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

: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 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.)

::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)

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.

::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.

:::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?

: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)

::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.

*[[BFBS]] should be BS

*[[BFDWU]] should stay [[BFDWU]]

*[[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]], 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).

::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]].

::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)

::::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)

#[[BBV]] for the Protocols audios and all the other [[BBV Productions]]

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.

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.