Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
:: Wait, is it really on newsstands the day after last month's cover date? Because I'm looking at [[DWM 419]], (cover date 1 April) where it's previewing the month of April's TV episodes and [[DWM 420]] (cover date April 29), which has reviewed April airings ''The Eleventh Hour'' and ''The Beast Below'' and mentions TEH's viewing figures. Or are the cover dates themselves false? -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 01:06, May 6, 2012 (UTC) | :: Wait, is it really on newsstands the day after last month's cover date? Because I'm looking at [[DWM 419]], (cover date 1 April) where it's previewing the month of April's TV episodes and [[DWM 420]] (cover date April 29), which has reviewed April airings ''The Eleventh Hour'' and ''The Beast Below'' and mentions TEH's viewing figures. Or are the cover dates themselves false? -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 01:06, May 6, 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::Yes, it really is. You're confused because you've got your facts wrong on just about every count. Cover date of 419 is 31 March; of 420 it's 28 April. (If our site is agreeing with you, then we have an even bigger problem with DWM pages.) And your description of the contents is ''way'' off. 419 has very little series 5 coverage at all. What you're characterising as a series 5 "preview" is actually an interview with the non-Moffat exec producers. And 420 ''previews'' TEH through F&S. It doesn't ''review'' anything (other than CD stuff). So actually 419 and 420 prove that the cover date is the "last day valid". If it were the first day of release, then it would make no sense to be ''previewing'' TEH, because TEH had already premiered by 28 April. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">23:02: Sun 06 May 2012 </span> | |||