Board Thread:Moderators/@comment-61022-20160511151553/@comment-61022-20160512162130

Spencerz wrote: I understand a desire for simplicity, but I do not entirely agree with altering long-standing name, volume and numbering patterns/conventions simply for simplicity's sake. However, while I'm wary of changing that, I do agree there needs to be talks of how we adopt the editorial changes from Marvel concerning things like the Uncanny X-Men issues and other sorts, especially when it goes against the original indica.

Fair enough. I would posit that the indica system is getting to be an outdated form of identification, especially now that Marvel is moving to digital formats indicas are completely removed from any sort of identification (even with digital reprintings of old comics) Not sure what print copies look like for comics that are released on a weekly basis because all the new comics I read are digital, do they still use the indicas?

As outmoded as indicas are becoming I think we need to maintain them to a certain degree to better organize comics. I think it would be a nightmare if we adopt Marvel's numbering system that they use now which is "TITLE ISSUE NUMBER (YEAR)" (eg: "Uncanny X-Men #1 (1963)"). I can't say with any sort of authority, but I think that would totally mess with our categories, not to mention all the leg work it would need to conform everything to that format. So that said, I think an indica system is a necessary evil, but we need to have kind of an "in house" interpretation of those based on three criteria:

(1) the original indica

(2) how the title is generally known as (particularly with titles that alter their name mid run and maintain the original numbering -- to clarify I mean a title featuring a specific character being renamed slightly and is still about that character, as opposed to a lot of old Timely and Atlas titles that regularly changed entire titles but maintained original numbering because of some weird publishing deals they had back then)

(3) How Marvel chooses to organize them now.

Spencerz wrote: In keeping with the indica naming source, I do agree that all those short-run series mentioned in the third point (especially Blade and Punisher) need to be name-checked for accuracy. I know for a fact multiple Punisher limited-runs here have been moved back and forth, creating a lot of legwork and inconsistent naming patterns. And along with the Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man volumes, there's also Cloak and Dagger Vol 3, which has been the subject of debate before over the cover title and indica title being different, and then changing halfway through the run.

Ah yes the "Mutant Misadventures" debacle. I think that would be a case where we would adopt the most commonly used descriptor for that series, which is Cloak and Dagger without the "Mutant Misadventures", I also am certain that when Marvel references these books (I don't recall any digital reprints but I am sure this is the case when an issue number is referenced in the handbooks) they omit the "Mutant Misadventures" and just do "Cloak and Dagger #1 (1988)" when referencing it.

But yes, absolutely the Blade and Punisher books need a major overhaul. The Punisher books haven't all been digitized but Marvel published an Index on the Punisher a few years back. I think as a standard for labelling those titles we should use that as our guide.

Spencerz wrote: I suppose the main question comes down to whether we want to be most accurate with our naming conventions, or the most interface-friendly. If we can find a way to be accurate while still maintaining healthy interface, such as the redirects suggested by Annabell, I think we can find a good consensus on that.

Absolutely, I think redirects will be important in renaming all these especially since it will avoid any dead links coming up that might go overlooked after conversion. That way at least people will be redirected to the right page.