Talk:Doctor Who at the BBC: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
m (moved Talk:Doctor Who at the BBC (audio release) to Talk:Doctor Who at the BBC (audio): (audio) is the more standard disambig, though i actually think this should be un-disambiguated and Doctor Who at the BBC should be disambiguated as (s...) |
m (CzechOut moved page Talk:Doctor Who at the BBC (audio) to Talk:Doctor Who at the BBC without leaving a redirect: the release gets the undabed term, the series is Doctor Who at the BBC (audio series)) |
Latest revision as of 02:01, 27 January 2013
Publisher's summary[[edit source]]
See, this is one of the better examples of why including the marketing text on the back of a publication can be a bad idea. This publisher's summary is very misleading. It makes it sound like Courtney and Sladen "teamed up" (actually that phrase is used precisely) to make something new and exciting. In fact, Courtney's bit was 10 years old at the time of release, and Courtney and Sladen were never in the same studio to record this thing. Do we actually need the publisher's summary here? CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 06:49, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
- The publisher's summary has a place. There should then be a note explaining what really happened.
- The reason the summary has a place is if someone finds the item, they can quickly compare it to what they see on the Wiki, and then make a more informed decision as to whether they want to purchase it. -- sulfur 11:40, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
