765,429
edits
Forum:Why do prefixes link as they do?: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Why do prefixes link as they do? (edit)
Revision as of 05:54, 19 September 2012
, 19 September 2012enforcing Forum:Prefix simplification
m (Sorry for having to do this, but I'm being forced to change my sig, and clean up after it, by Wikia Staff) |
m (enforcing Forum:Prefix simplification) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:In some cases the prefix actually stands for a group of similar things such as the [[DWM]] and [[DWMS]] prefixes stand for both the comics and short stories etc. So linking to the Doctor Who Magazine page wouldn't be an adequate description of what it actually is about. In the case of Memory Alpha the TNG link takes you to the TV series article (but I struggled to find any of the TNG novels, and in the end just searched fir 'novels'). The various prefixes ''should'' have links out to the pages like the comics and short stories (I say should because many of the prefix pages are created quickly by various users). --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 14:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | :In some cases the prefix actually stands for a group of similar things such as the [[DWM]] and [[DWMS]] prefixes stand for both the comics and short stories etc. So linking to the Doctor Who Magazine page wouldn't be an adequate description of what it actually is about. In the case of Memory Alpha the TNG link takes you to the TV series article (but I struggled to find any of the TNG novels, and in the end just searched fir 'novels'). The various prefixes ''should'' have links out to the pages like the comics and short stories (I say should because many of the prefix pages are created quickly by various users). --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 14:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
::Cool, thanks for clearing that up. As for your problems with finding novels on MemAlpha, that makes sense, because MemAlpha doesn't cover the nevels with in-universe articles. They cover the articles only to the extent that they catalogue their existence. MemAlpha (I think quite wisely) is only for what Paramount considers canon, and therefore considers novels as merchandise, not narrative sources. They leave it to MemBeta to handle the narrative "history" of those novels, although they do allow some intra-wiki links. '''[[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>]] 03:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | ::Cool, thanks for clearing that up. As for your problems with finding novels on MemAlpha, that makes sense, because MemAlpha doesn't cover the nevels with in-universe articles. They cover the articles only to the extent that they catalogue their existence. MemAlpha (I think quite wisely) is only for what Paramount considers canon, and therefore considers novels as merchandise, not narrative sources. They leave it to MemBeta to handle the narrative "history" of those novels, although they do allow some intra-wiki links. '''[[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>]] 03:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::Whoa. I think I read ya wrong. I thought you were saying that the prefixes should link to the main pages, but they haven't because they were a quick and dirty way for the site to be built. But that's not actually what you said upon a re-read. Are you saying you don't think it's a good idea to make all of them link to the main page, except for those which may be ambiguous? I can quite understand, for example, of the short stories vs. comics in DWM. But is there a harm in making [[ | :::Whoa. I think I read ya wrong. I thought you were saying that the prefixes should link to the main pages, but they haven't because they were a quick and dirty way for the site to be built. But that's not actually what you said upon a re-read. Are you saying you don't think it's a good idea to make all of them link to the main page, except for those which may be ambiguous? I can quite understand, for example, of the short stories vs. comics in DWM. But is there a harm in making [[TV]] link to ''[[Torchwood (TV series)|Torchwood]]'' or [[TV]] link to [[Doctor Who]]? '''[[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>]] 05:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
::::Well, there is, as it sort of sends a double message that ''some'' links go to the pages and others don't. I think to keep it consistent and logical we should maintain the system we have at the moment, at least right through the prefix system it ad hears to a logic. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 13:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | ::::Well, there is, as it sort of sends a double message that ''some'' links go to the pages and others don't. I think to keep it consistent and logical we should maintain the system we have at the moment, at least right through the prefix system it ad hears to a logic. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 13:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
==Eleventh Doctor Adventures== | ==Eleventh Doctor Adventures== | ||
A new concern with this system is what's going to happen once we start getting Eleventh Doctor novels going. Then, [[ | A new concern with this system is what's going to happen once we start getting Eleventh Doctor novels going. Then, [[PROSE]] will be quite confusing. We might want to start thinking now of how we're going to fix this, as [[PROSE]] has somewhere between 500 and 1000 entries in its "What links here?" list already. Might I suggest we create new prefixes for these novel ranges using actual numerals? 9DA, 10DA, 11DA, perhaps? And, a simple move isn't going to do the trick, because that'll just leave behind <1000 instances of linked [[PROSE]]s all over the place, without in any way preventing the further use of that confusing prefix. We're gonna need a bot to clean it all up quickly. If I knew how to write such a bot, I'd take care of it right away, but my skills don't extend that far, I'm afraid. '''[[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>]] 01:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Urgh. Why did this have to become a problem? Well...a 1000 isn't ''that'' many things to change. (It's certainly possible, I've done it, all those Unsorted images didn't sort and add templates themselves, it's just mildly mind-numbing to do so). | :Urgh. Why did this have to become a problem? Well...a 1000 isn't ''that'' many things to change. (It's certainly possible, I've done it, all those Unsorted images didn't sort and add templates themselves, it's just mildly mind-numbing to do so). | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
:::::Oh, snap! That's the answer. Use the Wikipedia name. Call them all NSAs. [[wikipedia:Talk:New Series Adventures (Doctor Who)#Merge with Tenth Doctor Adventures|They've already had a wide-ranging discussion for us three years ago.]] Heh, they saw all this coming 3 years ago, but I guess it '''was''' pretty obvious, even back then. [[wikipedia:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 8#New Series Adventures|Here's the archive of the final decision to merge it all to NSA]], with a little bit of insight into how they actually accomplished it. No instructions about using a bot, sadly. '''[[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>]] 20:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | :::::Oh, snap! That's the answer. Use the Wikipedia name. Call them all NSAs. [[wikipedia:Talk:New Series Adventures (Doctor Who)#Merge with Tenth Doctor Adventures|They've already had a wide-ranging discussion for us three years ago.]] Heh, they saw all this coming 3 years ago, but I guess it '''was''' pretty obvious, even back then. [[wikipedia:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 8#New Series Adventures|Here's the archive of the final decision to merge it all to NSA]], with a little bit of insight into how they actually accomplished it. No instructions about using a bot, sadly. '''[[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>]] 20:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
===Merge proposal=== | ===Merge proposal=== | ||
Based on the previous section, '''I propose a vote to merge [[NDA]] and [[TDA]] into [[ | Based on the previous section, '''I propose a vote to merge [[NDA]] and [[TDA]] into [[PROSE]] and [[Ninth Doctor Adventures]] and [[BBC New Series Adventures]] into [[New Series Adventures]]''', with the implication being that future Eleventh Doctor novels will also be so linked. | ||
====Agree==== | ====Agree==== | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
I've merged both the Ninth and Tenth Doctor pages (and their histories) into the New Series Adventures article, in keeping with the others it is named [[BBC New Series Adventures]]. I've done a (very) quick edit of the article, but it probably needs going over with more attention. | I've merged both the Ninth and Tenth Doctor pages (and their histories) into the New Series Adventures article, in keeping with the others it is named [[BBC New Series Adventures]]. I've done a (very) quick edit of the article, but it probably needs going over with more attention. | ||
I've also merged the TDA and NDAs into [[ | I've also merged the TDA and NDAs into [[PROSE]]. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
==''Doctor Who Adventures'' vs. ''Doctor Who'' annuals== | ==''Doctor Who Adventures'' vs. ''Doctor Who'' annuals== | ||
Wow, this is a confusing. I would never intuitively guess that [[ | Wow, this is a confusing. I would never intuitively guess that [[COMIC]] refers to ''[[Doctor Who Adventures]]'', because there's no "M" anywhere in the title. We've just completely stuck on the word "Magazine" in order to justify the acronym. It should just be DWA, like the acronym used for individual issues ([[DWA Issue 34]], for instance). But [[DWAN]] is being used for stories from annuals — even though it applies to annuals that aren't necessarily ''Doctor Who'' Annuals or ''Doctor Who'' books that aren't nominal annuals so much as "once-yearly" publications. It seems to me that this is a more reasonable course: | ||
'''Propose moving [[DWAN]] to ANN, then moving [[ | '''Propose moving [[DWAN]] to ANN, then moving [[COMIC]] to [[DWAN]], then deleting [[COMIC]]. This should be a relatively easy fix, as there are currently less than 100 uses of [[DWAN]] and less than 25 uses of [[COMIC]]. ''' '''[[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>]] 13:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
====Discussion==== | ====Discussion==== | ||
:I understand everything except what ANN stands for. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 14:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC) | :I understand everything except what ANN stands for. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 14:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| 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) | ::::::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 [[ | :::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? | :::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 72: | Line 72: | ||
:::::Just let me know when this goes into effect and I'll get started on the corrections. --[[User:Raukodraug|Raukodraug]] 16:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC) | :::::Just let me know when this goes into effect and I'll get started on the corrections. --[[User:Raukodraug|Raukodraug]] 16:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Okay, AYS it is then. | ::Okay, AYS it is then. | ||
::Now here's another point. The [[list of prefixes]] page, but not the [[ | ::Now here's another point. The [[list of prefixes]] page, but not the [[COMIC]] page, asserted until ten minutes ago that [[COMIC]] meant comic '''or prose''' stories printed in TVC. Well, this reference to prose stories can't mean individual issues of TVC. There's no prose at all in TVC "proper". So it seems to imply the TVC Annuals. Personally, I'm dubious of the existence of them even in these books, Still, the implication was that [[COMIC]] should be used for stories printed in either the issues or the annuals. But the current text at [[DWA|the annual prefix page]] and the [[Doctor Who annual|''Doctor Who'' annual]] page itself lumps in TVC Annuals. This would seem to imply that you have a choice of abbreviations for material in TVC comic annuals; either you can use TVC or AYS. I can't imagine we want that kind of ambiguity. | ||
::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 [[ | ::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) | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
==[[Polystyle Publications, Ltd.|Polystyle]], ''[[The Incredible Hulk Presents]]'' comics== | ==[[Polystyle Publications, Ltd.|Polystyle]], ''[[The Incredible Hulk Presents]]'' comics== | ||
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. [[ | 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 [[ | 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 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 [[ | 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. | ||
On a secondary note, we also need a prefix for ''[[The Incredible Hulk Presents]]'' comics, as well. Luckily, there doesn't appear to be much need to '''change''' prefixes; it just needs to be '''started''' (unless, of course, someone has mistakenly referenced these as [[ | On a secondary note, we also need a prefix for ''[[The Incredible Hulk Presents]]'' comics, as well. Luckily, there doesn't appear to be much need to '''change''' prefixes; it just needs to be '''started''' (unless, of course, someone has mistakenly referenced these as [[COMIC]] or [[DWM]]] comics. How does [[COMIC]] grab you? '''[[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>]] 06:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I'm fine with having TVC and TVA. | :I'm fine with having TVC and TVA. | ||
:Really? John and Gillian's last names are 'Who' they say that in a comic strip? Shouldn't we move their article then to their 'proper names'? | :Really? John and Gillian's last names are 'Who' they say that in a comic strip? Shouldn't we move their article then to their 'proper names'? | ||
:IHP is also fine. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC) | :IHP is also fine. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Well, it's a one-page piece of prose fiction, in the form of an in-universe memo from "Professor John Who" at Zebadee University (the university in which the Doctor enrolls John and Gillian in [[ | ::Well, it's a one-page piece of prose fiction, in the form of an in-universe memo from "Professor John Who" at Zebadee University (the university in which the Doctor enrolls John and Gillian in [[COMIC]] "[[Invasion of the Quarks]]") to the head of the [[Space Security Service]]. According to the text, [[Sara Kingdom]] had come across an abandoned spacecraft and sent the video back to her boss at SSS headquarters. He, in turn, shunted the video to the "expert" at Zebadee. John analyzes the information and sends a report back to Sara's [[SSS]] boss, saying, basically, "Run like hell, you have NO idea what you're up against." | ||
::The piece was likely, but not confirmably, written by [[John Freeman]], and is one of the few pieces of fiction to originate in [[ | ::The piece was likely, but not confirmably, written by [[John Freeman]], and is one of the few pieces of fiction to originate in [[COMIC]]. (Actually, it might be the '''only''' new fiction in DWCC, now that I think about it.) Basically, it served as the introduction to the Trod-themed issue. | ||
::Now, as to whether that's ''really'' their last name, I suppose you'd have a debate on your hands. It makes sense, given that in the strips in which they appear, the central hero's in-narrative name is "Dr Who", and they are said to be his real grandfather. Certainly the fact that the [[ | ::Now, as to whether that's ''really'' their last name, I suppose you'd have a debate on your hands. It makes sense, given that in the strips in which they appear, the central hero's in-narrative name is "Dr Who", and they are said to be his real grandfather. Certainly the fact that the [[COMIC]] First Doctor takes pride in John's victory at a track meet ([[COMIC]]: "[[The Galaxy Games]]") and then the [[COMIC]] Second Doctor ships the pair off to college makes it feel like there's a genuine familial pride there. So if his name is "Who" then their name could logically be "Who" as well. It's the only name we have for them in any piece of fiction. On the other hand, the two do eventually stop calling him "grandfather". And in their farewell they oddly call him "Doctor" instead of "grandfather". | ||
::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 [[ | ::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 [[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. | ||
| Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
==BFA== | ==BFA== | ||
While there's an active dialogue about prefixes; this would probably cause endless amount of work, but it's something that's irritated me a little bit for a while. If you look at the [[Tardis:List of prefixes#Big Finish Productions]] all the other prefixes reference the series they're prefixes of. Except of course BFA, which we use for all the Doctor Who Audio Dramas. I know this one came first, but...in theory it should be BFADW or BFDW. Or am I just obsessing over nothing? --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) | While there's an active dialogue about prefixes; this would probably cause endless amount of work, but it's something that's irritated me a little bit for a while. If you look at the [[Tardis:List of prefixes#Big Finish Productions]] all the other prefixes reference the series they're prefixes of. Except of course BFA, which we use for all the Doctor Who Audio Dramas. I know this one came first, but...in theory it should be BFADW or BFDW. Or am I just obsessing over nothing? --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Besides that, there's not a prefix for the Cyberman or UNIT series. I was going to edit the [[ | :Besides that, there's not a prefix for the Cyberman or UNIT series. I was going to edit the [[AUDIO]] page's description so it said [[Big Finish Doctor Who Audio Dramas]] but then I realized I would have to also write "'''excluding''' Doctor Who Unbound which is on the same page and '''including''' [[Cyberman (audio series)]] and [[U.N.I.T. (audio series)]] which are on the [[Big Finish Doctor Who Audio Spin-offs]] page!"--[[User:Nyktimos|Nyktimos]] 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
::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 [[ | ::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 [[ | ::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. | ||
::Personally, if I were to contemplate a change in this area, it would be to eliminate the "BF" from all the ''other'' BF ranges. [[ | ::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.) | ||
::I think you'd make fewer total manual edits if you were to change the other prefixes than if you attempted to change BFA. | ::I think you'd make fewer total manual edits if you were to change the other prefixes than if you attempted to change BFA. | ||
::To add to Nyktimos' list, we also need a prefix — [[ | ::To add to Nyktimos' list, we also need a prefix — [[AUDIO]] — for ''[[The Companion Chronicles]]''. '''[[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>]] 15:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::Alrighty, yes there would be a great many edits, so we'll continue using BFG. | :::Alrighty, yes there would be a great many edits, so we'll continue using BFG. | ||
| Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
:::BFDE I suppose is called that (this is me retroactively justifying it) because there are those 4 BFAs that are subtitled as Dalek Empire - Part 1 etc. | :::BFDE I suppose is called that (this is me retroactively justifying it) because there are those 4 BFAs that are subtitled as Dalek Empire - Part 1 etc. | ||
:::While UNIT is no longer strictly an acronym, during the audios it actually was still an acronym (it's been a while since I listened to them but I'm pretty sure they call it the 'United Nations..' etc). | :::While UNIT is no longer strictly an acronym, during the audios it actually was still an acronym (it's been a while since I listened to them but I'm pretty sure they call it the 'United Nations..' etc). | ||
:::So...[[ | :::So...[[AUDIO]] for the Cyberman series? And BFUNIT for the UNIT series. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
I support creating prefixes for the Big Finish UNIT and Cyberman series. | I support creating prefixes for the Big Finish UNIT and Cyberman series. | ||
[[User:Americanwhofan|Americanwhofan]] 22:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC) | [[User:Americanwhofan|Americanwhofan]] 22:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Here's the problem I see with all these "BF" prefixes. There are so damned many of them that when you're reading an article, they all kinda blur together. The point of prefixes, it seems to me, is that when you see them, you instantly recognize them. Every time I see [[ | :Here's the problem I see with all these "BF" prefixes. There are so damned many of them that when you're reading an article, they all kinda blur together. The point of prefixes, it seems to me, is that when you see them, you instantly recognize them. Every time I see [[AUDIO]], I have to concentrate for a bit to see the SJS — which is really the important bit. Same thing with this BFUNIT thing, or [[AUDIO]]. Adding BF to the front of the prefix does what's called in the newspaper trade "burying the lead". Look at MemoryAlpha. They'd have been well within our BF structure to have used STTOS, STDS9, STTNG, STE, STVOY. But '''of course''' it's ST. Because this is common to all of them, it's essentially useless for the purposes of identification. And it's the same thing here. '''We need the identifying nouns front and center''', and we need to try wherever practicable to use no more than three letters. The UNIT acronym is the '''only''' one that genuinely poses a problem in this regard. | ||
:Another point: '''we're being internally inconsistent by adding "BF"'''. We don't say VNA or VMA, we say [[ | :Another point: '''we're being internally inconsistent by adding "BF"'''. We don't say VNA or VMA, we say [[PROSE]] and [[PROSE]]. We don't say BBCPDA or BBCNSA or BBCTWN or MUKDWM, we say [[PROSE]] and [[PROSE]] and [[PROSE]] and [[DWM]]. For some inexplicable reason, this is the only company whose initials go in the prefix for their products. (Well, almost. We've also inconsistently chosen to go with [[PROSE]] and [[PROSE]] instead of ME and CDW. These should be changed, too.) | ||
::For maximum readability, and consistency with the bulk of our other prefixes, we should make the following changes: | ::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 | ||
*[[ | *[[AUDIO]] should be G (I know you don't like it, but it's a one-word title. It's the only way to be consistent with your "acronym only" thing.) | ||
*[[ | *[[AUDIO]] should be SJS | ||
*[[ | *[[AUDIO]] should be IW (or possibly IWA, since there may be an actual series of IW prose coming, depending on the sales of this first anthology) | ||
*[[ | *[[AUDIO]] should be C | ||
*BFUNIT should be UNITA, to follow the pattern established by [[ | *BFUNIT should be UNITA, to follow the pattern established by [[AUDIO]] | ||
*[[BFDWU]] should stay [[BFDWU]] | *[[BFDWU]] should stay [[BFDWU]] | ||
*[[ | *[[AUDIO]] should stay [[AUDIO]] | ||
*''Companion Chronicles'' should be [[ | *''Companion Chronicles'' should be [[AUDIO]] | ||
*the upcoming ''Missing Season'' should be [[ | *the upcoming ''Missing Season'' should be [[AUDIO]], because it doesn't appear to be substantially different than any other Sixth Doctor/Peri audio. However, we certainly should wait until they're released to see if there's anything, other than unique origin of the scripts, to justify giving it its own prefix. | ||
*BBCA should be used for [[BBC Audio]] ''Doctor Who'' releases. BBCRC should redirect to BBCA, due to the changing name of the company. This is a valid exception to the "no company name" rule, because the line has no other name, and because it mirrors [[ | *BBCA should be used for [[BBC Audio]] ''Doctor Who'' releases. BBCRC should redirect to BBCA, due to the changing name of the company. This is a valid exception to the "no company name" rule, because the line has no other name, and because it mirrors [[AUDIO]]. The major use for this would be for things like ''[[Pest Control]]'', but one might be able to cite something that occurs only in the narration of a BBCRC narration, or if there are any differences between the [[PROSE]] and the audio based on the DWN. This prefix should also be used for BBC Audios that debuted on radio, like ''[[Slipback]]''. | ||
*[[ | *[[AUDIO]] should be used for ''Sarah Jane Adventures'' audiobooks | ||
*[[ | *[[AUDIO]] should stay [[AUDIO]] | ||
*[[ | *[[AUDIO]] should be deleted. The Eighth Doctor/Lucie first season should just be credited BFA. That [[AUDIO]]/[[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 [[ | *[[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) | '''[[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) | :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 170: | Line 170: | ||
::Going through each of your points: | ::Going through each of your points: | ||
::*BS, well aside from what this is often short hand for (I know there are other unfortunate acronyms, but we don't need to go for more), there is the [[ | ::*BS, well aside from what this is often short hand for (I know there are other unfortunate acronyms, but we don't need to go for more), there is the [[PROSE]]s which could also be interpreted as Bernice Summerfield. | ||
::*Okay, I agree with BFD, it should be [[ID]], that one makes sense. | ::*Okay, I agree with BFD, it should be [[ID]], that one makes sense. | ||
::*It's not my acronym thing, I might have come along early but there were many things on this wiki in the works before I came along. | ::*It's not my acronym thing, I might have come along early but there were many things on this wiki in the works before I came along. | ||
::*IW would like the Bernice Summerfield thing get confusing, would that mean (like the BFD) stories with Iris Wildthyme in them, ''just'' the audios, ''just the book/anthology from Big Finish'' or what. So for clarification's sake I think this one needs to stay BFIW. | ::*IW would like the Bernice Summerfield thing get confusing, would that mean (like the BFD) stories with Iris Wildthyme in them, ''just'' the audios, ''just the book/anthology from Big Finish'' or what. So for clarification's sake I think this one needs to stay BFIW. | ||
::*[[ | ::*[[AUDIO]], fine, we can have CC for Companion Chronicles. | ||
::*I agree with BBCA for BBC Audio Doctor Who releases. | ::*I agree with BBCA for BBC Audio Doctor Who releases. | ||
::*The same goes for SJAA | ::*The same goes for SJAA | ||
| Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
:::MemoryAlpha is good, and not so. They really over do the whole splitting up of information (with MemoryBeta and all). On this wiki it's all together so we need things like BF to clarify certain prefixes. | :::MemoryAlpha is good, and not so. They really over do the whole splitting up of information (with MemoryBeta and all). On this wiki it's all together so we need things like BF to clarify certain prefixes. | ||
:::As for [[ | :::As for [[PROSE]] and [[PROSE]], yes there are some inconsistencies, there are many, those two date from early in this wiki's life. But TME stands for The Missing Adventures (or Target Missing Adventures I suppose depending on how you read it), TC vs CDW, I can only guess that when that was created they didn't want to add confusion to the DW prefix. | ||
::::So TC can be changed, I suppose if it really needs to be to CDW. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | ::::So TC can be changed, I suppose if it really needs to be to CDW. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 16:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
::You say '''BF''' clarifies things, but does it? It makes it harder for editors to use (more keystrokes, less intuitive), and harder for readers to instantly parse. And again, the central question for me is, why does Big Finish, and no other producer, need to have its initials in the acronym? Why is [[ | ::You say '''BF''' clarifies things, but does it? It makes it harder for editors to use (more keystrokes, less intuitive), and harder for readers to instantly parse. And again, the central question for me is, why does Big Finish, and no other producer, need to have its initials in the acronym? Why is [[AUDIO]] superior in clarity to IWA? Why allow [[AUDIO]] and [[AUDIO]], but not IWA? I agree BS is unfortunate, on a second look, so why not BSA to be in line with these others? Why does [[AUDIO]] work better than SJS? I'm just not seeing the logic of including the BF. | ||
::(I have to admit not knowing the existence of [[ | ::(I have to admit not knowing the existence of [[PROSE]], thinking that the whole line went under [[PROSE]]. So we could even shorten it to BA, for "Benny Audios", bringing it in line with "Benny New Adventures", or go with BSA but change [[PROSE]] to BSNA. Somehow, we need the two Benny things to use the same form of the name, surely.) '''[[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>]] 00:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::We could change BNA to BSNA, but isn't that going against the whole more keystrokes for editors thing? | :::We could change BNA to BSNA, but isn't that going against the whole more keystrokes for editors thing? | ||
| Line 196: | Line 196: | ||
::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 [[ | ::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. [[ | ::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.]'' | :::''[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 ([[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 realise this is an old discussion, but I'd still like to chime in regarding [[ | :::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) | ||
==CC== | ==CC== | ||
| Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
==Prefix List== | ==Prefix List== | ||
Is there a list of all of the known prefixes and what each stands for? I ask for three reasons. One, this discussion might be a lot easier if there was a list that could be reviewed and reconciled with the needs of the wiki. Two, it would be wonderful if a user could look up story articles based upon their prefix (though that might have more to do with having the prefix relate to a Category, but I digress). And three, I'm preparing to work through the first Virgin [[Decalog (anthology)|Decalog]] book, and was wondering what prefix to use. After a few minutes of searching I found that a prefix of [[ | Is there a list of all of the known prefixes and what each stands for? I ask for three reasons. One, this discussion might be a lot easier if there was a list that could be reviewed and reconciled with the needs of the wiki. Two, it would be wonderful if a user could look up story articles based upon their prefix (though that might have more to do with having the prefix relate to a Category, but I digress). And three, I'm preparing to work through the first Virgin [[Decalog (anthology)|Decalog]] book, and was wondering what prefix to use. After a few minutes of searching I found that a prefix of [[PROSE]] exists for these stories, but I would have LOVED to have been able to look up the prefix on a list (as opposed to trial and error searches). --[[User:Raukodraug|Raukodraug]] 05:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
:The list is at [[Tardis:List of prefixes]][[User:Americanwhofan|Americanwhofan]] 18:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC) | :The list is at [[Tardis:List of prefixes]][[User:Americanwhofan|Americanwhofan]] 18:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 225: | Line 225: | ||
==Faction Paradox and Kaldor City series== | ==Faction Paradox and Kaldor City series== | ||
FP says: '''FP''' designates novels and audio plays in the [[Faction Paradox (series)|Faction Paradox]] series. | FP says: '''FP''' designates novels and audio plays in the [[Faction Paradox (series)|Faction Paradox]] series. | ||
-which goes against [[Tardis:List of prefixes]] and [[ | -which goes against [[Tardis:List of prefixes]] and [[AUDIO]]. | ||
KC - Two pages use it for [[Kaldor City (audio series)]] even though the link is red. | KC - Two pages use it for [[Kaldor City (audio series)]] even though the link is red. | ||
| Line 234: | Line 234: | ||
or | or | ||
#[[BBV]] for the Protocols audios and all the other [[BBV Productions]] | #[[BBV]] for the Protocols audios and all the other [[BBV Productions]] | ||
#[[ | #[[AUDIO]] for its two different audio series | ||
#'''FP''' for the books | #'''FP''' for the books | ||
#... and something else for the [[Mad Norwegian Press]] / [[Image Comics]] comic books? | #... and something else for the [[Mad Norwegian Press]] / [[Image Comics]] comic books? | ||
| Line 245: | Line 245: | ||
Now that the first episode of the K-9 series has aired, can anyone refresh my memory as to what prefix we are using for the show? --[[User:Raukodraug|Raukodraug]] 05:54, November 3, 2009 (UTC) | Now that the first episode of the K-9 series has aired, can anyone refresh my memory as to what prefix we are using for the show? --[[User:Raukodraug|Raukodraug]] 05:54, November 3, 2009 (UTC) | ||
:It is [[ | :It is [[TV]] [[User:Bigshowbower|Bigshowbower]] 06:04, November 3, 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Thank you muchly. --[[User:Raukodraug|Raukodraug]] 07:38, November 3, 2009 (UTC) | ::Thank you muchly. --[[User:Raukodraug|Raukodraug]] 07:38, November 3, 2009 (UTC) | ||
==TV Century 21== | ==TV Century 21== | ||
Proposed change of DC to [[ | 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 ([[ | 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]], [[RT]] etc.) or rarely a publisher ([[COMIC]]) which mirrors audios or direct-to-video releases ([[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: | 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: | ||
| Line 262: | Line 262: | ||
I'm not advocating changing the title of the series article at this time, partially because it needs a major overhaul first and mostly because I need to be able to link to the prefix more. Writing the [[Dalek Annual]] story pages means a lot of cross-referencing with contemporary material and this is an impediment. --[[User:Nyktimos|Nyktimos]] 06:46, February 16, 2010 (UTC) | I'm not advocating changing the title of the series article at this time, partially because it needs a major overhaul first and mostly because I need to be able to link to the prefix more. Writing the [[Dalek Annual]] story pages means a lot of cross-referencing with contemporary material and this is an impediment. --[[User:Nyktimos|Nyktimos]] 06:46, February 16, 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Whoa. We gotta think about this one. You've spread this message around in various places and I don't really get it. There's no such thing as a "DWM continuation" of the TV21 stuff; they only reprinted the stuff from the 1960s. The reason the DC prefix stood as an "oddity" amongst comic prefixes is that '''it is one'''. There's no DWU material in TV21 aside from what later became known as DC, and it's the Marvel UK name that's "stuck" amongst most fans. Put more simply, [[ | ::Whoa. We gotta think about this one. You've spread this message around in various places and I don't really get it. There's no such thing as a "DWM continuation" of the TV21 stuff; they only reprinted the stuff from the 1960s. The reason the DC prefix stood as an "oddity" amongst comic prefixes is that '''it is one'''. There's no DWU material in TV21 aside from what later became known as DC, and it's the Marvel UK name that's "stuck" amongst most fans. Put more simply, [[COMIC]] is indivisible from DC. All you've done is trade one initialism for another. Not sure why you bothered with the work. | ||
::Your rationale of using what was at best a [[Souvenir Press]] ''subtitle'' as a basis for continuing to use the DC prefix for some stuff published in the 1960s is, I think, highly confusing. Moreover, it's bogus. None of that Souvenir stuff should be given the DC prefix. It makes no sense to label anything DC based upon the — at this point, 40+ years after the fact — ''rumored'' content of ''[[The Curse of the Daleks]]'', which incidentally included Souvenir's editor as a producer. I can't even wrap my mind around how shaky that is. It's like saying I'm gonna call this thing a "tigotohopper" because a merchandiser who made toys during [[series 1]] happened to be the editor of a semi-official reference book in 2001 — and he said that they ''were'' trigotohoppers. | ::Your rationale of using what was at best a [[Souvenir Press]] ''subtitle'' as a basis for continuing to use the DC prefix for some stuff published in the 1960s is, I think, highly confusing. Moreover, it's bogus. None of that Souvenir stuff should be given the DC prefix. It makes no sense to label anything DC based upon the — at this point, 40+ years after the fact — ''rumored'' content of ''[[The Curse of the Daleks]]'', which incidentally included Souvenir's editor as a producer. I can't even wrap my mind around how shaky that is. It's like saying I'm gonna call this thing a "tigotohopper" because a merchandiser who made toys during [[series 1]] happened to be the editor of a semi-official reference book in 2001 — and he said that they ''were'' trigotohoppers. | ||
