Board Thread:Administrative/@comment-16461120-20170221234010/@comment-3406131-20170314102741

The Many-Angled One wrote: The Many-Angled One wrote: Since these mentions are expressions rather than mentions, I think they shouldn't be listed at all. That's the first layer of the problem indeed.

The Many-Angled One wrote: However, we could add God (Yahweh) instead just for the sake of listing, if that's what the majority of us want. That other option that was also proposed by Annabell is good too if we decide to follow this path. Don't see why make this such a big deal. Then we can reach a consensus based on Annabell's proposals, if we're agreeing on it.

The Many-Angled One wrote: I get that not all mentions are important, but why do the important ones have to suffer for the "crimes" of the unimportant ones? That's pretty overkilling, don't you think? It's like wanting to exterminate all the insects across the globe just because you don't like (or hate) cockroaches for whatever reasons. That's pretty much the problem here. The expressions are pretty an useless subset of mentions, but I don't want to remove them completely anyway. That's the focus of the proposal I made earlier.

The Many-Angled One wrote: There are some characters (independently if they are new ones or alternate versions of the characters we know) who never appeared in a story but that were mentioned, like Idealus the Fictional Man (we don't have a page for him here for some reason). Given time, some of them may even appear for the first time somewhere, like the Beyonders. But in the meantime, we still can create pages for them with the information provided by these mentions. In this case, the Mentions would be their equivalent to Appearances too, so I don't see the reason why we should stop categorizing mentions just because the (seemingly) majority of them are "useless". It's as if all the major appearances of a certain character have something really worthy to be added to their article when not all of them have.

There's also the characters who don't appear that much. Vital information about these characters can be found in mentions and it's worth categorizing them. Beyond that, there are also minor to vital information about long-running characters that can be placed in the History Section or in the Notes/Trivia Section of their pages, respectively. Believe it or not, there are people out there who like to know more about the characters they love, minor things that just few people know. They aren't all useless at all. You've mentioned various aspects that are the core basis of my own views:
 * The characters that appear only a few times or have never appeared (never heard of Idealus, I will have a look) and the need to have pages and information for them anyway (when I propose something, it's often for the sake of such characters, and not for the examples that are used on the opposite side, such as Spider-Man or Wolverine).
 * The people that like to know more about the characters they love, minor things that just few people know. I'm one of those guys.

So I will keep my proposal (but it can be completed/corrected if some of you think it could be done better with changes you would propose):
 * to have the invoked tag to create a category "invocations" (in order to have a category listing them)
 * to have that category to be:
 * an hidden category (in order to remain hidden for readers) (if it is also for readers, then remove this point of the proposal)
 * a subcategory to the mentions category (in order to be found by editors/researchers)

That would be done by having the invoked tag create another category instead of listing them as mentions (then having the "invoked category" template creating automatically a category to the mentions category, for the invoked category to appear as a subcategory to mentions category, instead of adding it manually).

This way:
 * We divide invocations/evocations from other mentions (for various reasons that I and Mrkermit mentioned)
 * We still list those (because they can be useful, for various reasons, Annabel, Many-Angled One and myself have mentioned)