Board Thread:Administrative/@comment-61022-20161213202224

So for the past few weeks we've been discussing how to make the appearance section more clear, less cluttered, and overall easier to navigate. I thought it would be a good time to put everything together into one post so we can all vote on the issues at hand or discuss them further.

This Discussion is Open to Admins and Moderators

The items, in no particular order are:

Villains
It has been said at length that using the term "Villain" as a descriptor for appearances of characters can be increasingly difficult especially with the blurred lines and our abandonment of alignments. Likewise, it's a problem when a featured character of a title is commonly viewed as a villain.

It has been recommended that we edit the template to change the heading "Villain" to "Featured Antagonist", as it is a more neutral term and fits with all cases as the Featured Character field is alignment-neutral, so should the "Villain" section.

Flashbacks/Flashforwards
There has been a lot of discussion on how to deal with Flashbacks. Primarily when trying to utilize the APN tag and how to factor in if a Flashback/forward impacts the character's continuity. IE: A flashback isn't merely a recap of previously seen events, but a moment in time that reveals something new or unique to the character.

The idea of adding a separate flashback section was not received very well. However some discussion was made on how to resolve the issue. There are a few things that have come up:


 * Differentiating between Flashbacks that merely serve as a recap of a previous comic and a flashback that either reveals something new or adds to a previous story.


 * How to deal with stories that actually have two narratives. IE: A story where a character in the present is telling a story about a past event far removed from the present. (Best example Before the Fantastic Four: Reed Richards Vol 1.

Work arounds/solutions to these issues have been presented as follows:


 * Implementing a "Chronology Notes" to the Note section. The appearance section would record the chronology via APN tags for that character in the "present" while the Chronology notes would deal with the APN tagging of the various flashbacks. Example.


 * If there is a substantial narrative between two far removed points in time (IE: A character in the present is telling a story that happened some prior time in the past) we would create two appearance lists that breakdown these points in continuity. Example. To be clear: "far removed" would be in the context of years as opposed to something more immediate like within the course of hours, weeks, days or months.

Speaking of Flashbacks and Recaps...

Appearances in Recaps
Much discussion is being made on if we should be noting characters who appear in recaps. Do we list them as appearances? Do we not?

I would also like to table what constitutes a recap: Recap pages are a relatively new method of recapping past stories. They date back to the late 90's around Heroes Reborn. A lot of these recap pages were gate folds on the inside of the front cover. Those were eventually scrapped and instead a recap page was placed prior to the opening of that month's issue in the early 2000s. In the 2010s the recap pages have evolved from a page of text to a series of panels from various past issues (much like the opening teaser to a multipart story on a dramatic television show).

However, prior to this, recaps generally happened in story by means of flashback. The practice was at it's height in the 1980s when a page or two -- mid story -- was devoted to recapping important plot points.

I would like to add this to the discussion about recaps: That the Database should expand its definition on recaps to include any flashback that does not involve new material. By definition, a recap should be any series of panels that strictly re-hash a previously published story and adds nothing new to that story.

For example: Anytime a member of the Squadron Supreme recaps the process of the Utopia Program in Squadron Supreme Vol 1 would be considered a recap instead of a flashback much in the same way that the recap pages of more recent publications. Versus, one of the many retellings of Spider-Man's origins. There are multiple issues that go back to the time Peter Parker was bitten by the radioactive spider. While the overall story still remains the same, these events would be considered flashbacks as opposed to recaps because they add a new element to the story.

As such I would like to table the following:


 * That we differentiate between "True" flashbacks and flashbacks that are considered recaps.
 * If the idea of differentiation is accepted we create a new template item to differentiate between the two.

Mentions:
I motion that we stop the practice of placing mentioned characters anywhere other than the "Other Characters" section.

Eliminating "False" Appearances:
I would like to bring up this item as it pertains to how items are sorted into categories. Namely how items are coded on a comic book summary page and how that data is sorted into the Category:Appearances section of a character page.

A number of contributors and myself have expressed a displeasure with the idea that coding a character like:

or

is categorized in the same appearance field as

or

From a research perspective it skewes "actual" appearances to "non-appearances". Meaning, if someone were researching comics which someone physically appears in, they are inundated with "false" appearances. Meaning, you can waste countless hours reading various "appearances" of Spider-Man (say if you were adding to the Spider-Man page) only to find that he is not physically in said comic book but only appears in a photograph or (even worse) merely mentioned (and said mention adds nothing to the chronology of the character).

Scenario:

Luke Cage saying "You're as annoying as Spider-Man" is not an appearance by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, if someone adds a mention tag as detailed above that mention will be counted by the Wiki as an appearance.

Measure that with every other time Spider-Man is mentioned by name and you can see how this can make research a nightmare. If we want people to use the Database as a resource (as opposed to another website or source) we need to resolve this issue.

As such I propose the following:


 * The templates are coded so that all the template tags categorize these appearances differently. If it's a "true" appearance its sorted into Category:Character/Appearances, Category:Character/Mentioned etc.


 * In lieu of the necessary coding changes, I recommend that we immediately stop the practice of tagging characters like this:



and code like this:
 * Character
 * Character
 * Character
 * Character
 * Character
 * Character
 * Character
 * Character

The idea is that an appearance is only being given to times a character appears in a way that affects their continuity, so that "false" appearances such as recaps, mentions, photos, and the like are not sorted in with the "true" appearances of characters.

Long Tags/Removing Clutter in Appearances:
Lastly, there are a lot of tags that create clutter on a page. Especially when combined with multiple other appearance tags. The biggest offenders being:



We are seeking suggestions on how to shorten those.

I would offer a simple solution in that as none of these tags sort into different categories -- as yet -- we should replace these tags with simply:

That is not to say that I am suggesting we create templates for each possible appearance type, but utilise the {{g| code and get straight to the point. Using a specific and clear descriptor so that someone reading the page gets the exact information instead of an "this, that, and/or this other thing" explanation.

Clear Definitions for Appearance Section:
I propose this motion so that we can provide a clear explanation to users on how to organize appearances. Along with giving specific explanations, I recommend that these descriptions be added to the template using comment coding as follows:

Featured Characters: Supporting Characters: etc.

I would suggest the following specific definitions:


 * Featured Character: Should be the title character/team. The only exception being when the title character or team is absent. (IE: is entirely focused on Doctor Doom.


 * Supporting Character: First and foremost, the core supporting characters, regardless of how minimal their role may be in a story. Example: Mary Jane Watson, J. Jonah Jameson, Joe Robertson, and Aunt May are all considered part of Spider-Man's supporting cast. Ergo, whenever they appear in a core Spider-Man title, they should be classified as a supporting character. In addition, this should also consider guest stars that play a substantial part in the plot. (So not cameos)


 * Featured Antagonist (eliminating Villains): Whichever characters are in a conflict with the Featured Characters during the course of a story. This one is straight forward, I think there can be no ambiguity once we change it from Villains to Antagonist.


 * Other Characters: Pretty much everyone else. Cameo appearances, "extras" (like a random New Yorker called by name), general teams (NYPD), mentions, characters that appear in flashback, flashforward, recaps, etc etc. Basically anything that doesn't fit above.
 * On this point, I would also recommend a hierarchy on how these are organised, based on appearance type and then by most important, to least important. I would personally organise it like so:
 * Cameos
 * Flashbacks
 * Extras
 * Recaps
 * Other "non" appearances like photos or videos, but all of these items must be grouped together. (IE: All the photo appearances are grouped together instead of spread out throughout the appearance)
 * The idea would be to make the Other Characters section as neat as possible.

Further Discussions of Above
I think that the best way to go about such sweeping change is to have a period of discussion to put out different ideas, suggestions, alternatives, and clarify. Lets close that period for January 15, 2017. Suggested amendments and changes will then be added to the above post January 15th. Then we should put it to a final vote that is to be closed on February 1, 2017. 