Revised Policy: Comic Book Naming Conventions [closed to feedback]

[Jaclyn, Librarian Program Manager]

Hi Librarians

Goodreads aims to have a comprehensive catalog of published works which are useful to the members who use it. After noting discussions in this Group, we’re looking into our current comic book naming conventions.

Currently Comic books are listed according to our standard naming convention Title (Series #1). However, standard naming conventions for comic books list these titles as: Series, Vol#: Subtitle. In our original Librarian Manual article on ‘the title field’, we indicate that an exception exists in series allocation when “the series name is the primary or only title”. This could be considered the case with comic books.

Implementing this change would mean that comic books naming would change in the following way:

Old naming convention: Title (Series #1)
Example: Gone to Texas (Preacher, #1)

New naming convention: Series, Vol #: Subtitle
Example: Preacher, Volume 1: Gone to Texas (Preacher)
[Note: In this case the series name appears at the end of the title in parentheses as the comic is part of a series].

Another note: Since the series name and number/volume is listed as the primary name for the record, it should not be repeated in the title field as series information. In addition, the series page should NOT be numbered and only ordered according to the volume number.

We appreciate all the hard work our Librarians put into maintaining the Goodreads catalog, and so we’d value your feedback on this change before 23 January 2023, at which time we will close this thread. If there are no major concerns, we will add a new Librarian Manual article and update existing resources, and communicate the change to this Group.

[Arenda]

'Comic' might be an obvious term for many people, but it depends on the tradition one is familiar with.

Comics are largely divided into three origins:
1.1 English-language comics
1.2 Franco-Belgian and European comics
1.3 Japanese comics
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics)

Does the proposed change include all these comics?
From what I've encountered, this post is about the English-language comics.

My concern is the Franco-Belgian comics, often called Bandes dessinées
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bande_d...)

A couple of very famous examples of these:
Tintin au pays des soviets
Astérix le Gaulois
La Mine d'or de Dick Digger

These are identified with the album title (album: a book-like format, can be hardcover or softcover, larger than regular books).

I don't think these should fall under this comic book naming conventions. And if that's agreed, maybe they should be mentioned as an exception?

(I can't say anything about the naming conventions for Manga/Japanese comics)

[Scott]

I am happy with the way things are. I think the other option is clunky looking and difficult to "read."

[annob [on hiatus]]

I welcome a policy decision on this topic. Personally I'm a fan of having one main standard with as few exceptions as possible.

How would a boxset (I believe comic readers call them Volumes) be distinguished from a single issue when it comes to numbering? Some librarians name both #1, in the example below #1 contain #1-3 of the other series. I find this highly confusing. I like how clear Goodreads have been about boxset content up to now.

Example where the single issues has been given their own series page, which isn't in line with current series page policy*:
https://www.goodreads.com/series/2131...
https://www.goodreads.com/series/3584...

*) "Box sets are added as non-primary series elements, not set up with a separate series."
Source: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

I add the above so that we can iron out the consequenses of the proposed change, not to point finger at anyones edits.

[Arenda]

annob wrote: "How would a boxset (I believe comic readers call them Volumes) be distinguished from a single issue when it comes to numbering? Some librarians name both #1, in the example below #1 contain #1-3 of the other series. I find this highly confusing. I like how clear Goodreads have been about boxset content up to now."

Following on (I think it's the same issue, but with different words):
From the proposed change "New naming convention: Series, Vol #: Subtitle", how are we going to distinguish
Fence #1, Issue 1
from
Fence, Vol. 1, Volume 1, containing Issue 1-3

There is only one example, mentioning "Vol". Is "Vol" meant to represent the number? What number, Issue or Volume? If they are both #1, how can they be distinguished? Especially when there is no numbering allowed on the series page.

[lethe]

Arenda wrote: "Especially when there is no numbering allowed on the series page."

Yes, I don't see why this new rule is proposed. I can understand not using the number in the parentheses part of the title field, but not using the number on the series page will cause a lot of confusion in my opinion, especially with the difference in volume numbers and issue numbers. It would make sorting more complicated.

[Tiag⊗]

I thank the staff for this update, as a librarian who spends a lot of time working on the comic book section, I'm glad that we're finally reaching a consensus, and setting up a standard for these titles, this will make things a lot easier for future librarians. I think this change should also be added in the Librarian Manual, with updated examples, including books from Marvel/DC who make up the vast amount of the comic book catalogue, for future reference.

One thing I don't agree with, or do not understand the reason for it, is the need to remove the book number from the series page, I find that unnecessary.


@annob @Arenda: The way we've been distinguishing them on this website is to create two separate series, one where the primary books are the so called "Single Issues", and another one where the primary books are the so called "Collected Editions", and the Collected Editions should always be the book's primary series, followed by the singles, here's an example:

https://www.goodreads.com/series/214972 as you can see in the description, I've made it perfectly clear, with quick-links to facilitate access. I've been implementing this with other librarians, and I think this is the best solution, and it should also be listed in the Librarian Manual, the creation of these two separate series.

Now, the way you distinguish "Collected Editions" from the "Single Issues", is quite easy, just do it like the comic book publishers, single issues are always titled as "Series Title #Number" (sometimes "Series Title (Date) #Number"), while collected editions are titled as "Series Title, Volume Number: Book Title", and there's also the one-shots which are always titled with a 1, as in "Book Title #1"

It is the same method used by Amazon, comixology, US Companies like Marvel/DC/Image/DH, etc, and while it's true that european publishers follow a different method, I think the rule should be applied to for every formats, including Manga.

[Tiag⊗]

I need a clarification, does the series title need to be added in parenthesis every time, to every book, on every editions, as in, for example,

Moon Knight, Vol. 1: The Midnight Mission (Moon Knight)
Moon Knight, Tome 1: The Midnight Mission (Moon Knight)
Moon Knight, Band 1: The Midnight Mission (Moon Knight)
and so on...

And what about larger editions, for example, in this case, there's a book that collects all three volumes, what's the correct option,

A: Moon Knight by Lemire & Smallwood (Moon Knight, #1-3)
B: Moon Knight by Lemire & Smallwood (Moon Knight)
C: Moon Knight by Lemire & Smallwood
D: Moon Knight (Moon Knight, #1-3)

Since we're talking about an omnibus, D is the correct answer, right, we still apply numbers to larger volumes? Because there's a lot of 2-in-1 editions, and so on.

https://www.goodreads.com/series/214972 is the series being used as example.

[lethe]

Tiag⊗ wrote: "Moon Knight, Vol. 1: The Midnight Mission (Moon Knight)
Moon Knight, Tome 1: The Midnight Mission (Moon Knight)
Moon Knight, Band 1: The Midnight Mission (Moon Knight)"

Just for my comprehension, are the books themselves in different languages and have they just retained the English title, or are they all English editions? If the latter, Tome and Band should be replaced by Vol.

[Tiag⊗]

lethe wrote: "Just for my comprehension, are the books themselves in different languages and have they just retained the English title, or are they all English editions? If the latter, Tome and Band should be replaced by Vol."

Yes, most books published by american publishers have editions with different languages, and sometimes they even differ in volume number, but contain the same content. You can see all the editions here: https://www.goodreads.com/work/editio...

[lethe]

Thanks :)

[Tiag⊗]

Also, Marvel and DC both like to add dates to differentiate their series, and it would be great to add this on the new rule, as in,

"Moon Knight, Vol. 1: The Midnight Mission (Moon Knight (2016))"

But the problem is in the coding, because you can't use two parenthesis, but it would be great if you guys implemented that change.

[Scott]

Tiag⊗ wrote: "Also, Marvel and DC both like to add dates to differentiate their series, and it would be great to add this on the new rule, as in,

"Moon Knight, Vol. 1: The Midnight Mission (Moon Knight (2016))"..."

I am not a fan of this at all (putting the series again and the year in parentheses). The series title is already there and the volume title distinguishes it from other series of the character.

[Michele]

I'd prefer to stick with the old (i.e. current) naming convention. For one thing, that way we only have one convention to remember. For another, the new/proposed method would potentially result in a LOT more duplication of verbage within the title. The old (i.e. current) method yields a title that's much easier to "parse" (comprehend) when scanning it.

So I would vote for this format: Gone to Texas (Preacher, #1)

[Dana]

Jaclyn wrote: "In our original Librarian Manual article on ‘the title field’, we indicate that an exception exists in series allocation when “the series name is the primary or only title”. This could be considered the case with comic books."

Exactly. For most comic books, the series title is the primary title of the work; some don't even use subtitles (e.g., Saga, Volume 1).

I don't even remember the subtitles of the comic books I've read (except for Locke & Key cause I've read that like 20 times), so it seems wild to me to use the subtitle as the title of the volume.

Also, a lot of comic books have been added in the "Series, Vol. #: Subtitle" format anyway (e.g., Wayward, Vol. 1: String Theory, The Wicked + The Divine, Vol. 1: The Faust Act, Locke & Key, Volume 1: Welcome to Lovecraft), I'm guessing precisely because it feels much more natural (it does to me, at least).

I think the exception not only could, but should be considered for comic books. Definitely in huge huge favor of this change!

[Scott]

On a similar note, I don't like the practice of putting the author's name in the title. (This is usually an issue with omnibus editions.) Even if the indicia (front publication page) reads that way, it's silly to have "Fantastic Four by John Byrne Omnibus by John Byrne." Just as with any other books that share a title, it is the author field that differentiates them.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Jaclyn wrote: "Currently Comic books are listed according to our standard naming convention Title (Series #1). However, standard naming conventions for comic books list these titles as: Series, Vol#: Subtitle. "

I see lots of graphic novels (I assume these are included in the proposal) not following the above naming conventions. The "current" naming convention isn't being implemented.

Die, Vol. 1: Fantasy Heartbreaker
Bitter Root, Vol. 1: Family Business
To Drink and to Eat Vol. 1: Tastes and Tales from a French Kitchen
Chew, Vol. 1: Taster's Choice
Harrow County, Vol. 1: Countless Haints

and many many more.

Is this proposal just attempting to codify what is actually being done anyway?

[Jaclyn, Librarian Program Manager]

Thanks for all the feedback thus far. We're monitoring this thread and will collate and consider your responses and examples over the next week.

[TK]

The vast majority of books I read and catalogue on Goodreads are comics and graphic novel collections. Hopefully this little interjection is helpful.

The biggest challenge I have is finding the correct series when a series has been rebooted multiple times. The inclusion of the year is really helpful when I'm searching for the correct series. (Examples would be Uncanny X-Men 1963 - 2011 and then that series being reboot again later that year as Uncanny X-Men 2011. Similar is X-Men in 1991, 2004, and 2010)

Also the distinction between Single Issues & Collection Editions is super helpful.

For examples this organization for X-Men (2010) is really easy to navigate:
https://www.goodreads.com/series/236056
https://www.goodreads.com/series/1006...

This combination of single issues and collections for Uncanny X-Men (1963 - 2011) is not easy to navigate:
https://www.goodreads.com/series/1429...

Thanks!

[Tiag⊗]

TK wrote: "This combination of single issues and collections for Uncanny X-Men (1963 - 2011) is not easy to navigate"

When it comes to those first big Marvel/DC series, it's best to leave the singles issues as the primary series, because those runs are comprised of hundreds of singles, and there's a ton of different editions that partially collects that said run, and it's near impossible to catalogue, that's why it's harder to navigate, but all those editions have their own series, like https://www.goodreads.com/series/209226 and https://www.goodreads.com/series/160546

Now, the modern series have all been split between two serieses, the collected editions and the single issues, that's the way to go, and it should be highlighted in the Librarian Manual. I've created this template for the collected editions description that works very well.

"Collected editions of the ongoing comic series written by AUTHORNAME, originally published in single magazine form in Series Title #1-? by PUBLISHERNAME", add synopsis. It was published from DATE to DATE."

[David]

I'm more focused on editing single-issue comics, but I probably also edited thousands of these while cleaning up.

I support the suggested change, except I (like some before me mentioned) do not understand why the series should not be numbered. That's throwing the baby with the bath water. I don't see the harm in being clear:

Preacher, Volume 1: Gone to Texas (Preacher #1)

This allows for adding omnibus editions and hardcovers (collecting two TPBs) to the same series, which is also helpful.

[Mike]

I welcome the proposed change for a number of reasons:
(1) External Consistency part 1: I've never seen comics listed on any other online catalogue (retailers & retail solicitations, comic book review sites, public libraries, other meta catalogues) with "subtitle (series)" format - I find the "series, vol#: subtitle" approach (or slight variations) on major sites like amazon, comixology, hoopla, edelweiss, barnesandnoble, midtown, biblio, books a million, comic book herald, and at my public library:
https://www.amazon.com/Moon-Knight-Vo...
https://www.hoopladigital.com/title/1...
https://www.edelweiss.plus/#keywordSe...
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/moon...
https://www.midtowncomics.com/product...
https://www.biblio.com/book/moon-knig...
https://www.booksamillion.com/p/Moon-...
https://www.comicbookherald.com/moon-...
https://multcolib.bibliocommons.com/v...
https://www.bklynlibrary.org/item?b=1...
https://bleedingcool.com/comics/marve...

(2) External Consistency part 2: it only makes it harder for comics readers and newbies alike to find a collection (trade paperback listing, which is the primary review target for most comics I've seen) when it's listed with a different format than they find it where they bought it, how it's labelled by the publisher, or at their public library

(3) Discoverability: the "series, vol#: subtitle" format is indexed better on Goodreads to immediately present the most important distinguishing information in all the widgets and layouts used by Goodreads - try searching from desktop or mobile for "King in Black" for books formatted with the "subtitle (series)" format and decide how easy it is for people looking for Spider-woman’s King in Black title to know which one they’re after vs the "series, vol#: subtitle" format - why force users to click through to each listing if we can present the widely-used title immediately? That’s not friendly UX in my opinion (and not to brag but to contextualize, I’ve worked on search engines and discoverability for big data catalogues for many years)

(4) Recognition: I’ve been reading comics for two decades as an adult, and even then I am almost certain not to know the subtitle for books I’ve read as recently as last month. (I can only imagine what it’s like for folks who are just getting their toes wet in comics.) When I started received “someone has liked your review” notifications from Goodreads for books that followed the “subtitle (series)” convention, all I’d see is “bob liked your review of King in Black” with no indication of which of the many volumes in that comic event it was referencing. I understand that there are reasons to invite users to click through to the site, but compared to the notifications that I get for 90% of my comics read that include “series, vol#: subtitle” it’s a noticeable step backwards in honouring the “favour recognition not recall” principle of information design

[Kadi]

This is a situation that I feel has been unnecessarily overcomplicated by several months of mindless and confusing title changes to comics to the point they’re practically unsearchable.

Why we’ve ever strayed from basic and well-established comic naming conventions has baffled me! It’s nice to be having an open discussion about it now and hopefully it doesn’t end with the thread being shut down prematurely like last time.

In my opinion, and the vast majority of the comic reading community agree, comic volumes should be titled as so:
Comic name, volume number: subtitle (series name: series number)
Example:
Batman, Vol. 1: I Am Gotham (Batman 2016: #1)
Series names are of course optional, although most comic series have series pages so their inclusion is a given

[Jayson]

I am entirely in support of this change to the Series, Volume #: Subtitle convention, as I believe the vast majority of comic book readers on this site are.

My preference would be to get rid of the parentheses after the title altogether because it would be redundant as the series name is already the primary title. Though, I'd be okay with just the series name in parentheses, with the series year if applicable. What is more important to remove is the order number in the parentheses, since by convention the number sign always has been associated with single issues, and it would certainly cause undue confusion if included in the title of a collected series volume.

As well, I would echo concerns about the numbering being removed from series pages, since a series can have multiple "Volume 1"s if relaunched while keeping the existing single issue numbering. For example, a new Volume 1 may be the tenth book in a series, while still being a proper and essential book in the sequence.

I have always been a staunch advocate of precisely this change in titling. Apologies if you're heard this from me before, but for this purpose it's worth reiterating. Comic books of the sort we're talking about, series issues published in volumes, are not original graphic novels. In other words, they are not written with the intention to be self-contained stories, but rather are excised portions of continuing series that are sold off in bite-sized chunks as books. Therefore, the subtitle is not nearly as crucial as the volume number, which comic book readers depend on to identify proper placement in the overall sequence. In fact, subtitles are entirely optional, which is why many series don't use them. If the purpose of hiding the series name and volume number, in favor of the optional subtitle, was meant for greater clarity, it achieves precisely the opposite.

Finally, it would be a relief to all librarians here that we wouldn't have to bear the gargantuan and needless undertaking of renaming every comic volume on the site. The fact is, unless you can affect the way Goodreads automatically imports titles into the database, this would be a forever headache. Publishers will, in nearly all cases, name their comics according to standard convention: series title, followed by volume number and/or subtitle. Trying to change every comic book with a volume number and subtitle, as they come in, is practically impossible. Not to mention the tens of thousands, that already exist in the database. It is a headache that can be avoided by just accepting that comic book naming convention is what it is.

[Kadi]

In response to Arenda’s first comment, Japanese manga follow the same naming conventions as comics and should also be titled in the same way.
Manga name, volume number: subtitle (series name: series number)

This is less of a contentious issue though because most manga don’t have subtitles so they just look like:
Manga name, volume number (series name: series number)
For example:
Attack on Titan, Vol. 1 (Attack on Titan: #1)

This same format should be used for manga translated into all languages so regardless of the language they all follow the same format and are therefore easy to comprehend and find.

[Chad]

I welcome a return to the previous format for naming graphic novels (Series Name, Volume: Subtitle). I've been reading comics since the 80's and this is how collections in comics have always been named and how every other site on the internet lists graphic novels. The changes made in the last year have made comics almost unsearchable on Goodreads.

I do think adding the year for the series in parenthesis is important because Marvel and DC reboot their series numbering all the time. Marvel sometimes does it every year so you'll have four or five volume ones because they think they sell better (and probably do). This was also the previous policy before the more recent changes. I think the changes created a huge problem that didn't previously exist.

I do think that any changes should be entered into the librarian manual so that policy going forward can remain consistent.

[Tiag⊗]

Regarding the discussion, I have a great example on why both the series and the book title's parenthesis should always have the numbering included, take the new line of X-Men books, let's use Marauders as an example:

https://www.goodreads.com/series/269120

As you can see, both the trade paperback editions and the 2-in-1 hardcover editions have the same title, "Marauders, Vol. 1", and so on, and the only way you can distinguish those editions from each other, is by having the numbering either/both on the series page, or the parenthesis section, as such,

Marauders, Vol. 1 (Marauders, #1)
Marauders, Vol. 1 (Marauders, #1-2)

Another way you could do it, is taking out of the series' numbering, BUT, include the single issues count on the parenthesis, and assume single issues as primary, as such,

Marauders, Vol. 1 (Marauders, #1-6)
Marauders, Vol. 1 (Marauders, #1-12)

but in this case, GR would need to propose that single issues are the primary books when it comes to US comics, and in truth, regarding their own publishers, they are, but I'm very much accustomed to the method of using both the single issues and the collected editions in their own separate serieses, and I believe you should keep it that way.

[Tiag⊗]

Another issue that will come around when you remove the numbering from the collected edition's series, is that you might make the inclusion of the related tie-ins a bit confusing. I know GR is already addressing that issue, by adding a checkbox that marks books as primary or not, but still, and I'm thinking of proposing this in the future, I believe the GR programmers should make a design change that would turn non-primary books smaller, or add another visual reference that will turn them distinguishable from the primary books.

Take Donny's Venom series as example: https://www.goodreads.com/series/232947

This series contains multiple necessary tie-ins books that are part of the series, BUT are not numbered as part of the series, and when you remove the numbering from the serieses, it will only add confusion, if we're removing numbering from there, I would propose a design change to make the non-primary books a little smaller, or with a different colored box around it.

I'll give you an even more extreme example, take Jason Aaron's Avengers: https://www.goodreads.com/series/232513

Just like the Venom's series, Aaron's run includes several necessary tie-ins, including two separate spin-offs that are not titled the same way, but are equally necessary to read, to the point that in the twelfth volume of the Avengers, the book is both Volume 12 of the Avengers series, AND Volume 3 of the Avengers Forever series.

I've photoshoped an example of the design change I'm proposing, you can see it here: https://i.ibb.co/L1kqhrF/GR1.jpg

[Tawfek]

i will not say much and make the same arguments my fellow comic readers have made, i vote for Series, Vol#: Subtitle, thanks for putting this up for discussion and consideration again.

[Arenda]

Jayson wrote: "Comic books of the sort we're talking about, series issues published in volumes, are not original graphic novels. In other words, they are not written with the intention to be self-contained stories, but rather are excised portions of continuing series that are sold off in bite-sized chunks as books. Therefore, the subtitle is not nearly as crucial as the volume number, "

This underlines my point about the Franco-Belgian comics (Bandes dessinées) being different from other comics, as each is a self contained story, and that story is identified by the (sub)title. I wouldn't even call it a subtitle, but just the title.

[lethe]

Arenda wrote: "This underlines my point about the Franco-Belgian comics (Bandes dessinées) being different from other comics, as each is a self contained story, and that story is identified by the (sub)title. I wouldn't even call it a subtitle, but just the title."

Agreed. The volumes in series like Asterix, Lucky Luke, Tintin, Suske en Wiske, etc. etc., can all be read as stand-alones, and the volume title is the most important.

[Titus]

I want to add my voice to the chorus of people highlighting that the proposed change makes no sense regarding many of the world's most popular comic series (e.g. Asterix, Tintin, Lucky Luke, Spirou). These series are made so that the volumes can be read in any order, and they're not usually printed with volume numbers, so even keen fans don't necessarily know (or care about) their release order.

The proposed change definitely makes sense for most manga and US superhero comics, but it absolutely shouldn't be applied to all comics indiscriminately. I think it's fair to say that all the comments expressing strong enthusiasm for the change should be understood as speaking about its suitability for a specific sub-set of comics, not for the whole medium.

[Kadi]

This is a great point to highlight Serdnito!
One thing to mention right off the bat is that the 1st option at the top is correct and 3rd option at the bottom is completely wrong. Transliterations should NOT be used as the only title for Japanese language mangas. Transliterations can be included in square brackets but title names should always always alwaaaays follow the cover name and be written in the language of the edition. This goes for comics in other languages too.

The transliteration addition is something I’ve only seen for Japanese manga (and Chinese manhua and Korean manhwa) actually. It seems no one translates and adds titles in square brackets for non-English comics as far as I’ve seen. Anyway when the title is fully Japanese then I can see a need to add the transliteration but NOT the translation. This is not a confusing addition as manga readers often know the transliterated name of the manga anyway and it’s not redundant as non-Japanese readers can’t read kanji.

As for the series name in relation to the series page, I used to think the series name should be in English even though manga’s primary language is Japanese. However after discussions with another librarian I’ve come to understand that the series name should be in Japanese with the transliteration added in square brackets. Then on the series page a note can be added to show all the different language names for the series. I’ve seen this notes on the series page thing being done for comics that are published internationally in different languages too.

HOWEVER, saying all that, following on from the way the title should be in the language of the edition, the series name IN the title should also be in the language of the edition.
For example:
Attack on Titan, Vol. 1 (Attack on Titan #1)
進撃の巨人 1 [Shingeki no Kyojin 1] (進撃の巨人 1 [Shingeki no Kyojin] #1)

I know that some might argue that having the series name in the title is redundant as it’s basically repeating the first part of the title BUT for me I’ve always found that the series names and numbers in brackets show that a series page has been created and that the edition belongs to a series. Without a series name in the title I would assume that the manga was a one shot that was incorrectly labelled vol 1. Or that it was a series that didn’t continue past the first vol.

[Alexander]

Titus wrote: "I want to add my voice to the chorus of people highlighting that the proposed change makes no sense regarding many of the world's most popular comic series (e.g. Asterix, Tintin, Lucky Luke, Spirou). These series are made so that the volumes can be read in any order, and they're not usually printed with volume numbers, so even keen fans don't necessarily know (or care about) their release order."

I grew up reading bandes dessinées (albeit in Dutch), and saying that order and numbering don't matter there, is a generalisation that is only partly true. I would say that even in your examples, Tintin and Spirou both benefit from reading in order, and there are many more examples of series where reading order matters. I certainly paid attention to the reading order and thus the numbering of bandes dessinées, and still do (probably even more now as an adult).

More recent bandes dessinées series are much more serialised (look at most of the bandes dessinées that Europe Comics publishes in English translation for examples).

[The Wintermute System]

Yes, please, I rarely keep track of the title for the exact book: Moon Knight volume 2: Dead will Rise was a book I was looking for, but I could remember it was Moon Knight volume 2, not the exact title, so I had to get up, look at the book and find it.

Having Moon Knight volume 2 will honestly make it so, so much easier to find. Thanks.

[The Wintermute System]

Alexander wrote: "Titus wrote: "I want to add my voice to the chorus of people highlighting that the proposed change makes no sense regarding many of the world's most popular comic series (e.g. Asterix, Tintin, Luck..."

The only comics I had as a child were in French like Tintin and Asterix and Lucky Luke. I got into English comics way later, but still hold a spot in my heart for reading them in French. My mom's French, I was born in America, so I was learning to speak and read French and English at the same growing up.

I love BDs.

[Juho]

I read a lot of European comics from very early childhood. I remember my father (who worked at a library at the time) bringing me an Asterix once when I was sick. They published them in a different order than the originals, at least at first, but I still feel that it'd be generally tidier and more helpful to continue to number them.

Removing the numbers out of the titles feels to me like removing some of the traffic signs: you'll just make a big mess.

[Charles]

So which is it of these two do you prefer:

"Old naming convention: Title (Series #1)
Example: Gone to Texas (Preacher, #1)

New naming convention: Series, Vol #: Subtitle
Example: Preacher, Volume 1: Gone to Texas (Preacher)"

I think, to be clear, one should point out that these "sub-titles" are in fact story arcs and not necessarily "sub-ttes." That is, effect, depending on the contest, is an incorect use of the word, unless, perhaps we are speaking in terms of grahic novels.

Except to say, if it isn't a graphic novel, then using the "new" naming, I would point out--that they left out the numbering of the issue.

Most grahic novels, let's take the Sandman series for exaple, are simply story arcs. But when numbering the comic in a general sense, the comic shold be listed title Vol, numbering and frankly, there is no need for a "sub-title. In fact, it would be confusing.
Graphic novels would be listed as title then sub-tile. and probably vol number. but not necessarily a numbering, right?

[Titus]

Alexander wrote: "I grew up reading bandes dessinées (albeit in Dutch), and saying that order and numbering don't matter there, is a generalisation that is only partly true. I would say that even in your examples, Tintin and Spirou both benefit from reading in order, and there are many more examples of series where reading order matters."

I didn't say that no Franco-Belgian comics have fixed chronology. In fact, I didn't mention the geographical/cultural origin of the comics in question at all. Clearly there are many Franco-Belgian series where the proposed new format would make sense, and I'm sure there are some North American series where each volume is essentially standalone (although none are springing to mind).

Juho wrote: "I read a lot of European comics from very early childhood. I remember my father (who worked at a library at the time) bringing me an Asterix once when I was sick. They published them in a different order than the originals, at least at first, but I still feel that it'd be generally tidier and more helpful to continue to number them. Removing the numbers out of the titles feels to me like removing some of the traffic signs: you'll just make a big mess."

I'm just suggesting maintaining the current system for series like Asterix and Tintin, which already includes the number. For example:

Tintin in the Land of the Soviets (Tintin #1)

What I'm opposing is the proposed new system, which would render the same album as:

Tintin, Volume 1: Tintin in the Land of the Soviets (Tintin)

The logic that makes the proposed new system make sense for The Sandman doesn't have any more relevance to Tintin than it does to any series of prose novels. "Tintin in the Land of the Soviets" isn't a subtitle, it's the full title by which that album is universally known.

[The Wintermute System]

Charles wrote: "So which is it of these two do you prefer:

"Old naming convention: Title (Series #1)
Example: Gone to Texas (Preacher, #1)

New naming convention: Series, Vol #: Subtitle
Example: Preacher, Volume..."

I prefer the one that doesn't have preacher in the parentheses. Moon Knight Volume 2: Dead Will Rise makes more sense to me: it's how it's presented on graphic novel covers where the series title is usually bigger/more prominent than the title of the arc AND it's the way it's presented on Amazon, which quite frankly makes sense to me on a 'we're owned by Amazon now' level. Like why present it differently; I'd remember what I saw on GR, and if I was looking for it on Amazon if I'd forgotten to mark it down in some way, I'd be looking for the same as what I saw on GR.

It's always confused me that GR went out of it's way to make it DIFFERENT than their parent company, which I always thought would lose them sales in the long run.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Grimlock wrote: "It's always confused me that GR went out of it's way to make it DIFFERENT than their parent company, which I always thought would lose them sales in the long run.
"

Because originally Goodreads was its own company and not owned by Amazon. Originally, it was intended to be a catalog, not geared toward sales by any company. Originally, it was a way for readers to connect with other readers.

It remains true to this original identity, with the added advantage of allowing readers to connect to their favorite sales site whether or not that is Amazon.

[The Wintermute System]

Titus wrote: "Alexander wrote: "I grew up reading bandes dessinées (albeit in Dutch), and saying that order and numbering don't matter there, is a generalisation that is only partly true. I would say that even i..."

It makes sense for that, it doesn't, imo, make sense for American Graphic Novels for the most part. Which is going to get complicated really quickly.

Amazon doesn't even use numbers for Tintin that I can see: just the full title.

Again, I think mirroring Amazon - at least for the most part - would be logical. Tintin: *insert subtitle* is what's used on Amazon and what I think should be used here. Amazon doesn't do the series by numbers, whether or not GR wants to is up to them, but I think the title itself should mirror Amazon which would end up being Tintin: *insert subtitle* (volume number if they choose to add it).

I still think American graphic novels should be, say, Moon Knight Volume 2: Dead Will Rise. (Okay, I have that volume on the brain.)

It would differentiate American graphic novels from BDs, but ime they're different, but arguably related, animals: the monthlies in paper vs the usual hardcovers version of BDs, the art and even storytelling styles tend to be somewhat different. I can't imagine American publishers doing L'Incal or Metabaron (not the big mainstream ones) nor the French publishers - whom I'm most familiar with - doing the usual Marvel/DC fare. Treating them differently seems logical as they are named differently as they are in fact different from each other in some senses.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Grimlock wrote: "Again, I think mirroring Amazon - at least for the most part - would be logical. "

We don't mirror Amazon about much of anything on Goodreads.

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

I don't have much of an opinion about this issue, except to say that if changes are made, librarians who are comic specialists might also want to keep an eye on other folders in the LG. I do a lot of page counts & I usually skip over comics/manga/light novels as the titles look wrong to me & I routinely fix up other issues on the listings while I'm correcting the page counts.

[Titus]

Grimlock wrote: "Titus wrote: "Alexander wrote: "I grew up reading bandes dessinées (albeit in Dutch), and saying that order and numbering don't matter there, is a generalisation that is only partly true. I would s..."

I agree that it makes sense to treat them differently, though I don't think the distinction should be based on region/language of origin. As another user highlighted above, there are many Franco-Belgian series where the proposed new system would make sense. To me, the most logical thing would be to follow the practice of the books' covers, or in other words, to implement the existing rule, where an exception is made when "the series name is the primary or only title".

[The Wintermute System]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Grimlock wrote: "It's always confused me that GR went out of it's way to make it DIFFERENT than their parent company, which I always thought would lose them sales in the long run.
"

Because origin..."

From what I recall, the changes happened /after/ Amazon bought GR, confusing a lot of graphic novel readers and again losing sales.

[The Wintermute System]

Titus wrote: "Grimlock wrote: "Titus wrote: "Alexander wrote: "I grew up reading bandes dessinées (albeit in Dutch), and saying that order and numbering don't matter there, is a generalisation that is only partl..."

This, too. Honestly, as long as I can find the titles on GR, I'd be content. I can now, but the whole 'title of the series will not be in' drove me crazy. At least have Moon Knight searchable in the title somewhere, I beg of you.

Some internal logic would be nice, but...

[The Wintermute System]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Grimlock wrote: "Again, I think mirroring Amazon - at least for the most part - would be logical. "

We don't mirror Amazon about much of anything on Goodreads."

To be honest, I trust Amazon very little after they stripped Comixology of it's own website, which was much easier to use, so I always assumed if there was a bad decision at GR - like the stripping Moon Knight as searchable for Moon Knight titles - that it was Amazon not really caring about comic book/graphic novel readers again.

[Chad]

Grimlock wrote: "To be honest, I trust Amazon very little after they stripped Comixology of it's own website, which was much easier to use, so I always assumed if there was a bad decision at GR - like the stripping Moon Knight as searchable for Moon Knight titles - that it was Amazon not really caring about comic book/graphic novel readers again."

That seems to be very much the case especially since they are laying off everyone in the Comixology division as part of their announced 18,000+ layoff.

https://bleedingfool.com/news/massive...

[Renske]

As long as there is the option to choose which format fits a certain series best. If comics that fits the standard series format fine would have to switch, that would be very strange.