Series reprinted with different volume count

[Cait]

How does this work as a method for distinguishing between version of the same series which have been reprinted with different volume divisions:

For each volume numbering, I put "x of y", where x is the volume number and y is the total number of volumes. (Obviously, this would only work with complete series where the final count is known.) I'm not suggesting that we do this for all series, but for ones where the only different is the number of volumes, this looks clearer to me than trying to distinguish them in the name of the series -- what do y'all think?

For example this volume 1 says (Parasyte #1 of 8) and this one says (Parasyte #1 of 12).

[This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For]

How common is this likely to be? What do you do where some of the volumes are identical? For example, let's say that it was originally published as a 5 book series and later, the fifth and final volume was split into two and it was renumbered into a six book series. In this case, books 1-4 are both "x of 5" and "x of 6" and certainly should be combined as the same book.

[Dori]

This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "What do you do where some of the volumes are identical? For example, let's say that it was originally published as a 5 book series and later, the fifth and final vo..."

Isn't that what happened with the Obernewtyn Chronicles US and Australian editions? The first four books are the same and have both series listed. So if there was no name differentiation and instead had been labeled in the same way as Parasyte, it would probably look extremely odd. I really hope that made sense...

[Cait]

This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For wrote: "How common is this likely to be?"

It's not uncommon in manga, although it's not the norm -- you generally see it in the older series where the first translation run was a little wonky and the later publications were completely redone.

"What do you do where some of the volumes are identical?"

Hmm. Probably not this! I agree that it wouldn't work well in that case. Drat. Should we not do it at all, to avoid confusion, or would it work as an available variant option?