Yep, that makes sense.

_________________

I think I found something interesting:
http://britishcomics.wikia.com/wiki/Rampage
"four part science fiction strip, 'Timesmasher', in issues #40-44. This little oddity (by Paul Neary and Mick Austin) concerned a time traveler from the future who crash landed in Scotland, and it contained a curious and mostly unnoticed tie-in to the Captain Britain strip relaunched in Marvel Superheroes, in that the time traveler was revealed in the end to have been 'knocked off course' after colliding with something in limbo-the 'something' proving to be Captain Britain (en route from Otherworld as seen in the Black Knight strip in Hulk Comic, and ultimately diverted by the collision to an alternate Earth in Marvel Superheroes #377)."

I've checked further and it appears that it's only in Rampage 40 & 42-44. Is it worth listing?

_________________

Seems to be. Let me check it out.

_________________

I want to ask about Amazing Spiderman annual 5:
Yesterday (for me it was yesterday) I wrotte in the suggestion box about flashack appearances of Ben Parker, but i see that You decided not to include it. That seems a little odd since You previously included Ben's flashback in Amazing Spiderman 50.
I also asked about Richard & Mary Parker. I think that if You included flashbacks of Princess fen, Leonard Mackenzie or Thakorr, then Parkers should be also in. Otherwise it creates little inconsistency.
And what about second Red Skull (the one created by the Reds in 1950's)?
While we are at it: why did ou include Angel's father (who had like 6 appearances in whole Marvel history) and not Iceman's which had 17?

_________________

He also listed all of the characters from the Tales of Asgard and the Origin of the Inhumans which are all flashbacks as well.

Is it possible to include characters on an issue page without having to include them in The Order index? This might remedy issues looking like they have no villain or supporting characters. Or would that cause too many problems? And it would create anothe huge task of going back and editing issue pages. Maybe you do that some already? Just a thought.


***BTW--DD#70-71 should go together.

_________________

Well, a story that is a flashback is different then in story flashbacks. Issues or parts of issues (such as tales of asgard) that are flashbacks are in, but generally flashbacks inside of an issue should be out. Not sure why I listed ben, since he shouldn't be in there at all, being in issue flashbacks.

_________________

But in this case flashback shows what how Peter ended with May and Ben which is important. I think that all "revealing" and backstory flasbacks should be in. Only those repeating something we already know and seen should be out.
If You don't agree with me You should remove all: Princess Fen, Leonard MacKenzie and Thakor (because they were dead long before FF1) and You will have giant problem with most of 1990 x-men issues beacuse they are one giant stream of partial flashback issues revealing and revealing and revealing and changing and changing and revealing....



Sorry for strong words but to me that rule is stupid - it shouldn't matter if it's inside issue, outside issue, 2 issues, half issues, one page, two pages, 7 panels - it should be about importance for character backstory, and not about lenght. Sometimes one page of characters flashbacks is more important than 4 issues of story ( check Avengers Annual 10 vs any Avengers issue in 1967-1968)


One more thing: theres one example which shows how confusing that kind of listing can be is Changeling in X-men. You included him in X-men 41&42 (which creates spoilers) but not included him in X-men 65, so people never really found out what was he doing there. If someones reading by the changeling appearances knows nothing, seen nothing, learned nothing. Foul.

I always thought that those appearances were for people to read all issues and whole story of a character. But now it appears that I was wrong. At this point I really feel I don't uderstand the point of Comic Box.

_________________

Your right, that is the point of the comic box. So, his appearance in issue 65...is that one I just missed, or is it a flashback.

And yes, seeing your reasoning, perhaps I need to look at the flashbacks again. What I was trying to avoid was flashbacks from other issues, not so much new information in a flashback.

_________________

Changelings appearance in X-men 65 must be flashback since he died in X-men 42. It's all revealed by Profesor X
And believe me: 40% of Marvel Mutant history happened trough flashbacks. And to be totally honest that's why I always loved them so much: I could never be sure of anything, nothing was sacred, all could be changed by one flashback panel. One of the greates examples (shock of my life): truth about Krakoa. (which by the way might create problems, because "X-men: Deadly Genesis" is only partialy flashback issue )

_________________