Forum:Why do prefixes link as they do?: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:Why do prefixes link as they do? (edit)

Revision as of 16:27, 9 September 2020

2 bytes added , 9 September 2020

no edit summary

OncomingStorm12th

Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators

81,877

edits

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 ::::::For something like this how are the edits handled on all of the different pages that currently point to DWA for the Annuals? I'm working through the 1966 Annual and just want to know if I'll need to go back through and hit the different articles I've edited. --[[User:Raukodraug|Raukodraug]] 18:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
-:::In a sense, I suppose I feel "anything '''but''' DWA". AYS could work, I suppose, although it's not particularly "natural". In a way, it seems more obscure than ANN, because it presupposes the reader will know there are "Yearbooks" and "Storybooks". I take your point about consistently wanting them to be acronyms, but would point out that [[TV]], [[PROSE]], [[COMIC]], [[TS]], [[WC]] and [[WEB]] aren't strictly acronyms, as ''Torchwood'', ''Tardisode'', ''webcast'' and ''website'' are all one-word nouns. (Not, of course, that I'm suggesting they need be changed. Well, I take that back. [[WEB]] makes a little more sense as SITE so as to avoid confusion with ''webcast''. But I digress.)
+:::In a sense, I suppose I feel "anything '''but''' DWA". AYS could work, I suppose, although it's not particularly "natural". In a way, it seems more obscure than ANN, because it presupposes the reader will know there are "Yearbooks" and "Storybooks". I take your point about consistently wanting them to be acronyms, but would point out that [[TV]], [[PROSE]], [[COMIC]], [[TS]], [[WC]] and WEB aren't strictly acronyms, as ''Torchwood'', ''Tardisode'', ''webcast'' and ''website'' are all one-word nouns. (Not, of course, that I'm suggesting they need be changed. Well, I take that back. WEB makes a little more sense as SITE so as to avoid confusion with ''webcast''. But I digress.)
 :::I guess what I'm saying is that if you feel ''strongly'' that AYS makes greater sense, be my guest. The only thing I really care about is that DWA most naturally means ''Doctor Who Adventures''. Here's an alternative to consider, though. AP, meaning ''Annual Publication'' is another possible acronym, which has only the relatively minor drawback of evoking ''Associated Press''. Would novice users even think for a moment that could possibly mean we were quoting a real life news organization, though?
@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 ::At the moment it's totally an academic question, because no individual TVC Annual has a page yet. But as we build for the future, we need to make up our minds which way to go. Personally, I think the fact that DW material is so scant in the totality of TVC output, that we wouldn't want to use AYS for comic stories in TVC annuals. I'd think we'd move [[Doctor Who Annual#TV Comic Annuals]] to TV Comic Annuals, and then site the stories therein with [[COMIC]] or maybe start the wholly new acronym, TVCA? Then, on the AYS page, just to make things extra clear, we'd say that AYS stands for an annual publication wherein the majority of the material focuses on a [[Whoniverse]] topic, and then give a disambig line to [[TVC|TVC/TVCA]] and [[TVA|TVA/TVAA]] for information about their annuals.
-::As an aside, I should also point out that not every TVC Annual actually had ''Doctor Who'' strips — because, of course, Pertwee strips were in ''[[TV Action]]'''s annuals. At some point, that Cover Images gallery should be whittled down to just those with DW stories (i.e. 1966-71, 1975-79). '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 21:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
+::As an aside, I should also point out that not every TVC Annual actually had ''Doctor Who'' strips — because, of course, Pertwee strips were in ''[[TV Action]]''{{'}}s annuals. At some point, that Cover Images gallery should be whittled down to just those with DW stories (i.e. 1966-71, 1975-79). '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 21:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 :::Has there been any decision or movement on this? --[[User:Raukodraug|Raukodraug]] 16:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
@@ Line 97: / Line 97: @@
 Okay, I know I'm just on a prefix rant here, and please don't think I'm just trying to make a lot of mind-numbing work. I'm ''genuinely'' confused. [[COMIC]] is supposed to mean stuff from ''[[TV Comic]]'', ''Countdown'' '''and''' ''[[TV Action]]''? Why? They're different publications with different target audiences. (Also, despite what the article says, ''Countdown'' was actually distinct from ''TV Action''; the name changes weren't simply whimsical or insignificant; the format of the mag actually changed as the name did.)
-I think we should at least have [[COMIC]] and [[COMIC]], provided the TVA article is re-written to explain the ''Countdown'' phenomenon. Third Doctor comics are an entirely different kettle of fish to the First and Second Doctor stuff, in that they generally observed what most would consider the tone and continuity of the TV show at the time. Most of the [[John (comic strips)|John]] and [[John and Gillian|Gillian Who]] [I swear to God, that's their last names! ([[COMIC]]: "[[DWCC Issue 8|Beware the Trods!]]")] nonsense you kinda have to take with a grain of salt if you're an adult, cause it was written for wee children. ''Countdown''/''TVA'' stuff approaches the level of ''DWM'' comics, in that you can believe it might well have happened to the Doctor you saw on television. I mean, [[the Brig]]'s in ''Countdown'', as are [[Liz Shaw]], references to both sides of the [[Exile on Earth]], the [[Time Lords]], etc.
+I think we should at least have [[COMIC]] and [[COMIC]], provided the TVA article is re-written to explain the ''Countdown'' phenomenon. Third Doctor comics are an entirely different kettle of fish to the First and Second Doctor stuff, in that they generally observed what most would consider the tone and continuity of the TV show at the time. Most of the [[John (comic strips)|John]] and [[Gillian Who]] [I swear to God, that's their last names! ([[COMIC]]: "[[DWCC Issue 8|Beware the Trods!]]")] nonsense you kinda have to take with a grain of salt if you're an adult, cause it was written for wee children. ''Countdown''/''TVA'' stuff approaches the level of ''DWM'' comics, in that you can believe it might well have happened to the Doctor you saw on television. I mean, [[the Brig]]'s in ''Countdown'', as are [[Liz Shaw]], references to both sides of the [[Exile on Earth]], the [[Time Lords]], etc.
 I wish we had a "Stripped for Action" documentary on a Third Doctor DVD to illustrate the point more clearly. But the long and short of it is they ''are'' different publications, with different numbering schemes, meaning that each should get their own prefix. It's kinda weird to me that [[COMIC]] gets its own prefix — when it contained no original comic material ("Beware the Trods!" is prose) — but we're denying separate reference to one of the publications that made ''[[Doctor Who Classic Comics]]'' possible in the first place.
@@ Line 114: / Line 114: @@
 ::Still, if you accept "[[The Land of Happy Endings]]"' conclusion that [[Dr Who]] is a dream of the [[Eighth Doctor]], then, yeah, their last names are "Who". Within the DWM continuity — which is usually recognized as more authoritative than TVC — John and Gillian are definitely the grandchildren of "Dr Who". If, on the other hand, you're treating early [[COMIC]] stuff as an actual part of the [[First Doctor]] and early [[Second Doctor]]'s history, then you're more likely to believe that "Dr Who" is a continuity error, as in ''[[The War Machines]]''. Thus, I think you'd have a hard time diggin' the "Professor John Who" bit. You can accept some of the less ridiculous strips of that era into "real" continuity if you just go on thinking they had no last names and ignore ''[[Lungbarrow]]''.
-::Not sure if that really answers the question, "should we change the article names to John Who and Gillian Who?" For me, the answer's no, simply because this one-page story is '''incredibly''' obscure. They are overwhelmingly known as "John and Gillian". I '''do''' think the articles should be merged to [[John and Gillian]], though. There's not enough information on them as individuals to justify having two articles. And it's a hell of a lot of typing to type '''<nowiki>[[John (comic strips)]] and [[John and Gillian]]</nowiki>''', when you could just type '''<nowiki>[[John and Gillian]]</nowiki>''' and be done with it. This little memo thingie is the '''only''' piece of fiction in which one appears and the other doesn't.
+::Not sure if that really answers the question, "should we change the article names to John Who and Gillian Who?" For me, the answer's no, simply because this one-page story is '''incredibly''' obscure. They are overwhelmingly known as "John and Gillian". I '''do''' think the articles should be merged to <nowiki>[[John and Gillian]]</nowiki>, though. There's not enough information on them as individuals to justify having two articles. And it's a hell of a lot of typing to type '''<nowiki>[[John (comic strips)]] and [[John and Gillian]]</nowiki>''', when you could just type '''<nowiki>[[John and Gillian]]</nowiki>''' and be done with it. This little memo thingie is the '''only''' piece of fiction in which one appears and the other doesn't.
 ::While we're on the subject, I suppose I should mention for completeness that there are "John Brent" and "Gillian Roberts" from [[Kim Newman]]'s novella ''[[Time and Relative]]'', but these are not purported to be the actual John and Gillian. Rather, they're classmates of [[Susan Foreman|Susan]] at [[Coal Hill School]], which makes them too old to be the TVC John and Gillian. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 18:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 :::I think we had a John and Gillian combo article at one point.
-:::But I think we should keep the individual articles, they're individual characters...no matter how one dimension they were. But [[John and Gillian]] could be a disambig leading off to the John and Gillian articles if that helps?
+:::But I think we should keep the individual articles, they're individual characters...no matter how one dimension they were. But <nowiki>[[John and Gillian]]</nowiki> could be a disambig leading off to the John and Gillian articles if that helps?
 :::I rather like ''[[Lungbarrow]]'' and ''[[The Infinity Doctors]]'' despite the problems they both cause. (I don't really like ''[[War of the Daleks]]'' though ''because'' of all the continuity problems it causes. Random rambling...) --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 17:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
-:To me, it's not a question of their unrelenting one-dimensionality. It's just the fact that they never appear apart. There are two times you're gonna link in an article about them: in the lead and in the infobox. And you will never, ever say anything but: "[[The Doctor]], [[John and Gillian]] go to the planet X and fight monster Y." If there was even one full adventure where it was just the Doctor and John or the Doctor and Gillian, I wouldn't press the point. But these kids are ''always'' together. But the fact is, you could write the article such that John was in one section, Gillian in another and be done with it. I mean, just look at the leads in their now-separate articles. It's impossible to write the lead for John without immediately saying "his sister Gillian", or the reverse. The lead begs for the article to be about both of them. It just bugs me to think about how many extra characters have to be typed for no good reason. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 03:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
+:To me, it's not a question of their unrelenting one-dimensionality. It's just the fact that they never appear apart. There are two times you're gonna link in an article about them: in the lead and in the infobox. And you will never, ever say anything but: "[[The Doctor]], <nowiki>[[John and Gillian]]</nowiki> go to the planet X and fight monster Y." If there was even one full adventure where it was just the Doctor and John or the Doctor and Gillian, I wouldn't press the point. But these kids are ''always'' together. But the fact is, you could write the article such that John was in one section, Gillian in another and be done with it. I mean, just look at the leads in their now-separate articles. It's impossible to write the lead for John without immediately saying "his sister Gillian", or the reverse. The lead begs for the article to be about both of them. It just bugs me to think about how many extra characters have to be typed for no good reason. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 03:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 ==BFA==
@@ Line 127: / Line 127: @@
 ::I suppose the question you have to ask yourself is '''not''' whether you're obsessing over nothing, but rather whether perfect symmetry of acronyms is really worth the workload necessary to achieve it. This move, it seems to me, is more work than any of the changes we've recently bandied about. There are between 500 and 1000 instances of [[AUDIO]] on the wiki. If we could get a robot for this stuff, I'd say, sure go ahead. But if you're talking about manual changes, not even I would have the temerity to suggest '''this''' change.
-::Another thought: BFADW might create unnecessary confusion with the other change you'd have make: [[BFDWU]] to BFDWU. I myself like [[AUDIO]]. It seems to be well-established. Editors are — except where no other acronym exists — seemingly correctly using it to identify just those things from the main DW range. ([[AUDIO]] is currently being used to identify UNIT audio plays, for example, but that's because there is no UNIT acronym.) Part of the reason for this, I suspect, is wide acceptance of this acronym across various sources. It actually is what the majority of fans across the web are using.
+::Another thought: BFADW might create unnecessary confusion with the other change you'd have make: [[NOTVALID]] to BFDWU. I myself like [[AUDIO]]. It seems to be well-established. Editors are — except where no other acronym exists — seemingly correctly using it to identify just those things from the main DW range. ([[AUDIO]] is currently being used to identify UNIT audio plays, for example, but that's because there is no UNIT acronym.) Part of the reason for this, I suspect, is wide acceptance of this acronym across various sources. It actually is what the majority of fans across the web are using.
 ::Personally, if I were to contemplate a change in this area, it would be to eliminate the "BF" from all the ''other'' BF ranges. [[AUDIO]] makes my skin crawl, for instance. It should be just SJS. [[AUDIO]] should be just DE. The problem with these BF prefixes is that they're just too damn long. It's completely unnecessary to add "BF" before these names. There's not another ''Gallifrey'' series '''but''' the Big Finish one, so you can safely move that to just G. The only series in the entire BF output for which an argument an be constructed for a five-letter acronym is UNIT. Obviously, the link can't just be UNIT, because that properly takes you to the organization's page. So UNITA or UNITBF are disagreeable, but understandable. (Still, I'd prefer UA, since UNIT itself is no longer strictly an acronym.)
@@ Line 148: / Line 148: @@
 ::For maximum readability, and consistency with the bulk of our other prefixes, we should make the following changes:
-*[[BFBS]] should be BS
+*BFBS should be BS
 *[[AUDIO]] should be [[ID]]. This one's a no-brainer. BFD makes NO sense cause it doesn't even include both letters of the title, and BFD can just as easily mean "Big Finish's [[Davros (audio story)|''Davros'']] story, which isn't even a part of ID.
 *[[AUDIO]] should be DE
@@ Line 156: / Line 156: @@
 *[[AUDIO]] should be C
 *BFUNIT should be UNITA, to follow the pattern established by [[AUDIO]]
-*[[BFDWU]] should stay [[BFDWU]]
+*[[NOTVALID]] should stay [[NOTVALID]]
 *[[AUDIO]] should stay [[AUDIO]]
 *''Companion Chronicles'' should be [[AUDIO]]
@@ Line 164: / Line 164: @@
 *[[AUDIO]] should stay [[AUDIO]]
 *[[AUDIO]] should be deleted. The Eighth Doctor/Lucie first season should just be credited BFA. That [[AUDIO]] double listing is just unweildy. There's nothing broadcast on radio which hasn't been subsequently released by BBCA or [[AUDIO]]. The focus should be on how a reader can ''currently'' get the product, not how it debuted.
-*[[SP]] should also be deleted. There's no way to verify the accuracy of a statement about the actual stage production, so it shouldn't be possible to cite it in an article with a prefix. Someone could write,"The Doctor beat Jenny and Jimmy to a pulp on Karn ([[SP]]: ''[[The Seven Keys to Doomsday]]'')." When questioned about it, they could say, "Well, it happened in the Blackpool performance of the show that I saw 30 years ago," and we'd have to accept that. What I'm saying, I guess, is that only valid resource for these things is the version recorded by BF. These stories can only be judged by fans around the world on the basis of their audio recording, so they should be credited as [[AUDIO]].
+*SP should also be deleted. There's no way to verify the accuracy of a statement about the actual stage production, so it shouldn't be possible to cite it in an article with a prefix. Someone could write,"The Doctor beat Jenny and Jimmy to a pulp on Karn (SP: ''[[The Seven Keys to Doomsday]]'')." When questioned about it, they could say, "Well, it happened in the Blackpool performance of the show that I saw 30 years ago," and we'd have to accept that. What I'm saying, I guess, is that only valid resource for these things is the version recorded by BF. These stories can only be judged by fans around the world on the basis of their audio recording, so they should be credited as [[AUDIO]].
 '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 03:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 :As for SP, it seems that plays from 1737-1968 can be expected to be found in the British Library in London, as is the case with Curse. [http://www.livefrommars.co.uk/Old_Who.htm] Certainly, Altered Vistas must have had some reference before for their pre-BFA adaptation, as they cite script details. [http://www.alteredvistas.co.uk/html/curse_of_the_daleks.html]--[[User:Nyktimos|Nyktimos]] 05:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
@@ Line 178: / Line 178: @@
 ::*I agree with BBCA for BBC Audio Doctor Who releases.
 ::*The same goes for SJAA
-::*[[SP]], my first thought was to disagree with you. But now that I think about it, I'm not sure if the Stageplays are/should be considered canon as they're practically impossible to verify (even if you've got one of the dodgy Ultimate Adventure copies that float around at conventions it's still hard to watch it, I know because I've got one of said dodgy copies. Too many lasers and dodgy audio make for a very hard to watch recording).
+::*SP, my first thought was to disagree with you. But now that I think about it, I'm not sure if the Stageplays are/should be considered canon as they're practically impossible to verify (even if you've got one of the dodgy Ultimate Adventure copies that float around at conventions it's still hard to watch it, I know because I've got one of said dodgy copies. Too many lasers and dodgy audio make for a very hard to watch recording).
 ::::Maybe we can have a BFSP prefix! Or would that be taking a step forwards and tripping down a flight of stairs?
@@ Line 195: / Line 195: @@
 :::The reason we've got BFBS is that they're not just audios, but novels, novellas and short stories and they're all pretty much interrelated. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 12:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
-::Well, understand, there were multiple problems with the Bernice Summerfield product acronyms. One was that they weren't internally consistent. And in that spirit, I wasn't saying that BSNA was what I ''preferred'', merely that it ''might'' make sense given [[BFBS]].
+::Well, understand, there were multiple problems with the Bernice Summerfield product acronyms. One was that they weren't internally consistent. And in that spirit, I wasn't saying that BSNA was what I ''preferred'', merely that it ''might'' make sense given BFBS.
 ::But the other, and bigger, error is that [[PROSE]] is an invented acronym, that has no strong basis in publishing fact. If I were to offer the change I '''really''' want to see to "Bernice world", it's that [[PROSE]] be totally abolished, in deference to [[PROSE]]. The books in which she stars are the only part of the New Adventures line that ''actually'' have the the acronym, "NA", emblazoned across their covers. About two-thirds of the Benny part of the line (14/23) actually say that they're "NA's! So my mind, BNA is ridiculous. One of the few parts of the entire Whoniverse to actually '''provide''' us with an acronym, and we, inexplicably, '''refuse''' it!
-::As for [[BFBS]], yes, it's thorny — because it describes everything that BF does with BS, regardless of medium. [[AUDIO]] is notionally the same way. But really both [[BFBS]] and [[AUDIO]] are a part of the current BF range, '''New Worlds'''. This one, simple, über-prefix — NW — actually describes all non-BBC-owned, Whoniverse-related output of Big Finish — Iris Wildthyme, Benny, and stories involving just BF's own characters. It's accurate, and I prefer it than all these individual prefixes for rather minor lines. Clearly, it's what BF '''want''' us to call this kind of story. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 02:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
+::As for BFBS, yes, it's thorny — because it describes everything that BF does with BS, regardless of medium. [[AUDIO]] is notionally the same way. But really both BFBS and [[AUDIO]] are a part of the current BF range, '''New Worlds'''. This one, simple, über-prefix — NW — actually describes all non-BBC-owned, Whoniverse-related output of Big Finish — Iris Wildthyme, Benny, and stories involving just BF's own characters. It's accurate, and I prefer it than all these individual prefixes for rather minor lines. Clearly, it's what BF '''want''' us to call this kind of story. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 02:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 :::''[All that said, I totally think that BS, IW, FP and other things that were specifically written so as to '''avoid''' BBC ownership have absolutely no place on this wiki. They should be sliced off and put onto a sister wiki somewhere, along with BBV, MB, and other "half-official" things. There is absolutely no logic in allowing things into the DW "canon" if they were written precisely for the purpose of avoiding being a part of that canon. I don't think we should lose all the work that's been done on these articles, but we could easily create a secondary wiki that has strong links with this one. Put another way, if it ain't licensed by the BBC, it doesn't belong on this wiki, although it might belong on another one. But I digress.]''
-::::I have to disagree here with the idea of splitting things out. A couple of weeks ago I asked over at the [[K-9]] talk page if the new show should be considered canon. CzechOut pointed out to me that while the show wasn't being produced by the BBC it included a character ([[K-9 Mark I]]) from canon and thus was definitely tied to canon, and thus worthy of being included in this wiki. By that logic, if we consider the Doctor Who books/audios/comics as part of the canon (which it seems we do, seeing as how character pages don't tend to differentiate the canonocity of the events from different media sources) then the non-BBC spin offs such as [[Bernice Summerfield]] audios that are clearly tied to canon should be held in the same regard as the upcoming non-BBC K-9 show. And the idea that if it isn't licensed by the BBC... we'll that's a possible issue do to the interesting UK copyright issue of the original creators of characters owning at least partial copyright for there creations (such as Terry Nation with the Daleks). If he had licensed the Daleks for use wouldn't that have been potentially legitimate seeing as how he was as much a copyright holder as the BBC? In all of these cases common sense would need to prevail. If the story is set within the Doctor Who universe, and has some level of legitimacy (such as the Big Finish stories being directly spun off the Doctor Who licenses that Big Finish once had or how [[Bob Baker]] who created and owns the license to K-9 is using that license to create a new show without the BBC's involvement) then it should be included. --[[User:Raukodraug|Raukodraug]] 03:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
+::::I have to disagree here with the idea of splitting things out. A couple of weeks ago I asked over at the [[K-9]] talk page if the new show should be considered canon. CzechOut pointed out to me that while the show wasn't being produced by the BBC it included a character ([[K9 Mark I]]) from canon and thus was definitely tied to canon, and thus worthy of being included in this wiki. By that logic, if we consider the Doctor Who books/audios/comics as part of the canon (which it seems we do, seeing as how character pages don't tend to differentiate the canonocity of the events from different media sources) then the non-BBC spin offs such as [[Bernice Summerfield]] audios that are clearly tied to canon should be held in the same regard as the upcoming non-BBC K-9 show. And the idea that if it isn't licensed by the BBC... we'll that's a possible issue do to the interesting UK copyright issue of the original creators of characters owning at least partial copyright for there creations (such as Terry Nation with the Daleks). If he had licensed the Daleks for use wouldn't that have been potentially legitimate seeing as how he was as much a copyright holder as the BBC? In all of these cases common sense would need to prevail. If the story is set within the Doctor Who universe, and has some level of legitimacy (such as the Big Finish stories being directly spun off the Doctor Who licenses that Big Finish once had or how [[Bob Baker]] who created and owns the license to K-9 is using that license to create a new show without the BBC's involvement) then it should be included. --[[User:Raukodraug|Raukodraug]] 03:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 :::I realise this is an old discussion, but I'd still like to chime in regarding [[AUDIO]]. [[ID]] would be easily confused with the audio story ''[[I.D.]],'' to which I created a redirect at [[ID]]. [[User:Rob T Firefly|Rob T Firefly]] 12:09, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
@@ Line 252: / Line 252: @@
 Proposed change of DC to [[COMIC]].
-Reason 1: Most prefixes for magazines or comics material on this wiki use either an abbreviation for the title ([[COMIC]], [[COMIC]], [[DWM]], [[COMIC]], [[COMIC]], [[COMIC]], [[COMIC]], [[COMIC]] etc.) or rarely a publisher ([[COMIC]]) which mirrors audios or direct-to-video releases ([[BBV Productions|BBV]], [[AUDIO]], [[AUDIO]], [[RP]]) TV 21 was an in-house abbreviation for [[TV Century 21]] from its very first issue.
+Reason 1: Most prefixes for magazines or comics material on this wiki use either an abbreviation for the title ([[COMIC]], [[COMIC]], [[DWM]], [[COMIC]], [[COMIC]], [[COMIC]], [[COMIC]], [[COMIC]] etc.) or rarely a publisher ([[COMIC]]) which mirrors audios or direct-to-video releases ([[BBV Productions|BBV]], [[AUDIO]], [[AUDIO]], RP) TV 21 was an in-house abbreviation for [[TV Century 21]] from its very first issue.
 Reason 2: DC stands for Dalek Chronicles which we use because we are supposing that this is the retroactive title change to ''The Daleks''. To keep the prefix simple in explaining what it is and isn't, it would be easier if I didn't have to write:
 ::Dalek Chronicles is '''not''' to be used for anything that '''''actually''''' carried the words "Dalek Chronicles" on its original printing, particularly things that predated and introduced characters and concepts that appeared in the TV21 comic. It only refers to ''The Daleks'' as published in TV Century 21, not to any ''[[Doctor Who Magazine]]'' continuations of the series.
-Dalek Chronicles in 1960s media: Anything published by [[Souvenir Press]] has a tendency to say "based on the Dalek Chronicles discovered and translated by Terry Nation". [[SP]]: ''[[The Curse of the Daleks]]'', which has Souvenir Press's editor credited as a producer, gives a much fuller explanation from Whitaker of what kind of object Nation apparently discovered. If they're still called Dalek Chronicles is something I don't know.
+Dalek Chronicles in 1960s media: Anything published by [[Souvenir Press]] has a tendency to say "based on the Dalek Chronicles discovered and translated by Terry Nation". SP: ''[[The Curse of the Daleks]]'', which has Souvenir Press's editor credited as a producer, gives a much fuller explanation from Whitaker of what kind of object Nation apparently discovered. If they're still called Dalek Chronicles is something I don't know.
 Dalek Chronicles in 1990s media: I can't say what the DWM or DWCC reprints of the era looked like but the graphic novel doesn't remove original title graphics (ones that say ''The Daleks'' - they had no individual titles at the time) or even the newsbox with its references to the [[Century 21 Productions|Gerry Anderson]] comics in TV21.