Board Thread:Moderators/@comment-61022-20160511151553

Hi everybody,

The way some titles are organized on the Wiki has been a bit of a sticking point for me and I think Mods and Admins need to have a discussion on cleaning things up a bit. Some are a complete mess. Some are a matter of preference, and some are just all over the map.

Sometimes it's a differing opinion of what the cover states and what the indica states and how Marvel chooses to organize them now. Presently Marvel doesn't list volume numbers anymore, just identifying the year of publication instead. Also they have simplified titles that have gone through esthetic title changes and continued the issue numbering, choosing to use the most commonly known title across the board. From a Wiki perspective, I think we need to maintain volume numbers on a matter of organization, however when it comes to naming these titles we need to take an approach that tempers between what the title says, what the indica says, and what is easiest for people to locate. My stance on this is adopting a system where we go with easiest navigation first (which would follow some kind of logical association), then the cover numbering (adopting an easiest navigation stance when it comes to logical associations), then lastly when all else fails, use the indica.

Here are some of the ones that I've come across that I think we need to clean up:


 * Organizing Annuals: This is top of my list. A lot of annuals are titles in very inconsistent ways.
 * First a lot of annuals were renamed so that all of them follow a #19XX or #20XX format to adhere to the numbering of Annuals that came out between 1995 to 2001 when Marvel just called something "Title Annual 19XX". I think it's a bit of a mess because people won't intuitively think of a year but an issue number in a lot of cases. I think this all started with the Uncanny X-Men Annuals. There was some issue with there being two Vol 1 #1's kicking around the first one published back in 1970 and I'm guessing the one published in 2006. This led to all the Vol 1 annuals being renamed with the year as a number. Since then it looks like every annual after 2006 had a "Volume 2" in the indica and the 2006 "Volume 1" was an error (can someone confirm this?) I think we need to go back and rename all these Uncanny X-Men Annuals (and other annuals like it) where a year was given to the issue number instead of the actual issue number (with the exception of the ones where the issue number WAS the year. Uncanny X-Men Annual 1995 for example) Also on the same token any that are number "'95" instead of "1995" should have the full year as the issue number for conformity.
 * Annuals that are named anything other than "Annual". Back in the 1960s before the term "Annual" was coined they used "Special Edition" or "King-Sized Special" or some other descriptor. For example the Thor King-Size Specials. I think for the sake of a style format for the Wiki we should rename these as Thor Annual Vol 1 1 and the like. I get that the indica might state otherwise, but I think when it comes to organizing annuals people associate the word "Annual" instead of "King-Size Special". I think when it comes to organizing these comics we need to adopt the common terminology presently used so these titles are EASIER to find and/or reference.
 * Annuals sharing volume numbers with the primary title is another issue. I turn everyone's attention to Silver Surfer Annual Vol 1 which were annuals published during the run of Silver Surfer Vol 3 and Wolverine Annual Vol 2 which ran during the run of Wolverine Vol 2. If we're organizing the annuals based on their own indicas Silver Surfer Annual Vol 1 would be correct while Wolverine Annual Vol 2 would not be. On the other hand, we want annuals to coincide with the volume of the main run. So I think we need to adopt a census on this. I would opt for the volume number for annuals matching that of the series which brings me to the next point....
 * Marrying Annuals with the main running series they are associated with. I would suggest we do this with Specials, Giant-Sized and other offshoots of a main title (Giant-Size Avengers for example) because these annuals and giant-size editions are all tied into the main title they represent. What I mean by "marrying" them together is that when one looks up Fantastic Four Vol 1 not only does it have all the appropriate issues of Fantastic Four Vol 1, it also has all the Annuals and Giant-Size stories listed in as well in their proper places. Issue summaries should also have the "next issue" correspond with the next annual or giant-size story. These placements should coincide with either the publication date of the annual (a LOT of annuals are missing the month they were released, information that is easily found with the right amount of research) or where it fits in continuity say if an annual/giant-size is the continuation of a story that started in the main series. I started doing this with my work on Fantastic Four and I think for the sake of readers finding this information easily it is in our best interest to do so.


 * Spider-Man related titles are bit of a mess as well. Here are some examples off the top of my head:
 * Spectacular Spider-Man. We need better ways to organize this title. First and foremost every single title that starts with the word "The" should be removed. We decided to nix "The" in the title for easier navigation and prevent a glut of titles starting with the letter T when it comes to sorting. Spectacular Spider-Man is a mess because the Magazine from the 60s and then when Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man dropped "Peter Parker, The" from the title. Presently the Magazine is organized with Spectacular Spider-Man Magazine Vol 1, therefor there is no reason for other Spectacular Spider-Man titles to contain the word "The" at the start. Secondly, I think we need to adopt the way Marvel organizes these titles on Marvel Unlimited. Particularly with Peter Parker, the Spectacular Spider-Man... Marvel Unlimited identifies every title in this volume simply as Spectacular Spider-Man, nixing the "Peter Parker, The" part of the title. I am a fan of less typing = easier navigation. Also everyone refers to this by its more simplistic nomenclature of Spectacular Spider-Man Vol 1. As such I think we need to rename all of these to fit that.
 * Peter Parker: Spider-Man Vol 2 needs to be renamed Vol 1... This series came about in 1999 when Marvel was rebooting their Spider-Man franchises and was a rebranding of Spider-Man Vol 1. As such we should rename it Volume 1 because there are no prior volumes.


 * Here are some other things I think we need to root through and organize better:
 * Marvel Knights 4 Vol 1 and Four Vol 1 are the same series the branding changed near the end. For the sake of easier navigation we should adopt the easiest to identify. I think the entire run should be titled Four Vol 1. While 4 Vol 1 would require much less typing, I opt for spelling the number out just for clarity.
 * X-Men Vol 1 and Uncanny X-Men Vol 1 and X-Men Vol 2.... Such a headache here... Marvel Unlimited now identifies X-Men Vol 1] and Uncanny X-Men Vol 1 issues as "Uncanny X-Men" for all titles. This is because it is the commonly accepted title for that entire run. I think we need to adopt this. It's more typing, but it's also how Marvel is choosing to identify the entire series, it's also the way most people associate it so early issues of "Uncanny" X-Men are not confused with the more popular X-Men Vol 2.
 * A full review of all Punisher, Blade, Ghost Rider, Black Widow and other shorter run titles. A lot of these titles I am sure are mislabelled. Some of them has a subtitle in the page name when it's not displayed on the indica or the cover page. We need to determine what is most accurate. A great example is Punisher_Purgatory_Vol_1 which is more accurately Punisher Vol 4 because (I am quite sure) the indica on that title is not Punisher: Purgatory.

Anyway this is everything off the top of my head. I am sure that there are others we need to discuss. If anyone can share their thoughts on the above or make other suggestions I think this is something we need to get on right away. 