I agree that indicia can be pretty inaccurate and poorly proofread. What I meant to suggest about volume numbers is that we contributors to this site be responsible for the volume number determination and disregard the indicia volume number when it is illogical. Certainly there are times when we bend, break, or even ignore indicia rules for the sake of logic and sanity. Volume numbers should be strictly set chronologically by order of series' first publication date of an issue when from the same publisher (whether it be a #0, #1, #900, or "nn" issue number).
Let's take Inhumans
from Marvel for example. I would propose volumes numbers as follows:
Volume 1: Inhumans (1975)
Volume 2: Inhumans (1998)
Volume 3: Inhumans (2000)
Volume 4: Inhumans (2003)
Other series that Marvel may have been considering as different volumes of Inhumans by Marvel editors would not fall into our volume numbering because the title is not precisely "Inhumans":Inhumans Special (1990)The Inhumans: The Great Refuge (1995)
And even if it did not have "Marvel Graphic Novel" in its title, Marvel Graphic Novel: The Inhumans (1988)
would not be considered as a volume of Inhumans because it has "The" in its title (now I'm using strict indicia here, and maybe the line I'm drawing between strict indicia use and tweaking/ignoring indicia is so fine I can't define it).
Also note that Inhumans (Polish reprint) (2003)
from Egmont Polska would not be considered part of this volume numbering because it is not the same publisher.
I would then suggest that should indicia contain an illogical volume number, an explanation be written in the title notes.
All this just so I don't have to see X-23 (II)
as a title! I would also like to see the elimination of other series descriptions within titles, such as "one-shot" or "Polish reprint".
Is this too much time on a minor database design issue?