Board Thread:Administrative/@comment-61022-20161124005352/@comment-61022-20161207174644

ADour wrote: Based on this edit I noticed, shouldn't we first reach some kind of official closure in this discussion before applying any of the potential changes?

If you want more edits like that, I've been doing that with every Fantastic Four and Hulk Comic I've edited over the past however many months.

As I've said many times. The Flashback tag on character appearances creates "false appearances" when you go into the appearance category. Which makes researching a character chronology a real bitch because you can end up pulling a bunch of comics for research that only have a recap flashback from a previous issue, as opposed to a Flashback that reveals something new.

They are made double useless when a flashback does denote a chronology point between the character at the time (If you want to know how important these chronology leaps are just look at this chronology for the Hulk: http://chronologyproject.com/hulk.php there are at least *sixty two* chronology points before Bruce Banner's first appearance and the majority of them amount to a panel or two at the least between a plethora of comics)

Ideally, an issue summary should tag all the appropriate chronology points of everyone who appears in that story. With characters who have chronology points in the main story and in a flashback, the only way you can do it is to do two separate entries for the same character and the best way, I believe, to differentiate between the two is having a specific heading for Flashbacks because it is the least confusing way to do it without trying to cram both continuity points in the "Featured Character" spot.

Frankly, unless the FlashOnly and Flashback tags sort into a different category other than Appearances, I don't think they have a practical use other than making research harder for people who are trying to differentiate between flashbacks that are "new" and which ones are recaps of previously depicted events.