-put-together) pages," likely would give different impressions. Both could probably lead to the same conclusion ("overall, still much to work on,") and there's no right or wrong, better or worse for either situation, however, at the time, an amount of articles that'd bound to start off as "short pages" was already expected, so I personally made the decision to focus on said expected short pages, and went creating lists pages to contain the other likely short pages to hopefully help highlight areas to work on. Those lists pages include "list of published text and references" and "list of characters".
For people who've read this far, thank you for being patient. This is also a good place for me to apologize: I failed to clearly list out the policies and guidelines of this community. It has always been on my mind, but a part of me had also been like "instead of spending time documenting rules, I could have been actually editing the content". This is on me, so I don't hold it against anyone who made changes not meeting this not-even-existing guideline. This is long overdue, so I hope I'll get to it before the year ends. Publicly stating this so that people can later come to me should I fail to do so. (I'm being sincere.)
Due to this not-visualized-policy and simultaneously working on multiple projects, I overlooked the word "characters." Back to the creation of "list of characters", the idea (from my aspect) is modeled after w:c:onceuponatime:List of Minor Characters with modifications. The notable differences include them using Title Case while here, hopefully Sentence case (so that pages could be more easily linked within the article,) and the "minor". Again, this has not been formerly addressed, but hopefully our wiki's approach would be using in-universe point of view, so while I dodged the "minor" (we judged them to be minor from our out-of-universe perspective?) I for some reason totally missed the "characters," and this usage appears in other places such as Category:Characters and Template:Infobox character.
Now, a few things I'd like some input from the community. Technically, since templates are used by, well, us, real people, the name of the template has no impact on the articles themselves, so the name could stay, unless proposed otherwise. It's the category part I'd like to hear some thoughts. In some communities, the category section is included in where to apply "in-universe writing," so technically, while we know characters are "characters," they are "individuals," much like I should have titled "list of characters" "list of individuals" instead.
This is relatively not a big issue, since the series itself does not have too many characters, and currently the category is automatically added when the infobox is placed, so should a switch is decided, the fix would be quick. I'm aware there's two other locations with the word "characters": The navigation bar and the home page. Those I think are reasonable, as they are guides to let viewers quickly get a sense of what this series has to offer; the category though, I think stating that "characters are characters," could potentially distract people from writing the articles from an in-universe point of view.
The actual concern I raised did not take much time to describe, but I just also want to use the opportunity to explain why certain things were done certain way during a specific time, and let people know that questions and suggestions are always welcomed.
To sum up, while in this occurrence I encourage the community to participate, and can respect either one of the outcome from the poll below, I think "list of characters" is to be changed to "list of individuals" without discussions needed, because the article in question has been handled as an in-universe subject, but its title made it looked out-of-universe. This post is partly to explain the reason behind the pending title change in extend.
Lastly, regardless of the outcome, hopefully editors will be mindful of maintaining in-universe writing style.
Elaboration on the reason for your preference, while not required, would be appreciated if provided.
Hope to hear some thoughts! =D