CCL Messageboard

Fire away, but keep it focused.

If a ruling's been made, I'll try to dig it up. If not, let's hash it out. If you want to point out something that's been decided, but you think people need to be reminded of, start another topic, and we'll talk about it there.

While this one may seem minor, I think the guidelines should cover it.

Attributing source - Can we get some uniform attributes for the issue Description? We are talking with a few current changes I submitted that we should uniform things like "Source: Card" for trading cards. Options are in the DB "Card", "Back of Card", "Card Back", and while this is a minor field since it is not indexed, I think all would agree that general rules for sources and everything as uniform as possible would be best.

My suggestion would read...

Source Attribution - Any content copied from another source must be attributed. The copied content should be encapsulated within asterisks (*), followed by a space then the word "Source:". The source should be as basic, yet identifiable, as possible. Examples include...

DB Item - If content comes directly from the entry item or packaging (ex. Comic, Trade, Hard Cover, Hard Cover Dust Jacket, Magazine, Card, Figure, etc.)
Websites - only the domain name should be used, no complete URL's (ex. marvel.com, dccomics.com, etc.)
Printed Material - The complete book name, volume, and issue should be used if applicable (ex. The Marvel Index to the X-Men, Vol. 2 #1)


And I think the DB Item area should be updated with whatever we choose, and should be exactly what we use. Only the Hard Cover has two items that can be separated, and therefore identified separately.

I agree.

Though part of this sounds like the "Terminology" list that some among the approvers have mentioned wanting (standard ways of saying things and standard meanings for those standard ways of saying things). I would lean toward making these separate but inter-related normative documents.

Agreed. "Terminology" sounds perfect too, as a frequent updater/submitter, I would really welcome standardization of that.

There has been mention of it, and I'm hoping to find out something more concrete this weekend.

The problem I can see with this is that CCL has it's own Volume Designations separate from what Marvel and DC (among others) might label their books. For CCL, sometimes mini series act as the first volume like with Wolverine or Nightwing or Robin so it will really get confusing and lead people to the wrong place in the CCL Database.

As for the Sources, I usually put DC Comics website or Marvel Comics website simply because url addresses can (and do) change pretty often. But as far as standardizing things, I'm always for that!

Ok, I see your point. Suggestions?

For ntkeith's suggestion of "Source:", I was asked by Steve (Valiant_One) to use "Back of Card." for consistency. Hopefully he'll chime in on that as well.

I'm working on a terminology list which is mostly comic oriented at the moment. If you want to make a list of proposed Card terminology and send it to me I'll add it to the list for possible approval. The same goes for statues and action figures.

Steve and I have a tentative phone call scheduled for this weekend to go over some of this. Needless to say, we're both excited about the idea of getting things better/more on the way to right.

I would personally like to bring the cover titles more into alignment with actual publication data. Except where that would be detrimental to the data in a fundamental way (like reintroducing the "The"), I would advocate established, standard and verifyable as principles to inform how we handle data.

And don't feel too pressured to get it perfect. No matter what we come up with, one thing that should be understood is that it is a necessarily growing/learning/evolving thing.

I think this came up because some of the first entries used this. I know I originally used "Back of Card", but since I saw the other variations, I think "Card" makes the most sense since it is simple, consistent (can't be reversed like "Card Back" and "Back of Card"), and denoting back of a card over the front seems like it adds no value.

I think as far as volume designations go. I wished we could just go by the indicia,I know it's been said the decision on that has been made and can't be changed,if you use CCL's vol.listing then thats confusing to newcomers as it can be different from the indicia. If it's not able to be changed then I think ones that are different from the indicia need to just go with a year listing, and the ones that are the same leave as it says in the indicia. If it's all in one publisher and they screw it up then most collectors wouldn't have any trouble finding what they need to. That shouldn't be to confusing to anyone I would think.

Was told the same here also

Two clarifications on change requests of mine that have come up.

First one i added a printing of fables to the db which had a foreword by another writer. I listed in the item desc about the foreword but once it was approved a comment was left saying that the foreword writer needed to be added to the writer field. This is the first i've heard of that and have never seen it on any other graphic novels.

Second one i was updating dates and cleaning up item descriptions on the Preacher trades and on a few volumes it had every individual story title from each issue listed in the item desc along with which issues were collected in the tpb. I cleaned it up and left it as just (ex. Collects Preacher #1-9.) I was then told by the approver that this info should be left in. Another case of something i've never heard before and never seen in any other titles.

Are these things i just missed in the guidelines or these just the approvers preferences? I have no problem adding these things if that's what the guidelines are i just don't see either these examples i listed being followed on any other graphic novel/tpb db listings.

If someone wrote something that appears in the book, they get a writer credit. Even if it's a text piece. There are a number of trades with forwards credited in the database.

As for the information you removed from the Preacher trade, I didn't see the edit in question, but I assume someone took the time to flesh out the bio for that particular trade. We should respect their time and effort and leave it in. It's not required info, but it's definitely something good to have.

It does matter if the publishers regularly screw them up by either having repeated volume numbering (see Wolverine or Punisher) or skipping numbering (see Inhumans). Neither Marvel or DC have volume numbering currently and DC has never(?) had it. And the other significant reason for CCL creating its own volume numbering practice is because of books switching publishers so often. CCL has come up with a simple, consistent way to number titles (and there was talk at one time of just switching to years). There's really zero reason to try and change it to an inconsistent format that would take a massive amount of manual work to complete.

Also, there are many Golden Age titles that changed the Volume every year while keeping the numbering consistant.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this.

I am working on prioritizing changes to the cover title data (what fields to add to make it all work better) and one of the things that's disturbed me is the volume numbering (both from publishers and confabulated by CCL).

The main uses of the cover title are best served by simplicity, ability to distinguish between titles and minimal data loss.

What would provide the best balance of this?

Even switching to just years would be better than numbering the volumes different than whats in the indicia, that causes confusion, at least in just using the years you can go by the indicia because that much is consistent throughout all of the comics. I still, even after finding the ones mentioned that was supposed to be so difficult, can't see how it's a problem, if it's in the indicia that way, because the publish year is always used, Using both of them together a person can figure it out fairly easy. It isn't that hard especially when you have a comic cover to help you figure it out.