Talk:Doctor Who Magazine graphic novels

Article needs splitting, restructuring, better definition.

I'm not sure where to begin on the confused nature of this article. The Panini range is its own deal and must be treated separately. It has a specific purpose, format, and production sensibility. Nowhere on this wiki is there treatment of that range's distinctiveness, and it's primarily because it's lumped into this one page. Secondly there should be discussion on how the term "graphic novel" when applied to Doctor Who does not meet even the normal, broad definition of graphic novel, and is rather a synonym of "trade paperback". Discussion can and will be added to the text to explain the varying usages of "graphic novel" in the British market versus the North American.

A couple of things on the list here are not graphic novels in either sense of the word, while only Age of Chaos comes close to meeting generally-accepted North American sense of the term. Something which is a numbered part of another series (as indicated by the indicia) isn't a graphic novel. On whatever side of the Atlantic you find yourself, the 1985 Summer Special or The Dalek Chronicles aren't graphic novels, they're normal issues of the Doctor Who Magazine Specials. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 23:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Mark of Mandragora and Abslom Daak - Dalek Killer would also fit the definition of graphic novel.

As for restructuring, the Panini range could be created under Panini Book Graphic Novels (as that's what it's called on the cover, though I'm wondering if it should have 'Doctor Who' in the title somewhere?

Of the Marvel releases they should probably be separated out, the classic comics one belongs with the other classic comics, the same goes for the summer special. I'd argue the Dalek Chronicles magazine is a graphic novel (it's certainly long enough) and does collect ever single story of the original run into one big release. Not sure about the collected comics. So that would leave; Age of Chaos, Voyager, Abslom Daak and The Dalek Chronicles together.

Virgin...well it'd need a page of its own, maybe discussing why it got the rights to release only Mark of Mandragora.--Tangerineduel 05:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the definitive name of any comic is generally considered to be that which appears on the indicia; i.e., that by which it's copyrighted.

• Age of Chaos definitely deserves its own page, cause the only thing which appears in its indicia is Doctor Who: The Age of Chaos. Contentually, it's the most "novel" DW graphic novel. It's not a trade paperback. It's the only one of these four things — indeed the only DW publication with the term graphic novel on its cover — that actually is a printing of original material (rather than a reprint), and its the only one that tells a single story. Although not bound like a novel, it at least has a definite beginning, middle and end to its story.
• Abslom Daak: Dalek Killer is a slightly controversial inclusion as a graphic novel, but it's clearly no part of any other series. It was a part of the whole attempt to spin him off on his own into the Marvel UK universe, a testing of the waters to see if an Abslom Daak-centered title would work. That effort went nowhere, but this thing remains as a title on its own with no explicit connection to DWMS. It's also a co-production of Marvel UK and another company. I personally think the "(graphic novel)" modifier should be dropped from its title, though, because it contains significant non graphical elements. A "graphic novel" that has a prose story just isn't a graphic novel. The indicia, which doesn't claim it's a graphic novel, should be strictly observed in this case.
• Voyager is officially Doctor Who Graphic Novel: Voyager, and was co-published by BBC Books. The book acknowledges DWM in its frontispiece, but it's very clearly not a DWMS.
• Dalek Chronicles is, as explained in the talk on its page, explicitly a part of DWMS. It's just a Summer Special. Yes, a rather extraordinary one, but officially that's what it is. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 10:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Bit late getting to this one, sorry, but I don't remember intending Doctor Who Magazine - Graphic Novels page to include the word Magazine. I am aware of the varying use of the term graphic novel (usually loosely) which was why I looked for a definition eventually deciding to use the criteria as used in Howe's Transcendental Toybox, and outlined at the top of the article. I recognised some of the differences between what was listed (eg. those by Marvel and the Panini Series of Trade Paperbacks) hence the divisions in order to group them better. Furthermore all inclusions on this page take some reference in their promotion, advertising or, stated on the cover, describing them as graphic novels (whether this is in accordance with a specific definition or not). As a page that brings together collected comic strips together as stand-alone editions I still can't see what the fuss is about, other than the Magazine word at the top which needs to be removed. Perhaps a new proposed title would be Doctor Who - Graphic novels and comic collections !! The Librarian 04:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem for me is that this definition doesn't match any definition of "graphic novel" that I've ever heard. Knowing now that it came from a Doctor Who source, it makes sense. Obviously Howe was trying to come up with a definition that fit every example he was trying to catalogue, rather than using a commonly accepted definition. The bigger problem, though, is that the infoboxes on this site want to note the series to which something belongs. Currently, all these so-called "graphic novels" point back to this page, implying they're all part of the same series. Clearly they're not. The article needs to be split so that appropriate linkages can be made, and so that people who come from a comics background into Doctor Who won't be confused. In short, Howe is simply not a good source to use for understanding the term "graphic novel". And this article basically creates a topic that doesn't exist. Basically, we've created an article out of something that should never have grown past being a simple list. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 23:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)