Talk:Doctor Who Magazine

message: As the collections have been listed how about listing the recent series of Special Editions? Bladeboy1889 15:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work!! Yeah go for it, can't hurt. I think it possibly needs expanding on the real world impact (reviews etc.) but, as I've just found my old copies of the early DW Weekly/Monthly issues I'll see if there is anything else that can be added but it does look pretty solid in that area. (Emperor 16:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and have a go next week although my copies are buried in boxes at the moment whilst I'm decorating! Bladeboy1889 19:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've added this now - makes the whole article a bit long now though.  Perhaps we should consider breaking out the colections and special editions sections into separate articles? Bladeboy1889 13:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. As it stands it isn't yet tripping the page too long warning and that is only the minimum size itself (given the increase in bandwidth). So it is something worth keeping an eye on but it is probably too early for a split. (Emperor 15:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've adjusted the formatting (as it is wise to avoid too much bold and breaks should only really be used when nothing else will do - usually in infoboxes). If it doesn't suit I'll reverse it. (Emperor 16:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Cover dates are usually the date a magazine is to be removed from the shelf by the newsagent. Not just DWM, but all magazines, although these days some magazines produced every 4 weeks still have a "month" off-shelf date which doesn't quite match by the end of the year (and meaning that they end up having a "Christmas" dated issue, too) Stephenb (Talk) 08:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Magazines are to be removed from the retailer's display when the next issue arrives--if they don't send unsold copies back then, they can't get their money back (yes, this doesn't apply to direct-distribution outlets, but it is the way it is done in general, at least here on the west side of the pond). Issues started getting cover-dated a few months in the future in hope that it would get them left on the shelves longer and get more copies sold (presumably, the retailers-get-refunds-from-wholesalers process didn't exist way back then). The every-four-weeks-publication resulting in an extra (thirteenth) issue in the year is why they are given dates more specific than just the month, such as the "5 July 1995" one cited for DWM #227 in a ref. note on The Claws of Axos. Others include Analog Science Fiction and Fact and Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine. Furthermore, since cover dates are what are found on the issues themselves and are what are used in reference citations, I still feel that those are what should be listed here. Of what possible after-the-fact interest in an academic context can the original on-sale dates be (as opposed to the cover dates, which are in the general ballpark as to release, anyway)? Post a good answer to that question and I'll go along with them. Note that I am asking, not just making the changes. Ted Watson (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's the way that many American magazine cover dates work now; however, the traditional reason for the cover date is for when the retailer was to remove the magazine from the shelf.  This has changed somewhat over the years, as the distribution process became more sophisticated and magazine publishing began to take advantage of that, but remains the tradition for the majority of magazines over here in the UK.  In the "every 4 weeks" case, many over here don't give a specific date but still give a month (e.g. SFX magazine and other Future Publishing magazines) meaning they have a Christmas issue as well as Jan - Dec issues.  DWM is fairly unusual for a 4-weekly in listing a full date rather than just a month, AFAIK.  The on-shelf date is more important IMO - this is when the object in question went on sale and available to readers, and therefore the cover-date less useful in an academic context (who cares when it was due to be removed?).  That's not to say cover dates should not be in the article, but the release dates ought to be there too. Stephenb (Talk) 11:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (My apologies for forgetting to check this board yesterday; really, just absent-mindedness, not that I didn't care) OK, we are pretty much straight about what the dates mean in our respective countries (though I doubt the cover dates mean--or ever meant--removal time in the US; in theory, the next issue arrives before the date is reached, and in this sort of retrospective context, very few people think of them as anything more specific than the issue's date). However, as the cover dates are on the publications themselves (& in reference citations), and the on-sale dates are difficult to document (if not determine) years after the event, I really feel the latter have a lack of value here. A similar principle is why most general sources don't give precise release dates (just the year) for motion pictures. Anybody else want to weigh in on this? Ted Watson (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Special Editions

message: I think Sheila Cranna actually edited 31 issues, not 30.  In addition to issues 107-136, she also was the credited editor for 97.  CzechOut 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sheila Cranna

message: Panini have done a good job collectiing together the old comic stories all/most of which I assume were first published in the mag.    Would it be worth giing a quick outline of them an what they collect? It would I assume eventually give a reasonable outline of the comic stories published in the mag. (Emperor 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure — if you want to do it, you can, or I can whip something up in the next day or two. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see how things go. I might jot out an outline and take it from there. (Emperor 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a start, but haven't added the End Game stories as I wasn't sure what was in them. (Emperor 04:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated Endgame - I can do Flood when Play.com deliver it. (Bladeboy1889 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Collections

message: Is this avliable in the US? User:Nokom
:If you follow the link to the website, Panini offer overseas subscriptions.  Otherwise, I believe some specialist stores or mail-order companies offer it. Stephenb (Talk) 19:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Asthe article notes, the magazine currently comes out every four weeks, for a total of 13 issues per year.  I've never seen it in an average American bookstores like Borders, though.  Your best bet to find copies on the shelf is in comic book shops. Rob T Firefly 17:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that Borders in Australia carries it, but I'm not sure whether it would be the same for the US. VaughnJess 08:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: USA?

message: I have reversed the vandalism that was done to the Doctor Who Magazine jpeg image. Kathleen.wright5 09:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversal of Vandalism 

message: It is looking like it might be worth start something to bring together the Doctor's comic outings as  IDW Publishing are producing their own original titles too (aas well as comics in Doctor Who - Battles in Time Comic Stories and Doctor Who Adventures#Comic) and this article doesn't really make the natural home for bringing them together. 
I'd suggest "Doctor Who (comics)" in line with things that draw together comics for franchises produced by different companies: Battlestar Galactica (comic book), Xena: Warrior Princess (comics), etc. Although "Doctor Who comics" might be more natural following Buffy comics, Stargate comics - actually that makes sense as it can draw together Doctor Who comics while the others imply they are comics called Doctor Who - so Doctor Who (comics). This can stay here and get linked in via . 
Nosing around there also seems to be a Doctor Who manga. (Emperor (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd probably suggest splitting this off to form the core of such an entry Doctor Who spin-offs#Comics. (Emperor (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a redirect at Doctor Who (comics) to the spin-off section but it is looking pretty big and could be easily split off. (Emperor (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctor Who comics

message: Any chance of mentioning the recent edition that changed the name on the front cover to Bad Wolf? 86.157.44.58 (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Wolf 

message: If anyone has or is able to research circulation figures, please add and reference.  It feels like a bit of a gap to me. --Cedderstk 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circulation and readership 

message: Looking at what just happened - the image being replaced with a non-compliant image - along with what the current image is, we really need to look at why there is an image in the infobox.
In all honesty, the infobox is not, and should not be, a place to feature "this months issue". It should be a stable image that is either a general representation of what the magazine is or the inaugural issue under Doctor Who Monthly.
Right now we have what amounts to a general representation, so let us please try an keep it stable.
- J Greb (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It should really be the first issue cover, which is actually already on the page, so adding new ones is unnecessary. (Emperor (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: Is it worth mentioning these? There were at least two themed, if thats the right word, editions, the 1995 Summer Special- the Sixties Dalek Movies, and one, a rather thin edition, to coincide with 1996 TV Movie. 81.111.127.132 (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summer/Winter Specials 

message: Tom Spilsbury is lacking in decent sources, and his notability seems to stem from him editing this magazine. Does he need his own article? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody seemed to object. Merge performed. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

text: There were almost 3 months between my proposal and the merge, which was plenty of time for interested parties to chime in. The information that wasn't replicated was (and still is) unsourced. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

text: WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument. Do you have sources to support any of these notable things you're attributing to him?  I'd also like to note the oddity of two editors suddenly chiming in within an hour of each other after such a long period of silence...one of whom hadn't made an edit in six years, and one who has edited nothing in nearly a year, and nothing but his user page prior to that. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Three months is very relevant. See WP:Bold. Also, read the second sentence here. However, I welcome your offer to improve the page. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia has a thing called a watchlist. Regular editors receive notification of any page edits. Being connected to a notable thing does not automatically convey notability, since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Twitter eh? That explains a lot. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Or, you know, meat puppetry will make it all invalid and we'll have to start over unless someone actually improves the article enough to demonstrate notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I had to Google what meatpuppetry was. Never heard it before, but it's a fantastic expression, If nothing else comes out of this discussion you have taught me a great word. But I ultimately agree with you. The article was lacking, though I believe the person warrants a page. Not necessarily mutually exclusive views. Hopefully people voicing a request for it to stay will bolster the noteworthiness of the subject with sourced references and independent citations.BabelColour (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be an excellent outcome. Argento Surfer (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Because the page as it stood did not meet Notability requirements. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Great work! I'm removing the merge tag. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Could someone please fix the paragraph for Volume 90 in The Complete History article please? Foxx247 (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Complete History Volume 90