? about Vol.#s and miniseries

For any questions/comments/suggestions regarding using and/or contributing to ComicBookDB.com

Moderators: DarthSkeptical, Fnord Serious, Chris, spid, Skyhawke, Darth Kramer, mikebo

Eternal0
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:41 am

? about Vol.#s and miniseries

Postby Eternal0 » Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:44 am

I am attempting to enter the recent Rogue series there is no vol # listed in the information box but i know there was at least one 4 issue miniseries putout in the mid 90s.I useully assume that if a title doesnt say Vol.2 or so on that it is Vol.1. Thanks for any help in advance. And just gotta say this site has great potential and if it keeps growing it will become my home page soon overtakeing comicspriceguide.com

User avatar
Chris
Cosmic Donor
Cosmic Donor
 
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Toronto

Postby Chris » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:14 pm

If I have any question about volumes (which will soon by getting removed - possibly as soon as this weekend - in place of the year that the title started, i.e. Rogue (1996) rather than Rogue v1).

For now assume that it is v1. If someone else finds another Rogue miniseries that predates yours, they will be able to change your volume to v2.

MisfitX
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 10:41 pm

Postby MisfitX » Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:02 pm

there is a rogue mini-series that came out sometime in the mid to late 90's I believe. Yup, there was. It looks like the recent one is actually Volume 3.
I usually use Comics Price Guide.com for figuring out the volumes. They have almost everything labelled, and pretty much everything dated.
you don't need pants for a victory dance

User avatar
Chris
Cosmic Donor
Cosmic Donor
 
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Toronto

Postby Chris » Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:14 pm

Look for volumes to disappear by the weekend.

User avatar
übernot
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:04 pm

Re: ? about Vol.#s and miniseries

Postby übernot » Sun Sep 26, 2010 3:01 am

Talk about digging up the past!

Because I haven't been a member of this site since the time of the previous post, I was wondering what led to the change to use starting year as a way of distinguishing volumes of titles?

I think this has been really bugging me since the latest X-23 series. I just don't like "II" in the title (and maybe it should be a "2", not that I like that in the title, either).

I can understand that not knowing the year a volume started could make it difficult for a user to understand which title to select on a search or enter a new issue to (especially when adding an issue to a past series). Perhaps when adding a new issue a validation can flag an issue date being less than the current title/volume start date or greater than an existing start date for a newer volume, requiring the user confirm the entry or switch the new issue into the correct title/volume.

If a new title/volume entry arises with conflicting dates (earlier than a current volume 1 or between existing volumes), maybe a report can be generated for admins to review or have the user confirm the new title volume and the database has the necessary existing volume numbers incremented to accommodate.

Maybe the search results should be shown in a table with columns of data (title, volume, start date, publisher) rather than a list with spaces and parentheses separating data.

User avatar
übernot
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:04 pm

Re: ? about Vol.#s and miniseries

Postby übernot » Sun Sep 26, 2010 6:45 pm

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?

spid
 
Posts: 503
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:41 pm

Re: ? about Vol.#s and miniseries

Postby spid » Sun Sep 26, 2010 7:02 pm

I guess the question I have is what is wrong with the system we have now outside of the odd two series with the same title launched within the same year. That happens so rarely that is not that big of an issue. The major publishers don't seem to use them anymore so why should we?


Return to Site Support

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron