This category is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Despite the first decision to delete it, I re-created this as a useful parent category. The second discussion had no consensus. It seems sensible to keep this as a "parent category", displaying template:Parent category and containing only sub-categories and a few articles of major and broad importance. - Fayenatic(talk) 21:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You probably should not run rough-shod over consensus because it is directly contradictory to the fundamental principle of consensus. Re-creating the category in naked defiance of a CFD decision because you personally disagree with the CFD outcome is a flounting of the processes we have in place and an arrogant presumption that your opinion is important and that those of others is worthless. You've been around more than long enough to know better. Otto4711 (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've only just noticed the above. When you nominated this for deletion you omitted to refer to the difference, emphasised by capital letters in my initial edit summary, that unlike the original category this was tagged from the start as a parent category, purely to connect the sub-cats to the parent cats. "Naked defiance" and "arrogant presumption" strike me as unnecessarily strong language, and I trust that you would not categorise my general participation in Wikipedia that way. It's always a judgment call whether a change is contentious enough to rule out WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. Since 2008 I have learned to use WP:DRV and would go that way if similar circumstances arose. Apologies for giving offence by my conduct back then. – Fayenatic(talk) 14:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
