New Editors...

Please make sure you understand the rules and how things are done here before editing. 
 
For instance.... at the top of each issue there is a place where it says "issue released on..". This does not mean put the day the issue came out. On the inside of every comic is an indicia that gives you the date we put. So just because Wolverine #20 for instance says February 2012 it doesn't mean change it to Dec. 21st, 2011....  Thank You.

And a few other unwritten rule types:

1. when you add the solicitation for an issue put it in italics.
2. TPB's and HC's are to be the same volume page unless they include new comic material i.e. re-releases with added issues, new printings still count as the original volume just add the new cover (unless it has new comic material).
3. If you copy/paste in a solicit remove any additional formatting that gets copied over like bullets.
4. Do not add covers with watermarks.
5. Do not add story arcs to TPB's, Hardcovers or foreign comics, instead add them to the appropriate section on the story arcs page.

and it isn't really a rule but for the love of god please add the publisher and start year for new volumes.

@RazzaTazz: oh well of course that's a given, I just wanted to get some of those unwritten rules out here cause most new editors don't know about them, I've been seeing tons and tons of solicits added lately without italics and the whole release date problem from the original post, and I snuck in #3 cause IrishX doesn't know about it :P

As for all the threads most of them really are necessary and merging them wouldn't be good since some can be done by users and others only by mods, plus some mods only frequent specific request threads and don't go near other ones so if they were all merged it could get confusing or neglected.

Well i don't blame people if they enter the release date when it says release date.
It it strange that there are three spaces for M/D/Y whereas an indicia date is only M/Y. Why have a third space there if it's not to be used?

Also, I sent out a bunch of individual messages last week to users doing this. I'll do the same this week when I got to spotlighting. There really aren't that many new editors unfortunately. I do cherish the few that add new releases.

@fesak: The day is used for weekly books.

@Renchamp: I was heavily chastised for using street dates when I first started out, luckily only Marvel and DC (and I think maybe Panini) still use dates two months ahead, most other publishers are on time except for Bluewater and Antarctic which are notorious for releasing things late and not updating the indicia/cover date so with them comics can be released up to 8 months later then what it says on the cover/indicia. So other then those four/five publishers really it is normal to add the street date for stuff.

@fesak said:

Well i don't blame people if they enter the release date when it says release date. It it strange that there are three spaces for M/D/Y whereas an indicia date is only M/Y. Why have a third space there if it's not to be used?

oh and some publishers do use the day as part of the indicia/cover, one example being Panini, they started using all three in the past four or so years.

I would prefer the release date much more but oh well.

but while we're at it...

are spread covers allowed? Like this one for example:

and if the cover is sideways since some manga covers are, should they be uploaded sideways too or not?
BB

@Billy Batson: I don't see why spread covers wouldn't be allowed, we already do wraparounds and occasionally back covers, my only advice would be to not make it the default cover, whenever I find a wrap cover (and there are no variants) I always crop it and add the cropped cover as default and then full cover below it that way it doesn't look all funky in search results and when viewing the volume page.

As for manga, sideways is probably best or it looks weird and the image is so much smaller. I had that problem when I was filling Jademan gaps cause they published a lot of their comics with sideways "widescreen" covers and I always stuck to adding them sideways so they fit the traditional comic width/height.

Ok got a good practice tip for the wiki, if an issue has both a digital cover and a retail cover the retail cover should be the default image, I'm finding a lot that have the digital as the default... the digital covers are barely allowed so they shouldn't be default if the retail is added.

Ok got a good practice tip for the wiki, if an issue has both a digital cover and a retail cover the retail cover should be the default image, I'm finding a lot that have the digital as the default... the digital covers are barely allowed so they shouldn't be default if the retail is added.

oh yeah forgot ask.
If a story arc is collected in multiple volumes, should the volumes be listed and all of them be linked or just have the link to the volume page?
BB

@Billy Batson said:

oh yeah forgot ask.
If a story arc is collected in multiple volumes, should the volumes be listed and all of them be linked or just have the link to the volume page?
BB

If you are talking about the Collected Editions list on a story arc page my original intention putting it together was a list of each trade not just the volume but some people just put one entry for the volume page, I much prefer a complete list so people know exactly which volumes are included just like if they had each been associated to the arc reading order.

Edited to add:

Oh and add the direct link to the specific volume, too many people are being lazy and just linking to the volume page even if it is a single volume...

@pikahyper said:

@Billy Batson said:

oh yeah forgot ask.
If a story arc is collected in multiple volumes, should the volumes be listed and all of them be linked or just have the link to the volume page?
BB

If you are talking about the Collected Editions list on a story arc page my original intention putting it together was a list of each trade not just the volume but some people just put one entry for the volume page, I much prefer a complete list so people know exactly which volumes are included just like if they had each been associated to the arc reading order.

yeah the collected editions list. So it should be done just like for example Brightest Day? And every volume should be linked?
BB

@Billy Batson: yep nice direct links perfect, we want all the same basic info that was available before those headers existed when the trades were added to the Associated Issues. Now it just takes less space, is much more organized and doesn't screw with the reading order :)

@aztek_the_lost said:

I love that everyone's spouting out common sense rules but the new editors will probably never see this thread :P

Hey if one new editor reads this thread and takes it to heart it is worth it, plus it is educating long term editors as well :P

Updated to add:

Got two more:

• Do not add links to solicitations
• Do not add links to the plot summaries area if a link is added or can be added to the associations area (creator, character, team, story arc, location, etc.)

I've been seeing both of these a lot lately...

@pikahyper: I have a question about numbering. Recently I updated the entire Titan Magazine Transformers issues. Titan has them all listed as Transformers instead of (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen; Universe, More Than Meets the Eye; Prime). And they number them based on volume ex; 1 - 24 then 2.1 - 2.21, then 3.1 - 3.4, then 4.1 - 4.12.

My two questions are is it Okay to have all the Volumes titled Transformers (considering this is how Titan list them on their website). Second should the issues be renumbered according to their website with the (volume#).(issue#)?

@wmwadeii: do they have indicia's? if the indicia has them all as the same volume title they would be in one volume, if the indicias are all different then separate volumes. If they do have to go in one volume then going with Volume.Issue would be ok for the numbering but it should be consistent even for the first volume.

I'm not sure if they should be the same volume though, Titan might list them as the same volume but the one other wiki that I see listing them separates them based on title.

@pikahyper: Yeah that's what I thought. So I'll leave the numbering as is, and the volumes (1-4) as I have them now and I noted of the title on the cover changes similar to how I saw it in Ultimate Spider-man where the title was changed after an issue.

@wmwadeii: so the magazines are currently in separate volumes?

@pikahyper: Yes, that is how they were when I started to add the missing issues. They are all titled Transformers as this is how I saw them, even though the covers have sported different names. I unfortunately don't have any of the issues to see if there was an inidicia, like you I just checked multiple wiki's and Titan's own site.

V1: http://www.comicvine.com/transformers/49-32852/

V2: http://www.comicvine.com/transformers/49-55001/

V3: http://www.comicvine.com/transformers/49-55032/

V4: http://www.comicvine.com/transformers/49-44140/

@wmwadeii: might be good to rename the volumes to the name they are grouped as based on the covers, too many volumes just named Transformers is confusing.

@pikahyper: Would you think it be best to separate them all outside of the volumes, or just add the note that at issue # it was renamed to XYZ.

@pikahyper said:

And a few other unwritten rule types:

1. TPB's and HC's are to be the same volume page unless they include new comic material i.e. re-releases with added issues, new printings still count as the original volume just add the new cover (unless it has new comic material).
2. Do not add story arcs to TPB's, Hardcovers or foreign comics, instead add them to the appropriate section on the story arcs page.

Since these are about TPB's, I thought I'd ask here: Can someone please give me a definitive answer on the following?

When I started editing the wiki, the first thing I did was start tagging TPB issue pages with the "trade paperback" concept. After about 5 of these, a mod PM'd me and asked me not to do that to every TPB, but instead said it was ok to make a link to the concept, in the volume description, on the volume page for that TPB. So I've been doing that ever since. Only now, I'm finding that people - a different mod in one case, apparently - are undoing my link on the volume page, and tagging the issue page with the concept.

So for the love of pete, which is preferred, please? I've tried hard to conform to the site standards for the pages. I'd like to do work that is not going to be undone, if at all possible.

@cbishop: That is extremely odd, I would prefer neither really as I don't like the concept, if you want to use it though add the concept as an association. I don't think I've ever seen a link to the concept in a volume description before. If the mod is still active let me know who in a PM and I'll let them know that linking a concept in a volume description is definitely not good, the associations sections are there for a reason and preferred even for issue descriptions.

@pikahyper said:

@cbishop: That is extremely odd, I would prefer neither really as I don't like the concept, if you want to use it though add the concept as an association. I don't think I've ever seen a link to the concept in a volume description before. If the mod is still active let me know who in a PM and I'll let them know that linking a concept in a volume description is definitely not good, the associations sections are there for a reason and preferred even for issue descriptions.

I honestly don't remember which mod it was, although I do remember them saying that it was something debated among mods.

My personal feeling is: if the concept is there, it should be used. "Trade Paperback" is a pretty broad one, but I think it's useful - sometimes, depending on the editor, it's the only thing showing that a TPB is a TPB. However, it's not strictly needed, if people would write better volume descriptions.

CV needs something like "glossary" pages. For instance, instead of "trade paperback" being a concept that can be tagged all over the place, make it a glossary page - one that can be searched and edited, but not tagged anywhere. In other words, someone can look up "trade paperback," find a page defining the term and its history, but that's it. It's not linked to issues. This would be very useful for some of the broader, not-quite-sure-how-to-use-them concepts, like "Gold," "Silver," and "Bronze Age" (among others).

I think it's important for a comic themed site like CV to define commonly used terms, but they don't necessarily need to be tagged all over the site. (However, they could still be linked back to the glossary page in the volume description, like I've been doing, without building an unnecessary, hugely overblown and cluttered volume count).

I haven't thought about it much though. ;)

@cbishop: hmm never heard about any debate about its usage, when I ran across it and mentioned it a lot of people didn't even know it existed. I have never used the concept and never will as I do write clear volume descriptions but the concept has always annoyed me cause I see it attached to way too many pages and sometimes ones that aren't really TPB's like hardcovers, extra thick one shots and graphic novels. If the concept was to be used it should be made more broad and just be Collected Editions to cover trades and hardcovers. Also we do define usage for a lot of concepts but they tend to be unwritten rules or a note is included on the concepts page. What we have been pushing for for a number of years though is a new wiki page type that would be used for collected editions so comics would be under volumes and collected editions under this other page type that way they are clearly separated but so far its still on the wish list.

@pikahyper said:

@cbishop: hmm never heard about any debate about its usage, when I ran across it and mentioned it a lot of people didn't even know it existed. I have never used the concept and never will as I do write clear volume descriptions but the concept has always annoyed me cause I see it attached to way too many pages and sometimes ones that aren't really TPB's like hardcovers, extra thick one shots and graphic novels. If the concept was to be used it should be made more broad and just be Collected Editions to cover trades and hardcovers. Also we do define usage for a lot of concepts but they tend to be unwritten rules or a note is included on the concepts page. What we have been pushing for for a number of years though is a new wiki page type that would be used for collected editions so comics would be under volumes and collected editions under this other page type that way they are clearly separated but so far its still on the wish list.

For a collected edition that collects issues from more than one volume, I can see it having its own page. For something like Invincible though, I think the Invincible volume should have a tab for "TPB," right there next to "Issue Number Desc" and "Issue Number Asc," so that those trades are right there with that volume, instead of sixteen different links for each TPB.

There could still be a search option, so if you look up "Invincible: Happy Days," it redirects to the Invincible volume. It would also eliminate the need to list the TPB's in the volume description.

@cbishop: lot more work to create.

@pikahyper said:

@cbishop: lot more work to create.

Would sure be more organized though. At any rate, I didn't mean to derail the thread. Thanks for answering my question.

This is a question about the "day" in the release date. Here's the indicia for Hawkeye #5-6:

• Indicia of #5 is "HAWKEYE No. 5, February 2013" ... originally released on Dec. 5
• Indicia of #6 is "HAWKEYE No. 6, February 2013" ... originally released on Dec. 19

@DonFelipe: It's done because otherwise the issues present themselves out of order in months when they double-ship. if they both have the 1st of feb as their date they interchange positions because the site has no way of knowing which one comes first. People do that to avoid it... it can get real bad with books when they regularly ship more than once a month... you can have the order like 15, 13, 16, 12, 14

@DonFelipe: Normally only month and year are used here based on the indicia date but for collected editions, magazines, manga and comics that ship more then once a month it is acceptable to add the day partly to keep things in order but mostly just to be more accurate, this can lead to some confusing dates though since Marvel (2m), DC (2m), Archie (1m) and Bluewater (-6-+2m) postdate their comics, in the instance of multiple issues per month it is common practice to use the street release day since there is no indicia day, it would make more sense to use the equivalent day of the month in the indicia date but that just makes it confusing to add in the first place. In the future hopefully we will get a second date area so we can have a full street release date and indicia date.

After spending the last few hours on the Marvel Zombies concept that had little info on it, and it made me question why a story arc is created for things that IMO should be a concept in the first place. The example would be Marvel Zombies and a few others (other arcs feel bloated and would probably be better as a concept ie; Civil War). IMO a story arc is just that a single arc, and if I use the Marvel Zombies as an example it contains several story arcs. If the page is created more to give readers a reading order, couldn't this simple be done on a concept page? I didn't want to break the Marvel Zombies into each individual arc so Days Dead, Evil Evolution, Crossover, Frightful, Marvel Zombies, 2, 3, 4, 5, MZ Return, MZ Supreme, MZ Destroy, if the way it is currently setup is considered normal. I know a lot of current arcs are setup based on the Trades once they come out, in which case the Zomnibus is released and would be used for reference (missing Destroy since it was recently released as HC and as TPB in March).