Splitting a volume

Hi,

I wanted to ask advice from more experienced editors on what looks like a database error to me...

The volume 2000AD Sci-Fi Special ran from 1978 to 1996 and was resurrected by the new publisher of 2000AD (Rebellion) in 2014, but because these new issues have been added to the existing volume, they are incorrectly listed as having been published by IPC Magazines Ltd., who sold the rights to publish 2000AD in 1986 (2000AD has changed hands several times during its nearly 40 yr run, the IPC page has a good list of these publisher changes).

The main 2000 AD volume has been updated to have Rebellion as the publisher; which gives correct publisher information for new releases, but is not valid for issues published prior to 2000, when Rebellion took the reins.

This all seems a bit of a mess, and it seems that the most correct way to hold the data would be to have separate volumes for each period where the title had a certain publisher; however this would mean reparenting a lot of issues that have been in the database a long time and could be disruptive, especially for tools accessing the database via the API.

Another option would be to update the publisher on the Sci-Fi special volume (i.e. follow the precedent set on the main 2000 AD volume). While this has precedent, it doesn't feel like the right thing to do as it is only valid for the most recent 2 of the 20 issues present in the volume.

So would any experienced editors like to comment on whether it would be more acceptable to split the volumes to make the database more accurate, or just to update the publisher on the existing volumes to minimise the disruption to existing issues?

Cheerz,

@chewt0y: We don't split volumes by publisher generally, we only do it if there is a change in the title or if the numbering restarts and unfortunately 2000AD/Rebellion doesn't use numbers that often and they like reusing volume titles even after long spans of time. As for the publisher the last publisher to publish it is the one that is used and an unordered list can be added to the volume description listing the publishers and issue numbers they published, here is an example.

Thanks for the clarification @pikahyper. In the case of 2000 AD Sci-Fi Special I could make an argument that the numbering is restarted; although it doesn't clash with the old numbering so probably doesn't need a new volume resource. I'll update the publisher and add a comment about the publisher history. My inner DBA still cries at the data inaccuracy in the API though...

@chewt0y: np, it's not really an inaccuracy though it is just a limitation, if the wiki allowed multiple publishers to be added to a volume then it would be fine but that was not a requirement for the new platform.

Also just a heads up but editing the wiki needs to benefit CV not a third party site or app (your edits so far are good), the API is offered so that the wealth of information here can be used for the benefit of the entire internet but users found to be editing the CV wiki so that data looks or displays better in some other site or app are almost always banned, the data is offered as is so it is up to any third parties creators to use that data in a way its users want.

@pikahyper I totally understand about the purpose of the data. I have an app that uses the API to manage my collection and reading lists, and most of my edits in the wiki have been triggered by issues appearing in the wrong reading lists or out of order. I could easily just update my local data to fix any weird results I get back from the API but I get a lot of personal value out of this data and would much rather give back to the community and try and improve the accuracy of the original data so that everyone can benefit :)

@chewt0y: sounds good to me, I don't foresee any problems with what you are doing, I just had to say something cause unfortunately not everyone cares about this site, a lot just want the data and they don't care how changing that data fits with the way we do things, our rules or standards.