User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-121.45.54.78-20130925110520/@comment-24048868-20200602022431

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-121.45.54.78-20130925110520/@comment-24048868-20200602022431 The reason I did not include that on the table was because the determining factor in these instances shouldn't be this nascent appearance policy, but on whether we actually have enough evidence to say it was that character. If there is enough evidence to include the "appearance" on the character's page, there is enough to then consider whether to include it on the appearances page. If we don't see them or hear them, we can then be referred to 1.4 or 1.5.

Just to respond to your points, my understanding is that if there are licencing issues, then, by policy, we're not allowed to assume the character makes an appearance. If it's stylistic, then, again, it's based on evidence and then either 1.4 or 1.5, or perhaps another number.

Also, I'll remove the "type" from 4.2. I didn't realise it was still being contended. As for Sexy, that would be covered by 4.3. Perhaps I should remove that "type" as well :P