Talk:DC Finest

The bullet points

Hey @Vanto7. I really like what you've done here - and the bullet points have enhanced the feel in most sections. Batman, Batgirl, The Flash, to name a few. There's real clarity in dividing the way you have.

Looking at this page through the app, and to a degree via desktop, it has created a significant visual issue on a few of the others, primarily: Harley Quinn, Peacemaker and, more than any others, the pair of Zero Hour books. Those two in particular are actually quite hard to absorb because the single cell is so high.

I'm not sure what to suggest. Generally I would think a uniform format across tables on a single page is better - but I do wonder if for those, specifically, it's better to use commas or semi-colons as a separator?

What do you think? Have you got the app to see how it looks? Or the mobile site? I do think we need a better solution, if only for those four. Peterspeterson (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe have a collapsible list? So that, for example, the Harley Quinn 'Issues collected' column lists only 'Harley Quinn (vol. 1) #1–8' and the rest of the issues are listed inside a collapsible list, this way you'd have at first glance a series starring the specific character and the other misc. issues in the collapsible list. Or if it seems too arbitrary then include the whole 'Issues collected' for that book inside the collapsible list. Outside listing everything with commas/semi-colons (which I think would break the format as well as stretch the tables across the screen) I haven't come up with anything else. Vanto7 (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Brilliant idea. I've tried that on the two Zero Hour books. What do you think? If you're happy, we can do the same for Harley Quinn and Peacemaker?

Also might be an idea to do this on some of the longer omnibus entries. I can do Marvel over the coming days, if you do DC? Peterspeterson (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks good, I've adjusted the code a bit so that the bullet points display correctly, and went ahead and changed them for the Harley Quinn and Peacemaker books as well. I'll go ahead and look over what DC Omnibus volumes need collapsible lists.

Edit: Looking at the page through the app, it seems like the collapsible lists are not displaying, does this happen on your end? Vanto7 (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Haha! Yes, the lovely world of Wikipedia coding. Nested categories don't work on mobile browsing - but collapsible lists DO. Nested categories do work on the Wiki app but collapsible lists DON'T.

Everything looks great on desktop. I think, probably, that's the platform on which we try to get things right? Peterspeterson (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The Spectre

The dates for the Spectre volume The Wrath of the Spectre are off. (It is admittedly a confusing sequence.) Here are the seven titles and their time-frames. Showcase 60-61, 64 — 1966 // The Brave & the Bold 72 — 1967 // The Spectre vol. 1 1-10 — 1968-69 // Adventure Comics 431-440 — 1974-75 // The Wrath of the Spectre 4 — 1988 (scripts written in 1975 but not published at the time) // Ghosts 97-99 — 1981 // All-Star Squadron 27-28 — 1983 // So I would give “Years Covered” as 1966-1969, 1974-1975, 1981-1983 (or -1988 if you prefer, though The Spectre vol.2, not included, starts in 1987).

On another topic, is there a particular reason why, in the Release Order chart at the bottom, the character of Supergirl is listed as The Girl of Steel both times? 2601:14D:4A00:4F50:C126:55A9:E719:DCC3 (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Or Years Covered as 1966-1983 2601:14D:4A00:4F50:C126:55A9:E719:DCC3 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Release order vs Upcoming

@LegoK9 I saw you switched the release list to the full list under the premise of not having to trim it. But trimming it isn’t a big deal and isn’t difficult. The point of the upcoming list was to see what is next out. That month’s books were right at the top and the previous format made that very easy.

Now, you have to scroll halfway down. There are so few books, that it’s not an issue yet. But once the full list starts getting to 100+ books, I don’t see how there’s any purpose to so many items in one list. What’s the benefit?

Why did you make this change? Peterspeterson (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Unnecessary columns?

I moved the cover source info to its own column, but is it really necessary to list them? It's neat trivia but kind of superfluous. Also, do we really need a page count column? They're all in the around 600 pages; do readers really need the exact page number for every volume?

Anyone in favor of removing one or both of the these columns? LegoK9 (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I thought the cover source was better where it was and that creating new columns is unnecessary clutter.

Also don’t see the point in losing the page numbers.

On the argument of “do readers really need the exact page number for every volume?”, you could say that about authors, artists, isbns, years covered, or any other piece of information. All those things will be useful to someone, even if it isn’t you. Peterspeterson (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The ISBN column is for ISBN numbers. It doesn't make sense to put the cover source in the ISBN column. "Detective Comics #27 cover: 978-1799506706" was strange formatting; what is colon for? The cover source is random trivia that Wikipedia normally avoids.

Readers obviously need the author and artists of a work of fiction. They're different for every work and are notable enough to get articles are of their own. The years are significant because they're on the spines of the books in lieu of volume numbers. If they weren't on the books, we wouldn't include them.

The page counts are all numbers around 600. We don't list the $39.99 price in every column so why list the page counts? I would be open to ditching the ISBNs, but they seem to be standard info on Wikipedia. LegoK9 (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

It might not make sense to you personally - and yet multiple people contributed to it, without issue, until you arbitrarily decided to make a change.

You're creating a problem where there was no problem and for seemingly no benefit. 2604:3D08:1A8F:C400:3D8E:421A:3F13:393E (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

> It doesn't make sense to put the cover source in the ISBN column. "Detective Comics #27 cover: 978-1799506706" was strange formatting; what is colon for?

This actually does make sense if it's reprinted with an alternate cover at some point... which it could be. It future-proofs the page.

> what is colon for?

Which colon? The one that separates one piece of information (the cover source) from the other (the ISBN)?

> The years are significant because they're on the spines of the books in lieu of volume numbers.

They're only significant if it's something that matters to the consumer. Page numbers are inside the book - and, again, might well be significant to somebody. What would be the benefit to removing them? Peterspeterson (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)