Board Thread:Policies/@comment-20551-20190224085917/@comment-3361105-20190225032337

Koavf wrote: Final is another perfect example tho: we are not just implying but making a really unknowable claim that someone won't appear again.

No more or less unknowable than whether a character debuting in 1948 is destined for a second appearance in the distant future. Like I said, the 1st/Only binary you're suggesting is the same from either perspective, in terms of predictability.

Koavf wrote: I am genuinely surprised to see others claim that "1st" implies "2nd"--that never occurred to me. A first appearance is just that: the first. In that case, you're welcome. See also, how is a "first" that is "just that" not an "only"? A first that is only a first? Only? Only? only.

Koavf wrote: Only is used in such a manner that it assumes things that someone can't know. As would using in place of it.

Koavf wrote: Without bothering to look in the edit history of Showcase Vol 1 37, whomever slapped that tag on Casper clearly did not bother with checking the subsequent Showcase or Metal Men appearances--he shows up several times and is a pretty key person for all of those stories, even if he doesn't have that much screen time. Obviously, that's an example of an incorrect use. So correct it, you pedant. It's not a basis for a policy change. The value of an thing isn't to be determined by the failure of a simple person to use it.

If only we had some way or template for labelling these editors, based on the assumption that one day, in the far off future, they might make a mistake, and we could ban them for life pre-emptively. That would be something alright.

Or we could just correct their mistakes and move on.