Talk:Legion Publication History/1958-1964
quibbles & bits
I've been away for a bit. Heavy workload and a death in the family. Anyway, I wanted to voice a few thoughts on the publication history pages. First, let me say how amazing the pages look overall. I really appreciate the work you guys have put into them. So, I am not necessarily saying anything is "wrong" per se, I'm just voicing a few I-might\-have-done-it-differently quibbles. If a few of these stick to the wall, great. If not, no bigs.
1) Originally, I wanted it all on one big page. I was not only wrong, I've now swung completely to the other direction. I think some of the pages need to be broken up even further, perhaps into 5 year segments i.e. 1950-1960, 1961-1965, 1966-1970, 1971-1975, 1976-1980, 1981-1985, 1986-1990, 1991-1995, 1996-2000, 2001-2005, 2006- I know that does not fall with making the pages start and end with "eras" but you guys have done a nice job of color-coding the years on each page. At any rate, I think the 70s and the 80s are will each have too much data on one page.
2) I do concur with whoever said leave all DC reprints, AR, elseworlds on these lists and then duplicate them on other individualized lists, for people who only want to look at that stuff. I do think other publisher parodies and easter eggs can just be on the AR list and not duplicated on this one.
3) I like the shading for AR, eleworld and reprint issues. However, I notice that while my browser at work picks up the light orange and light pink of AR and Elseworlds ok, on my home PC they look nearly identical. I'd suggest shifting one or the other to something more blue, or green.
4) I believe listing books publication data, instead of cover date, is the wrong way to go. We can only aproximate the publication date for a lot of books, and the format seems inconsistant with hobby standards of listing things by cover date. Don't get me wrong, I think the publication date is useful information, I just think cover date should be the default for how to list and search for individual books.
5) I also think listing the date over the cover image and next to the issue title is redundent. No need to duplicate info that close together, I think. I'd lose the month in the image column and just leave it listed next to the issue title.
6) I like the horizontal "years on this page" on the 1950-1964 page. I think links by year is sufficient. Later in the list there are tables in a vertical format linking year and month. Not sure if that was an early placeholder of sorts, or an alternate version fighting a Darwinian battle of supremecy. I'm new to wiki still, but I suspect that's how things happen, and competing ways of formating data competes in a digital survival of the fittest. Anyway, I like horizontal, just years format best.
7) I think listing the entire creative team for each issue is too much information for the purposes of this list. My belief, for whatever it's worth, is that this should be a sort of superhighway down the middle of the wiki. Lots and lots of offramps, but maybe not a lot to see, just enough to wet one's appetite. I believe giving users a general what came out when chronology, with title, one sentance plot and a snippet of what's important about that issue should be enough to guide them to what they want to get more info on. I suppose I can see one jumping from this list to all books by a favorite creator, but I'd limit it to writer and artists, at most, if even that. I mean, I cant' see someone running down this list and thinking, "Oh boy, I want to check out every issue lettered by Ben Oda!"
8) FWIW, If it were me, I'd also have the published on date only on the actual issue page, since I feel that's one level deeper on the info than this list needs.
9) I thought I read where one of you cats intimated that lots of bullets suck up wiki bandwidth. If true, I'd recommend killing some of the bullets for each issue. I know I use bullets a lot, but that's only becasue I'm too dumb to know any other way to format stuff. Anyway, I thin kthis quick-reference list could be just one time or two for each issue.
Anyway, that's all I got. Again, I think you guys are doing a terrific job and these quibbles are not meant to detract from that or to sap your enthusiasm in any way. Duke 14:24, 25 September 2006 (PDT)
