Thread:DrJohnnyDiablo/@comment-7455-20190417020946/@comment-7455-20190417030753

Hatebunny wrote: If we're being frank from the start of things, then I should tell you in all candour that it's the only solution you're going to get. Likewise, the tone of your response makes me inclined to give a less diplomatic response than I might otherwise have given.

I mean, I meant no disrespect to anyone, but I stand by the sentiment. Information science is my field, and I would hope that it would be given some consideration rather than a simple defaulting to "that's not how we do things." That said, if I came across as more brusque than intended, I apologize. It was jarring to me to have an article I researched and wrote over the course of several days reverted without change in mere moments.

That's accurate. And the majority of that information is readily available on the one-shot's issue page. e.g. publication dates, creatives, and featured characters. That information is not needed. It would also have been readily available in the infobox on a volume page.

Fair point. As I suggested in my followup (which you wouldn't have seen, given the post times), that wasn't the information I was concerned with.

Okay, your flare for the dramatic is noted. Please try to keep a lid on it. There's nothing "dramatic" about it. As I said, this is my field. I mention that not to pull rank (that would be as ludicrously irrelevant as it would be rude of me), but because information discovery is an actual thing, and there's a well-studied logic to it. I'm not claiming any sort of final word, nor do I have any desire to shut down discussion, but because it's the perspective I'm coming at the problem from, and one that I would hope can be considered, at least at some level.

Your clear bias is in thinking that the information that people will be looking for is not "who is in this book, what is it about, and who worked on it?" - all of which is (or would otherwise be) readily available on the issue page. In short, you're being more precious about your contribution than it deserves. That's just it, though: if that bias exists, it's not exactly mine. The rest of the wiki is structured that way, with the volume articles containing broad-scope publication information and linking down to the more detailed individual issue articles. Because of the way we're doing one-shots, it turns that on its head, with the issue details preceding broader publication information. There's a lot of redundant information that we don't need to capture twice for one-shots (dates, creators, characters, etc.), but the overlap isn't 100%, and that's where the problem lies, IMO.

Again, this assumes that the lead is either a) information already available on the page, or b) an admittedly interesting piece of trivia about paper allotments in the second world war, which would be best placed in the trivia or notes section of the issue page. This is exactly the kind of information capture right at the top of the "history" section of every volume article we have. It's real-world historical context, and what I'm having trouble understanding is why it's above-the-fold data in those cases, but "trivia" for one-shots. (And the term is "lede," BTW. It's the introductory paragraph in a article.)