Talk:Radio Times Doctor Who Collectors' Edition: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Why the move?)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==Why the move?==
==Why the move? / Article title==
This article was originally titled '''Radio Times Doctor Who 2005-2010 Special''', which was clearly incorrect as that is not what the cover title of the publication is. I went with '''Doctor Who: David Tennant and the Regeneration Years 2005-2010''' rather than including Radio Times in the title because a) it became a bit cumbersome and b) it's sort of like we don't use titles like '''BBC Books: The Monsters Inside''' when referring to books published by BBC Books. I see the RT title as being a label more than actually part of the title. If someone disagrees and wants to go for the full-out RT title, be my guest. The original title was incorrect in any event. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 14:04, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
This article was originally titled '''Radio Times Doctor Who 2005-2010 Special''', which was clearly incorrect as that is not what the cover title of the publication is. I went with '''Doctor Who: David Tennant and the Regeneration Years 2005-2010''' rather than including Radio Times in the title because a) it became a bit cumbersome and b) it's sort of like we don't use titles like '''BBC Books: The Monsters Inside''' when referring to books published by BBC Books. I see the RT title as being a label more than actually part of the title. If someone disagrees and wants to go for the full-out RT title, be my guest. The original title was incorrect in any event. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 14:04, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
::Wow, this is quite a mouthful of a title.  Is it really the only possibility?  What's the name on the inside?  Is there an indicia title?  If there's not, and it really is "David Tenannt and the Regeneration Years (2005-2010)", the "Doctor Who" should be dropped.  We don't conventionally put "Doctor Who" at the front of publication titles, else every book would have that prefix, as in ''Doctor Who: Autopia'', or the like.  Can someone check the publication interior thoroughly for the legal name of the publication?  Surely the legal name would have the words "Radio Times", which I think would be helpful in actually identifying the item.
::Another problem is that the "cover title" isn't, apparently, universal.  [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cameronkmcewan/4359949141/ Here's a shot] of a version where the title is merely ''Radio Times: Doctor Who 2005-2010'', minus any mention of David Tennant.  [http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=390157898253&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT Here's a link to a closed Ebay auction] where the picture is even bigger, and you can obviously see that it's a photograph of an actual magazine, not a proof copy of the artwork.  Look at the lower left-hand corner; you can see actual height to the picture, and a little wrinkle on the spine.  YOu can also see that there's curvature along the top edge of the book, which you wouldn't get if it were just artwork proof. 
::So there are apparently at least two "cover titles" to this book, unless the design we've got on our site is actually an artwork proof.  This is why it's important to check the inside for the official, legal title.  '''[[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>]] 18:08, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:08, 16 March 2010

Why the move? / Article title

This article was originally titled Radio Times Doctor Who 2005-2010 Special, which was clearly incorrect as that is not what the cover title of the publication is. I went with Doctor Who: David Tennant and the Regeneration Years 2005-2010 rather than including Radio Times in the title because a) it became a bit cumbersome and b) it's sort of like we don't use titles like BBC Books: The Monsters Inside when referring to books published by BBC Books. I see the RT title as being a label more than actually part of the title. If someone disagrees and wants to go for the full-out RT title, be my guest. The original title was incorrect in any event. 23skidoo 14:04, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is quite a mouthful of a title. Is it really the only possibility? What's the name on the inside? Is there an indicia title? If there's not, and it really is "David Tenannt and the Regeneration Years (2005-2010)", the "Doctor Who" should be dropped. We don't conventionally put "Doctor Who" at the front of publication titles, else every book would have that prefix, as in Doctor Who: Autopia, or the like. Can someone check the publication interior thoroughly for the legal name of the publication? Surely the legal name would have the words "Radio Times", which I think would be helpful in actually identifying the item.
Another problem is that the "cover title" isn't, apparently, universal. Here's a shot of a version where the title is merely Radio Times: Doctor Who 2005-2010, minus any mention of David Tennant. Here's a link to a closed Ebay auction where the picture is even bigger, and you can obviously see that it's a photograph of an actual magazine, not a proof copy of the artwork. Look at the lower left-hand corner; you can see actual height to the picture, and a little wrinkle on the spine. YOu can also see that there's curvature along the top edge of the book, which you wouldn't get if it were just artwork proof.
So there are apparently at least two "cover titles" to this book, unless the design we've got on our site is actually an artwork proof. This is why it's important to check the inside for the official, legal title. CzechOut | 18:08, March 16, 2010 (UTC)