Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Policies & Practices
>
Sorting Comic TPB's
date
newest »
newest »
Elias wrote: "So for series', should we be putting the year in the title and sort title, just the sort title or what?"Neither. There are specific rules of how to title the books and what is the format for the series.
Elias wrote: "So far I've been leaving it off but I've noticed it with the kindle editions of books and it seems like a good idea,"
I would be curious to see what series (other than comics) have been imported with the year in the title, so if you have a link please post it.
Saying that I personally do not have enough knowledge regarding comics so I do not remove the year from these titles. However not removing it from comics does not mean it will/should be adopted for all other books. I personally am against this format (except for comics)
Typically, in comic databases, the comic would be referenced by year, or use a volume number (as per the publication info in the comic itself), to help clarify the confusion caused by reusing titles. This way, you could have Batman (1940) or Batman (Vol. 1) to distinguish it from the current run (which would be Batman (2016) or (volume whatever it is, I've lost count! 😀).But for books, which is how collections/TPBs are classed, and should be treated the same as any other book on this site, I don't see the need, as they all have their own title e.g. Volume 2 of Batman is Batman: I Am Suicide, so there's no confusion with existing volumes that requires a date to distinguish it.
If it's a question of helping identify connected volumes, would it make more sense to create a series (which wouldn't work with many comics since they are generally not collected in publication order, or even all reprinted, so numbers can be almost impossible for the bigger names like Batman, Superman, X-Men etc. Ironic when you consider the individual issues are the very definition of a series...)? It would be simpler, and more consistent with titling rules to file them as Rebirth titles, perhaps. So the 2nd Batman volume could be (Batman Rebirth, #2), thus bringing the collections together as a series and easier to identify/avoid confusion with other volume 2s of Batman?
This probably won't work for other scenarios where publishers insist on restarting series all over again and again, but should work for the current DC runs, at least....
Use whatever works. I used the year:https://www.goodreads.com/series/204106
And I used volumes if they exist:
https://www.goodreads.com/series/98979
https://www.goodreads.com/series/205627
https://www.goodreads.com/series/205629
Whatever fits the situation
Those examples are single issues (which wouldn't be classed as books on goodreads in paper form, according to the rules) not TPBs. Single issues need that sort of distinction, which is why comic databases use them, and it makes sense to use that approach on GR for these since Kindle single issues are allowed due to a quirk of the rules.It doesn't seem necessary for items that can be properly classed as books (TPBs, hardcover collections, etc.) since they are individually titled and able to follow the general librarian rules for books (for the most part- there's still plenty of ways that comics publishers can confuse things!).
I agree.I'm partial to adding TPBs to the individual issues series as they simply collect them. But like you said, I rarely need to use the years on the TPBs, as they usually have a clear name or one can be added simply. My main point was that there aren't strict rules and one should use common sense and whatever fits the situation.
I'm inclined to largely agree with y'all: For the TPB's, use the actual volume name if it has one and the normal GR name (series #) nomenclature, and disambiguation is a non-issue. For single issues (assuming they're valid entries on GR at all), I'm more inclined to use the year where it makes things clearer, but not when it's unnecessary.
It's worth remembering there are two somewhat competing purposes here: accurate data AND usefulness for readers who are cataloguing their reading. (Try figure out what the heck series and in what order all the X-Men #1's belong to, would probably make someone quite insane without some kind of disambiguation. Although they're a poor example, since the TPB's of those are a complete disaster, naming wise.)
I've been rereading the manual to see if there was anything new since this thread started and I noticed that, in thinking of TPBs as books, we'd have to follow the rules as series title as the primary title. I bring this up because the Star Wars Comics (not books) were all being retitled to have their subtitle be the main title (so, for example, "Star Wars, Vol. 1: Skywalker Strikes (Star Wars #1)" becomes "Skywalker Strikes (Star Wars #1)".The problem with this is that people aren't searching, in the comics, for the book Skywalker Strikes, they're looking for Star Wars Volume 1. It gets to your point Krzykiwi. We need accurate data and usefulness to readers and the re-titling I mentioned, I think, fails on both accounts. It isn't reflective of what people are looking for nor is it accurate to the representation of the book on shelves, on amazon, or in practice.
So, I guess my initial question remains, albeit amended: For a TPB of a comic series such as Batman, what's more important, sticking to the nomenclature found on the cover of the TPBs, thereby cluttering up the title feed? Or is it more important for clarity in the title and for clarity within shelves, adding an additional bit of info so that the rebirth titles aren't interfiled on shelves with New 52 titles (for example)?
Or are neither of those good ideas? I wonder what everyone's thoughts are on this.
I'm also purposely avoiding talking about the series function because this is a shelving clarity question. There are ways around this, like having separate shelves for every iteration of the title, but that puts the onus on the shelver instead of the book, when the book is obviously part of a different era.
If only we could sort by series on shelves, that'd be fantastic.
This might be tangential but a problem with the colon format is that when you share to Facebook, it drops everything after the colon. So if I post that I've started reading Batman: The Black Mirror, it will say I am just reading Batman. Or in your example, it would say I am reading Star Wars, Vol. 1 which sounds like I am reading the original Marvel series from the 70s.
That's certainly a problem but I feel like that's more of an issue with the way the share feature works. Sure, people might be confused as to which book you read but if they click the book or look at the photo, they'll know its not, for example, the marvel 70s series.This also means that any two books with the same title will have this problem, such as the two (maybe more) books calledThe Black Hand, where the subtitle is the only distinguishing factor between the two. It's a valid problem but I don't think it's a titling problem.
So for series', should we be putting the year in the title and sort title, just the sort title or what? It'd be nice to have the series' not be interfiled by vol # even though they are part of two different volume continuities. So far I've been leaving it off but I've noticed it with the kindle editions of books and it seems like a good idea, I'm just not sure 1) if there's already a policy saying this doesn't work and 2) what the standard should look like (comma placement and all that).