Board Thread:Policies/@comment-32540247-20200216120319/@comment-32540247-20200218165346

''Not sure I'm fully on board with the approach you've implemented thus far on Batman Vol 1. Seems a bit subjective, but I don't necessarily know what an acceptable alternative would be. One suggestion, though, would be that you be consistent with your formatting. I am more than happy to accept suggestions on formatting.'' The issue is that I'm figuring it out as I go. Batman vol 1 is a bit of a testbed and I will definitely try to polish it up once the menial task of actually writing down the runs is done. If this is a problem, I can stop the work on the article now and bring everything to consistent formatting.

Sorry, I'm eager to help, but I'm completely new to wiki editing, please bear with me. I promise I will learn as soon as I can.

''I’m worried that the closer this gets to being “complete”, the harder it will be to navigate. There’s a lot of information being added here.''

True concern. I'm wondering alternative approaches myself - in fact, I suggest alternative later down the line.

but i don’t know that i like informational issue lists being broken up by author and a smattering of first/last appearances

Informational? What information do they really hold, aside from the opening blurb? Important argument for run guides, in my opinion - currently volume pages are basically useless, I'm sorry to say. Their only purpose is seeing how long a run was, that's literally only piece of information they currently hold that isn't better contained by another article. Oh, and finding out when #0 was published. Their function of linking to every issue is easily obsoleted by the search bar.

Marvel Wiki at least has a cover gallery on volume pages, so they can be used to quickly find a specific issue by it's cover - but our volume pages don't do that.

Nobody edits volume pages because nobody visits volume pages because why would they? What for? It's just a list of numbers with no context, why and for what would you ever use it? Adding run guides gives them a purpose - some people might visit it and go "Marv Wolfman had two runs on Batman? Interesting, I might check them out." It gives a convenient access to information. If I want to see contents of Batman 356, I will simply navigate immediately to instead of finding it in a long list of numbers on Batman Vol 1. Why would I bother?

If first appearances and mentions of specific storylines are a problem and jarring, I can remove them. Again, I'm new to this so I don't know what is a best practice for editing yet.

These are by their nature subjective

I try to stick to simply noting down large stretches of issues written by the same writer, and preferably include the artist if that's doable - however, it often happens that artists swap around. I don't recommend specific runs, and we already DO have mentions of specific runs in articles for specific issues and even some "runs" articles. I don't see how writing down the writer is subjective, it's a relatively objective fact. '''The same would be achieved by me copy-pasting the values from Writer and Artist infoboxes next to every title. Like:'''

- W: Frank Miller, A: Dave Mazzuchelli.

'''In case of multiple writers/artists, I would simply write down all of them.

Would that be less subjective? If so, i can do that instead. It will take more time, but if objectivity is the factor, I can do that. It would also be easier to format consistently.'''

This would also solve the navigation problem, since in that case we would revert to number-based navigation, and readers could find runs manually by simply looking at the data.