Forum:List of appearances issues

Ok, so we are having some issues right now regarding the List of appearances on pages. These issues need to be addressed and they need to be addressed quickly. Here are some issues we are currently having. 1. Indirect mention - The issue with this is when a group of people, such as the 75 SPARTAN-II trainees, are mentioned in The Fall of Reach. We have been getting an opinion that there is an indirect mention being made to every single Spartan, even if they are not specifically referred to. This seems to be pushing it.

2. The entire Halo Array is mentioned in Cryptum and Primordium, so therefore each Halo (Installations 01-07) appeared in the book. Again, this seems to be pushing it.

3.I've seen many of these sections listed completely wrong, according to the Layout Guide. First, official media needs to be italicized, no question about it. Second, according to the Layout Guide, these sections need to be listed, not in order of, games, books, comics, and other media, but listed according to the release date of the media. So if something appeared in The Fall of Reach and Halo: Reach, The Fall of Reach should be listed first, according to the Layout Guide, since it came out first.

Feel free to discuss these issues below.--  Col.  Spartacus   Talk Page Contributions Contact  21:37, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Discussion
I agree some clarification on these issues is in order. And I believe arguing over technicalities will get us nowhere - there should be clear guidelines on what exactly we regard as an "appearance" to begin with. The issue here seems to be about two major things: First, do we regard parts of a larger whole as individual appearances, even if they aren't mentioned individually, and second, can things appear in a work retroactively.

The issue of each of the individual Halos appearing in the Forerunner novels is somewhat of a gray area, since technically the characters are seeing the rings and they're not just being mentioned in a conversation. The same holds true for the SPARTAN-II trainees, in a way - they're all described as being in the same room with John, so technically you could say all Spartan-IIs mentioned in any media appeared in The Fall of Reach. However, it's pointless and counterproductive to list all of these as appearances, even "indirect mentions". Here's why.

First off, we need to address what exactly is an appearance - not in terms of dictionary definition, but the definition we choose to use. For example, in Glasslands, Kelly's still wearing the Mark V inside the shield world. Technically, this is very clear-cut - if the book had been a movie or game, we'd be seeing the Mark V armor - but does it constitute an appearance when it's not mentioned or described at any point? If we regard this as an appearance, then should we also say that every bit of tech in the MJOLNIR armor and every piece of standard-issue gear the Spartan-IIs and IIIs carry, appear in Glasslands because they had them when they went into the shield world in Ghosts of Onyx? Tuckerscreator also made a good point about the extent to which this kind of inclusion can go - in the end, you could list everyone and everything on Reach as appearing in media where we see the planet from space. This can go even further; we see the Milky Way galaxy from the Ark in Halo 3, so everything in the galaxy technically "appears" (though we're viewing it as it was about 262,144 years ago, but I digress).

Because of ambiguities like this, I think we should define an "appearance" more clearly. The criteria for what constitutes an appearance shouldn't be the same for visual and written media because of the issues mentioned above. After all, the purpose of the Appearances template is to provide a definite list of media where the subject appears, and if it gets caught up in technicalities the point will be moot.

For visual media, like games, films, comic books, etc. the definition of appearance should be rather straightforward. All things that the viewers can see constitute as "appearances", while things that are talked about or alluded to are mentions, direct or indirect. Meanwhile, appearances in written media should have a clearer definition. Perhaps the subject should be specifically mentioned by name, or described in enough detail to discern what it is, or both, to qualify as an appearance. This is, after all, what the writer chooses to "show" us, much like the things we see on screen or on paper. The things that aren't described or named are, in a way, off-screen. In other words, the audience isn't always seeing everything the characters see.

Similarly, there should be a rule that things cannot retroactively appear in a work, unless there is a very specific and defined reason. For instance, Bornstellar didn't appear in the Halo 3 terminals, because he hadn't been thought up at the time (besides, every character in the terminals was technically just a name on a message, and they didn't physically appear). The same applies to the aforementioned issue of the Spartan-II trainees. Adriana or Mike, for instance, are not in The Fall of Reach, even though they were in the room at the time in the context of the fiction at large.

As for those "very specific and defined reasons" to include retroactive appearances, I'm taking about instances where a formerly unidentified character or object is named in a later work. These include the appearance of Installation 07 in Cryptum. The single ring under control of Mendicant Bias is featured rather heavily in Cryptum, even though it's not named until Primordium. On the contrary, the other Halos are never described as individual rings and always as parts of the Array as a whole, so they shouldn't really qualify as appearances. Similarly, most of the Spartan-II trainees in TFoR are just a nameless mass of people, and individuals who aren't picked out in the narrative don't "appear".

This naturally excludes some subjects that do appear in a fictional sense, but it's more clear-cut than having to argue over what should be listed and what shouldn't, or listing every single thing to the point of ridiculousness. Take quantum mirror for example. Technically, it appears in every piece of fiction in which the Mark VI MJOLNIR (and possibly Mark V) appears. However, the only time it's mentioned and described as a distinct object is in Ghosts of Onyx, so it makes sense that is its only appearance.

We should also clarify the use of the "indirect mention" tag. I believe this should be rather simple in the context of what I just said - it should be used when a subject is clearly being alluded to, without using its name. A good example is when Dr. Halsey refers to Noble Team in Glasslands: she talks about "complete strangers" wearing MJOLNIR armor on Reach, which in itself alludes back to her journal. This is a genuine "indirect mention". Note that she doesn't refer to the individual members of the team, only the unit as a whole. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 06:28, 3 April 2012 (EDT)


 * An excellent reply. I do not think I can add anything to what Jugus has said. On a somewhat-related note, would anyone object to having a Consensus category for the forum? I believe it would make it easily accessibly for everyone to check on recent consensus on policies, guidelines, proposals, etc.. — subtank  11:19, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

Yup, I think this really does cover everything. A couple trims and it should fit well in the policies section, or really wherever it should go if it's not that specific place. And no Subs, I don't see any problem with having a Consensus category be added. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 13:08, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

Jugus pretty much covered everything and I completely agree with him.--  Col.  Spartacus   Talk Page Contributions Contact  15:18, 3 April 2012 (EDT)
 * @Subtank: I don't object to having a Community Consensus on the forum. Seems like a good idea.--  Col. Spartacus  Talk Page Contributions  00:02, 4 April 2012 (EDT)


 * I agree as well, this makes perfect sense. Alex T Snow 13:31, 5 April 2012 (EDT)