There are most certainly many hundreds of examples of comic articles where the Template:Photo is used to denote an appearance of a character, location, item, or vehicle that only occurs in a photograph, newspaper, etc.
Is there some specific policy I'm missing that you can actually point to where that's not the template's proper usage, or is this just something you're mistaken on, since that's unquestionably what the template is explicitly coded for.
I'm sorry, but being in a photograph is not an appearance. The template is coded wrong and it should be the same as the Mentioned template, where it denotes a different categorization. I've compared the Marvel wiki side by side with chronologyproject.com and they do not reference any single photograph listing as an appearance. Becuase it's not. I don't understand how anyone could call it an appearance. Appearances are where a character partakes in the main story, or in a flashback sequence, or even appears on a TV screen in a live stream. How can you possibly call a photograph or a painting an appearance?
Appreciate the reply and I don't disagree that it's not a full appearance, that's why it says (In a photograph only), and I'd be in support of moving that notation to autogenerate as Mentions rather than Appearances, my point was simply that it was being used properly as the existing policy stands, so it was unproductive to repeatedly change the users' edits when they're correct as the coding currently exists.
I agree that photograph appearance is better in Mentioned category and changed the templates to refer that. However, I didn't test my updates in Sandbox before going live so please undo my edits if you see any problems.
Unfortunately I can't see any reason why Template:Named wouldn't display the proper green text (Named only), but Template:Photo does display (In a photograph only), despite the fact that the changes appear identical.
Are you saying it's been displaying wrong for just me and not others for the past four months? I know that I'm not terribly tech savy, but it seems unlikely since I'm certain that I have purged my browser cache, flushed DNS, etc. multiple times since last November.
And if it is just me, that explains why nobody understood what I was saying about it needing fixed. :P
The thing is that a photo appearance is not a mention, or similar to it. I think it would be better to make it so the "Photo" appearance template simply doesn't autocategorize anything at all.
I disagree that it shouldn't categorize at all. I think that we should categorize everything which could help researching and photo appearance can be very meaningful to character history. It isn't a mention but a new category for photo appearances would be counterproductive as there are so few of them.
Hi! I’m sending this message out to every active admin on the Marvel Database. My name is William Arrowsmith, some of you might know me, I’m an admin on the DC Database. Right now we are having a very large conversation about both databases on Facebook. We’re trying to put together a message thread including every active admin on both sites. This message thread currently has two stated goals. 1) To rethink our site navigation, and work on better ways we can organize our content. 2) To talk about the differences between our templates, and ways that we can possibly standardize them so both sites are working with the same templates again. The idea is that we would host our templates in a separate location, so we could work on them in one place without having to continuously update both wikis. We would also be able to “franchise” this system out to other comic book wikis, which have struggled in the past with copying our system.
If you could please add me on Facebook and message me, I will happily add you to the conversation. If anybody else is looking at this, I apologize, but it’s admins only. The people currently involved in the conversation are myself, Jamie and Peteparker representing Marvel, plus Haroldrocks, Hatebunny, Kyletheobald, and Midoki24 representing DC. Thank you!