[quote="zweineuf"]I guess whether it's an error or not depends on semantics, but if you're strictly looking at characters that appear in the FF Annual, then no, obviously, Millie isn't there. But if the Handbook's goal is to list characters canonically present at the time portrayed in the issue in question, then I think that's a valuable service for the Handbook to be performing, but they shouldn't characterize that as a "character appearance," but rather should find some other term.[/quote]
You're conflating the Handbooks with the Indexes. The Indexes catalog series issue-by-issue with appearances and other stats. They do specify when a character's "appearance" is just behind-the-scenes. The only official FF index was from the 80s, which I don't have.

The Handbooks, on the other hand, have prose summaries of characters' histories. The relevant paragraph in Millie's Handbook bio reads:
"In recent years, Millie was one of many celebrities who attended the wedding of Sue Storm (Invisible Girl) to Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic), her teammate in the Fantastic Four. Patsy Walker also attended; years later, Millie, now head of her own Glamour Girls, Inc. agency, offered Patsy a job, but Patsy, then serving in the Defenders as super hero Hellcat, declined. Millie's friendship with Hellcat fueled rumors of closer ties to super humans, and reports over the years linked her to the likes of Tony Stark, and one ludicrous account even paired her with Fin Fang Foom."

(I wonder what the source of that last tidbit is? Perhaps a gag in one of Marvel's humor magazines?)

The Handbook also speculates as to Millie's connection to the bride, playing off the fact that Millie's modeling arch-rival was named Chili [u]Storm[/u]:
"Millie may have worked with another would-be model/actress, Sue Storm, perhaps a relative of Chili's, earning the friendship of a future Fantastic Four member."

[i]Marvels[/i] #2 reveals that among the other celebrities in attendance at the FF wedding were the Beatles.

I guess whether it's an error or not depends on semantics, but if you're strictly looking at characters that appear in the FF Annual, then no, obviously, Millie isn't there. But if the Handbook's goal is to list characters canonically present at the time portrayed in the issue in question, then I think that's a valuable service for the Handbook to be performing, but they shouldn't characterize that as a "character appearance," but rather should find some other term.

No mater what Marvels or Handbook says she shouldn't be listed in FF #3
Just like [spoiler]Doctor Starnge and a bunch of Avengers[/spoiler] shouldn't be listed in FF#19 although they were definitely there at the time (as evidenced by many later issues of Marvel comics.

And explanation:
Yes, no one used Wikia, that's true. I just wanted to make fun of that project, because I really don't like it. It's full of holes and it has looooots of unnecessary appearances of character whi weren't even there.
It's helpfull for me, that's true, but only because I can learn from it's creator's mistakes and correct them here.

[quote="tstarnes"]Its an error because she isn't actually there. No one sees her, no one confirms that she is there. If the only place that says she is there is a handbook, then the handbook is introducing things not in the comics, which a reference book shouldn't do. Its not a clarification if it is introducing new information, its an addition.

I am not dismissing the handbooks and indexes, but I do dispute their being the "bible" of what is or is not canon.[/quote]

The Handbooks (and indexes) are reference works, but they are also creative works and are considered to be canon by Marvel. Although they never invent major facts whole cloth, they will sometimes clarify information that had been left ambiguous.

Here is a quote by one of the head writers:
"Assuming you actually mean "does new information ever get first published in the Official Handbooks?" then the answer is yes, frequently. Sometimes it comes from scripts, more often it comes from writers and artists associated with a given character or story, more rarely it might originate from the handbook writers when editorial approval is given to fill in minor blanks in instances where none of those other sources is available."
http://www.comixfan.net/forums/showthread.php?t=49258

Anyway, Millie's handbook profile was published after [i]Marvels[/i] #2, which had already confirmed her attendance at the wedding.

Its an error because she isn't actually there. No one sees her, no one confirms that she is there. If the only place that says she is there is a handbook, then the handbook is introducing things not in the comics, which a reference book shouldn't do. Its not a clarification if it is introducing new information, its an addition.

I am not dismissing the handbooks and indexes, but I do dispute their being the "bible" of what is or is not canon.

Fragsel, no one mentioned the Marvel Wikia but you.
The Handbook [i]does[/i] confirm that Millie is at the wedding. How is that an error?
I once again dispute this persistent dismissal of the Handbooks as “chock full of errors”. A lot of care is put into their creation. Do they contain mistakes? Of course. The Encyclopaedia Britannica contains mistakes. This site contains mistakes. The comics themselves contain mistakes.
And, as I said earlier, [i]Marvels[/i] #2 also establishes her as being at the wedding. I don’t think that even counts as a “ret-con”; merely a “clarification”.

For the record, I’m fine with Millie not being listed in the entry for FF@3, as she [i]isn't[/i] seen “onscreen” and her presence is not confirmed within the issue itself.

If its a flashback of the action, then she would show up in the later issue as a flashback appearance, but not in the original issue. If its just a mention, then she doesn't show up in either.

We draw the line at actual appearances or contemporary behind the scene appearances. Retcon behind the scenes appearances don't get counted, hold to our "original intent" goal.

[u]Maybe[/u] in a later story, somewhere in 2000's or something, somebody is reminiscing about Reed and Sue's wedding and Millie is shown there, making her appearance in FF Annual #3 a "behind the scenes" thing, by retcon.
I worry for such things in the future...

And the official handbook....As much as people use it as a reference, it is also chock full of errors.

[quote="rubixcube60"]I just checked, all it says is that Hedy heard that she got an invitation. So it's not established in the issue that she's even there.

[img]http://i1273.photobucket.com/albums/y412/Rubixcubd60/CMRO%20Forums/FFannual3_zps59f754be.jpg[/img][/quote]

Right. That's what I've meant. She "heard". That's hardly a confirmation. But I guess that's enough for Marvel Wikia. ;)