| abstract | - __NOWYSIWYG__ A minor thing, though I have noticed it to be a point of discussion more than once already: the usage of the "mentioned only" in the "first/last appearance" parameter in the infobox. The people who remove said mentions generally do so under the impression of "a mention is not an appearance". Those who add the mention generally do so for sake of completeness. I can see both reasonings, though I do think that we should pick one side and stick to it as now we have the situation where some page do list the mentions and others don't. So, what is it going to be? 13:29, July 6, 2014 (UTC) "mentioned only" counts as an appearance. we've been using that for a while, and that's how it should stay:" blank episode (mo), blank episode (actual appearance)." completeness of information is necessary. Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) 13:33, July 6, 2014 (UTC) We've been using both ways, so there is no "as it should stay". It just depends on the opinion of the editor who adds/reverts it thus far. That's the problem: there is not "standard" way as both ways are frequently used. Though as a general note, not listing the mentions doesn't mean that we're not complete, as all relevant information is covered in the articles. An empty "mention" in an appearance section doesn't change that. And there is definitely something to say about the fact that by its very definition a "mention" is not an appearance. 13:38, July 6, 2014 (UTC) I'd say a mention is enough to warrant a note on the wiki: perhaps a character didn't physically show up, but if they were talked about, then that can still count as an "appearance" in the plot. Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) 13:42, July 6, 2014 (UTC) Please remember to indent, I4. I think that the 'mo' should stay. What happens when we have something that is mentioned but doesn't make an appearance, such as Whaletail Island? If we have both, then it allows those articles that haven't appeared but been mentioned as stating so. 13:44, July 6, 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't make myself clear perhaps. I am not talking about deleting the Mo template, as it is definitely useful for those things that have literally only been mentioned like Whaletail Island. What I am talking about is the instances that something that has been seen after or before a mention is made also receives a mention in the first/last appearance section. This is a perfect example of the duality in the use of the template. Katara's last actual appearance was in Light in the Dark, but Bumi mentioned her in A Breath of Fresh Air. Do we list that or don't we? I do not agree with the argument that a mention is the same as an appearance in light of the plot, since that mention of Katara has zero value for example. However, I do think that we should agree on a consistent way of dealing with this to avoid such confusion in the future. 13:51, July 6, 2014 (UTC) if i hit the "add" button at the top, doesn't that take care of indenting? anyway, it could go like this: 1. if a character is mentioned/represented (like a statue or something) before physically appearing, then the mentioned template will be used for first appearance. 2. if a character actually appears and is then mentioned, the mentioned template shall not be used for first appearance. 3. if a character is mentioned after their last physical appearance, the mentioned template shall be used for last appearance. 4. if a character is mentioned, but then appears in a later episode, the MO template shall not be used. Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) 13:58, July 6, 2014 (UTC) Why make it so confusing? I think that if they are mentioned, but then make an appearance, the infobox should reflect that. Same as if their last appearance was in an earlier episode than their last mention (such as Jet). 14:01, July 6, 2014 (UTC) No, it does not. As you have been told many times already, indentation is added by preceding your comment with a colon. You always use one more colon than the commenter before you and when you reach four or five colons, you rest the indentation by preceding your comment with no colon and so forth. 1. A statue is not an appearance, nor is it important to the plot, so why acknowledge that as an actual appearance? 2. That is already standard practice. 3. Why should that be important? Because again by it's very definition, a mention is not an appearance. You are not providing any arguments as to why it should be so. You're passing something off like it is standard practice when it is not. We need arguments for either case. 4. That is stating the obvious and is already standard practice. 14:03, July 6, 2014 (UTC) I don't think it's necessary to list additional mentions outside physical appearances. As has been said, a mention isn't truly appearance; making a passing mention to a character who has appeared before, does that really count for anything? Ikem gets mentioned indirectly in The Rift Part 1, but we don't count that as an appearance, it is just an off-hand mention of him. 14:23, July 6, 2014 (UTC) I do not see that an off-hand mention of a character counts as a first\last appearance, so I would be in agreement with using the MO template solely in cases where the character/location has only been mentioned, and has not made a true appearance. If they later appear, then the first appearance can be amended as such. 15:16, July 6, 2014 (UTC) Per HoT (and pretty much most of the others). I believe both the MO and FO templates should only be used in cases where the character or location has not made an actual last appearance. When that character or location does in fact appear for the last time, then that appearance should be the only last appearance noted on the infobox. File:Waterbending emblem.png Water Spout 20:13, July 6, 2014 (UTC) I disagree. there are cases where a character's mention is important, and thus should be added to the first/last appearance list. also, what's wrong with just having both the actual appearance and the mentioned appearance in the same box? Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) 04:15, July 7, 2014 (UTC) Because by its very definition, an appearance warrants the character actually appearing. If we made note of every mention then that parameter might as well be removed altogether. If a character's mention is important then there are other avenues that can be taken to make note of it. By convention already in place, we list important or noteworthy mentions in a character's legacy section or in their article's trivia. There's no need to mention it in the last appearance parameter. Combustion Man has been dead for over 70 years in Avatarverse, yet he's been referenced twice in this series. It's ridiculous that we currently have his last appearance listed as "Out of the Past" when he's already dead and as such is physically incapable of ever appearing. File:Waterbending emblem.png Water Spout 04:24, July 7, 2014 (UTC) yes, i agree, combusion man's last appearance should not be "out of the past." that's why i'm saying we should have two things in his infobox: "the western air temple" for his last actual appearance, and "out of the past" (well, "the earth queen" now) as his last mentioned only appearance. Intelligence4 (wall • contribs) 04:30, July 7, 2014 (UTC) And like I said, I don't see any reason to do that. A character's last appearance should be just that- their last appearance. Any mentions in future episodes can be accounted for in sections further down their pages, which is more appropriate. File:Waterbending emblem.png Water Spout 04:38, July 7, 2014 (UTC) I also agree that for people/things that actually appear in the series rather than just being mentioned that a mention doesn't count as an appearance. We want information to be substantially complete, but not overcomplete in the sense that we want to emphasise the most important information, not the trivialities. The 888th Avatar (talk) 06:36, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
|
