Board Thread:Administrative/@comment-61022-20161026191028/@comment-61022-20170310011754

AnnabellRice wrote: We'd have to go through every comic to determine whether or not the flashback included new continuity when the tag was used initially regardless.

Yes, and as a number of you have told me that you don't have the time for such an endeavor, I would appreciate it if you'd listen to someone who does have that sort of time.

As I have said: As someone who has edited thousands of summaries and put in the research to make sure all of the information is accurate, I can tell you that you are going to hit more instances where a "FlashOnly" tag has been used in such a way that it is listing a major appearance incorrectly.

That's the whole reason why I said we're creating more work if we keep it as something that lists as a major appearance because there are more instances where that is not correct.

From a research perspective, it is creating more work because people are wasting more time tracking down comics that tell them nothing new. It's also creating more work because we have more tags that need to be fixed.

The amount of "FlashOnly" tags that are actually minor appearances (beacuse the flashbacks are basically recaps) is significantly larger than ones that actually offer continuity.

To clarify:

Changing the code of the template to resort FlashOnly as a minor appearance creates less instances where information is in the wrong category. Making cleaning up any misidentified appearances a lot easier.

I don't see why I am getting so much resistance on this because it's a pretty common sense approach to the problem.