FANDOM


  • I'm bringing this up again as I have found it to not only be pointless and redundant to {{1st}} but it's inaccurately-placed. E.g. Showcase #37 used to say that it was Henry Casper (New Earth)'s only appearance but he is in every Showcase Metal Men story (see The Best of DC #34). Rather than state definitely that someone will never appear again, let's stick with saying that this is someone's first appearance which is a lot more likely to be accurate.

      Loading editor
    • A lot of what we do is working on books that are old. We can pretty definitively say whether some of those characters appear even again or not. And honestly, I don't see what the big deal is of going back to change one word should the character appear later on in new books.

        Loading editor
    • It's better to have incomplete information than outright inaccurate information.

        Loading editor
    • I fail to see how this is an all or nothing situation. It’s a fairly limited situation where it turns out to be untrue.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not sure what you mean by "all or nothing" but either way, I see no value in saying that a story is someone's only appearance, since we can't really know that many times and it's entirely possible to be wrong. Just saying it's his first appearance is enough.

        Loading editor
    • You framed it as an all or nothing scenario: inaccurate or incomplete.

        Loading editor
    • I don't understand what the alternatives are. We can pretty confidently say, "[Comic] is [character]'s first appearance". It's much harder to say, "[Character] has never and will never appear again" since it's trying to prove a negative. {{1st}} is accurate and may be incomplete to the extent that it doesn't also say "Plus he never can ever appear again no matter what, I promise" but {{Only}} says "I promise this guy can never appear again anywhere" and that's not true in some instances. It would be better to just say "this is the first time he appeared" irrespective of if he appeared again. There's no incentive to introduce this extra clause that just turns out to make a false statement.

        Loading editor
    • This is a matter of perspective.

      It has always irked me when people use {{1st}} on characters who are quite obviously never going to be seen again, whether that is signalled by their death or by patterns/clichés recognized through decades of experience reading comics.

      Which is not to say that you aren't correct in pointing out that these obscure characters are occasionally brought back - sometimes (and typically) decades later. But that is no more provable until it occurs than labelling the comic as their only appearance. Six of one, half a dozen the other.

      Except, that "first appearance" implies a second, just as "Final appearance" implies at least one previous appearance. So, in the event that a character tagged with {{1st}} never does appear again (or can't appear again, such as in licensed series that DC no longer has the rights to, or creator owned projects, or limited series with defined endings) 1st would be both presumptive and incorrect. Whereas {{Only}} would, under many circumstances, be most appropriate and most correct.

      With the caveat that we acknowledge that continuity shifts around as it does, we can accommodate for that by retroactively changing things, rather than falsely assuming that continuity is so fluid as to never have a character who could only appear once, across all time and space.

      Which is why the "all or nothing" argument that you very definitely made by recommending deletion in the first place doesn't work. 1st is not an adequate replacement for Only. Only serves a very particular purpose, just as {{Only Dies}}, {{ApDeath}}, {{Final}}, and {{Possessed}} do. There's no reason we can't use all of them for the purposes they are intended, and there's no reason to misuse {{1st}} to unnecessarily replace a perfectly functional template that ain't broke.

      Those "some instances" you spoke of do exist, which is why the template exists, and should continue to.

        Loading editor
    • {{Final}} is another perfect example tho: we are not just implying but making a really unknowable claim that someone won't appear again. Even characters whose licenses are revoked could be reverted back to DC. There's just no point in that. 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.

      But either way, {{Only}} is used in such a manner that it assumes things that someone can't know. 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.

        Loading editor
    • This again?

      The purpose of a Database is to index information. As such, the more tools available for purposes of cataloguing info, the better organized the system will be.

      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.

      The point of having both {1st} and {Only} is precisely to differentiate between the first of many appearances of a notable character from the sole and irrelevant appearance of a trivial character. The point is to separate a historicaly relevant event from random encounters. Deleting either of those templates would defeat the purpose of cataloguing and properly indexing information.

      The biggest argument is that "once forgotten characters could reappear any time in the future." Well, yes. But the key word is could. It's not a certainty. Not enough of an argument to eliminate a tool that certainly works for its intended purpose.

      And yes, there's bound to be the occasional misuse of these tools given how large and extensive a database such as this is. But if someone, as an interested reader, comes across these mistakes such as the ones pointed out, guess what?-- they can edit it and fix the issue.

      Bottom line, this is certainly a non-issue, whichever way you see it.

        Loading editor
    • 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 {{1st}} 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 a 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.

        Loading editor
    • Hatebunny wrote:

      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.

      I can't understand this.

      Hatebunny wrote:

      As would using {{1st}} in place of it.

      It's actually much easier to know the first time someone appeared rather than the only time someone did. Either way, you are claiming to know a first appearance. {{only}} claims to know about every subsequent comic as well.

        Loading editor
    • Koavf wrote:

      I can't understand this.

      No biggie. I get a dopamine rush about saying something clever whether you understand it or not.

      Koavf wrote:

      It's actually much easier to know the first time someone appeared rather than the only time someone did. Either way, you are claiming to know a first appearance. {{only}} claims to know about every subsequent comic as well.

      This doesn't refute my argument, it just restates your position. {{1st}} claims to know that there will be at least one other appearance of a character, without necessarily having any evidence thereto.

      In that regard, both templates are best used on issues that are many years old. In most cases, I would recommend that a {{1st}} be used on new issues of a book, only after the character has had a second appearance - and for the majority of minor characters, I would suggest they should be left without any such tag (and no redlink) until it is clear that they are going to become a major character.

      With older books, it is much easier to determine these things because the rest of the series (or at least, a large portion of it) is already out there. In the majority of golden age comics, an Only is going to be most accurate. Not at all the case in our more serialized comics of today.

      In both cases, to really do the job well, we need someone keeping up with, and maintaining a given series' pages in the long term. Usually, we can rely on a fan or two to do that. Sometimes we can't.

      Anyone who assumes an Only without reading ahead is not doing their due diligence. Anyone who assumes a second appearance without reading ahead is also not doing their due diligence. Sometimes we can't rely on editors to do that. That's unfortunate. And any user who happens to know better - such that they are willing to take the issue to the forums for a policy debate - could be of more help by simply correcting the other user's error.

        Loading editor
    • Wow, you can be really rude. If you don't want to act in good faith, then why are you posting here?

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Bring Your DC Movies Together