This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
As the collections have been listed how about listing the recent series of Special Editions? Bladeboy1889 15:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Are the dates given for the Special Editions "on sale" dates, or do they need to be corrected? I have only The Complete Third Doctor on hand at the moment (and the only others I own at all are the analogous volumes for the 1st, 2nd, & 6th Drs., though I'd like to have all of the original series Drs.' editions) and the cover date there is "5 September 2002," not "July" as given here. I think that the cover dates are what ought to be listed anyway. Anybody else? Ted Watson ( talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The entry says comic strip but that is a rather specific form and I've read quite a few back in the day and don't recall them being a "strip" (single panel high and usually 3 or 4 panels wide). They were full page (some single some multi-page) comics stories along the same lines as those providing the full content of other British comics anthologies. As I say it has been years so I could be wrong so I thought I'd check. ( Emperor 18:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
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)
Panini have done a good job collectiing together the old comic stories all/most of which I assume were first published in the mag. [2] [3] [4] 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))
So where should the Voyager details go? In chronological order of the Doctor (ie between the fifth and eight doctor books) or chronologically for the books based on release date? Bladeboy1889 ( talk) 15:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this avliable in the US? User:Nokom
Its Nokom again, not logged in atm though :) I will check out their website now :) A normal book store like borders wouldn't carry them then? How often do they come out, also?
It's turned up in most larger Barnes & Noble stores for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.84.124 ( talk) 18:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I have reversed the vandalism that was done to the Doctor Who Magazine jpeg image. Kathleen.wright5 09:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
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 {{ main}}.
Nosing around there also seems to be a Doctor Who manga. ( Emperor ( talk) 19:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
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)
If anyone has or is able to research circulation figures, please add and reference. It feels like a bit of a gap to me. -- Cedders tk 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Panini only began submitting figures to the Audit Bureau of Circulations in June 2010 (ie, giving figures from the Jan-Jun 2010 period onwards). They've continued doing so regularly up until when the last set of figures (from Jan to Jun 2019) were due to be released on 15th August 2019. However, for some reason, no figures were released on that date and there's been nothing since. As such, I'm going to create a Circulation section recording this fact Cybersub ( talk) 19:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I've just updated this section with the figures for 2020. However, the link for the six-month period between July and December 2018 now takes readers to the 2020 figures, as it's for the product so gets overwritten when new figures are published. I've got a PDF of the Jul-Dec 2018 certificate but am unsure how to add it as a reference, so if someone can let me know how it's done, please, I'll sort it, or I can send them the PDF for them to do the honours if that's easier. Thanks. Cybersub ( talk) 00:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
There have been Winter/Summer Specials for years. In the early 90's there ones like the Time Lord Special. the UNIT Special, the Sarah Jane Smith Special etc. Doctor Who Magazine also produced Yearbooks for five years in the 90's. Yet none of this is mentioned in the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 ( talk) 14:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Every volume that contains the first story of a new season (which is usually going to be about every 3rd-5th volume, it seems), also contains an overview of the whole season, and a list of all the stories in that season with the volumes that they'll be featured in. For instance volume 1 contains a list of all stories in season 1 (which appear to make up volumes 1, 2 and the beginning of volume 3). Is it worth adding this data into the table as we go along, and then add issue numbers and release dates for these volumes when they become available? KoopaCooper ( talk) 12:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Collapsing contact is on the list of things not to do WP:DONTHIDE " toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, tables or lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions" GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]
. KoopaCooper ( talk) 09:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
References
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)
I've reversed the edit of this merger, as there is information here which isn't simply replicated on the Doctor Who Magazine page, such as DVD appearances, and other magazine work. WP:MERGEPROP was done with no discussion on the talk page -- Themileshuntclub ( talk) 19:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I maintain that the majority of Doctor Who fans are aware of Tom Spilsbury and his contributions to the show, his decade-long tenure as editor of Doctor Who Magazine but also for his contributions to the BBC DVD range, his interviews on the TV and spots on the news. He has written articles, been name-checked in the series itself and is a well known figure amongst followers of the show. The fact that half a dozen previous editors of the magazine have their own page entry and were editors for a shorter time is counter intuitive, I think he definitely warrants his own entry. I'd propose a strong keep. ~ TheBabelColour — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheBabelColour (
talk •
contribs) 19:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not exactly "chiming in", I'm contributing to the discussion. Because I've just been made aware that there was one to have. ~TheBabelcolour
Re your point that three months had passed, that is irrelevant, as the proposal simply hadn't been noticed until now. As for your concern about lack of sources, I am happy to build up the page, in order to add sources etc that are currently missing. Other editors of Doctor Who Magazine have their own page, so there is no reason why this editor should be an exception. -- Themileshuntclub ( talk) 20:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Argento Surfer does seem defensive. Does it matter if others hadn't contributed to Ms. Spilsbury bio before now? I'd suggest not. The presumption in Argento's discussion seems to be that, other than him, others should have been paying more attention. I'd argue that Wikipedia is a massive project & no one could be expected to pay attention anywhere near 100% of the time. 3 months may seem a reasonable amount of time to Argento, but for a page that's been up for many years now, who, other than him/her, was looking to make changes? Your arguments make sense to me, that Mr. Spilsbury had been editor of DWM for a long period, certainly makes him worthy of a page of his own, and once source citations are added there should be absolutely no reason for Mr. Spilsbury's article to be merged with another or deleted altogether. That's my 2 cents. ~ George Larson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.221.253 ( talk) 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I've just seen on Twitter that it's gone and I think it's an error of judgement. Ironically the last edit I did was adding to the guy's page. Kiss of death I guess. It needed citations, but that doesn't mean the chap's not a public figure of note to a genre fans Thecurryman2004 ( talk) 20:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it is important to let this discussion play out for a little while, now its existence is more publicly known. If the consensus swings predominantly one way then we have our answer. BabelColour ( talk) 21:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Tom is a person and the magazine is an item. If and when Tom decides to leave DWM he is bound to continue his career elsewhere - like many other previous editors who also have their distinct pages - and his page would be updated accordingly. Why would we want to merge his 'existance' into a generic entry and then have to create it yet again for future projects? Chuck Foster ( talk) 21:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I have greatly expanded the page, adding a lot of sources and quotes wherever possible – but there is more that can be added to get the page up to speed. Any advice of what further is required would be gratefully received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.199.242 ( talk) 22:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please fix the paragraph for Volume 90 in The Complete History article please? Foxx247 ( talk) 22:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
As the collections have been listed how about listing the recent series of Special Editions? Bladeboy1889 15:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Are the dates given for the Special Editions "on sale" dates, or do they need to be corrected? I have only The Complete Third Doctor on hand at the moment (and the only others I own at all are the analogous volumes for the 1st, 2nd, & 6th Drs., though I'd like to have all of the original series Drs.' editions) and the cover date there is "5 September 2002," not "July" as given here. I think that the cover dates are what ought to be listed anyway. Anybody else? Ted Watson ( talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The entry says comic strip but that is a rather specific form and I've read quite a few back in the day and don't recall them being a "strip" (single panel high and usually 3 or 4 panels wide). They were full page (some single some multi-page) comics stories along the same lines as those providing the full content of other British comics anthologies. As I say it has been years so I could be wrong so I thought I'd check. ( Emperor 18:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
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)
Panini have done a good job collectiing together the old comic stories all/most of which I assume were first published in the mag. [2] [3] [4] 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))
So where should the Voyager details go? In chronological order of the Doctor (ie between the fifth and eight doctor books) or chronologically for the books based on release date? Bladeboy1889 ( talk) 15:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this avliable in the US? User:Nokom
Its Nokom again, not logged in atm though :) I will check out their website now :) A normal book store like borders wouldn't carry them then? How often do they come out, also?
It's turned up in most larger Barnes & Noble stores for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.84.124 ( talk) 18:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I have reversed the vandalism that was done to the Doctor Who Magazine jpeg image. Kathleen.wright5 09:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
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 {{ main}}.
Nosing around there also seems to be a Doctor Who manga. ( Emperor ( talk) 19:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
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)
If anyone has or is able to research circulation figures, please add and reference. It feels like a bit of a gap to me. -- Cedders tk 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Panini only began submitting figures to the Audit Bureau of Circulations in June 2010 (ie, giving figures from the Jan-Jun 2010 period onwards). They've continued doing so regularly up until when the last set of figures (from Jan to Jun 2019) were due to be released on 15th August 2019. However, for some reason, no figures were released on that date and there's been nothing since. As such, I'm going to create a Circulation section recording this fact Cybersub ( talk) 19:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I've just updated this section with the figures for 2020. However, the link for the six-month period between July and December 2018 now takes readers to the 2020 figures, as it's for the product so gets overwritten when new figures are published. I've got a PDF of the Jul-Dec 2018 certificate but am unsure how to add it as a reference, so if someone can let me know how it's done, please, I'll sort it, or I can send them the PDF for them to do the honours if that's easier. Thanks. Cybersub ( talk) 00:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
There have been Winter/Summer Specials for years. In the early 90's there ones like the Time Lord Special. the UNIT Special, the Sarah Jane Smith Special etc. Doctor Who Magazine also produced Yearbooks for five years in the 90's. Yet none of this is mentioned in the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.141 ( talk) 14:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Every volume that contains the first story of a new season (which is usually going to be about every 3rd-5th volume, it seems), also contains an overview of the whole season, and a list of all the stories in that season with the volumes that they'll be featured in. For instance volume 1 contains a list of all stories in season 1 (which appear to make up volumes 1, 2 and the beginning of volume 3). Is it worth adding this data into the table as we go along, and then add issue numbers and release dates for these volumes when they become available? KoopaCooper ( talk) 12:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Collapsing contact is on the list of things not to do WP:DONTHIDE " toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, tables or lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions" GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]
. KoopaCooper ( talk) 09:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
References
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)
I've reversed the edit of this merger, as there is information here which isn't simply replicated on the Doctor Who Magazine page, such as DVD appearances, and other magazine work. WP:MERGEPROP was done with no discussion on the talk page -- Themileshuntclub ( talk) 19:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I maintain that the majority of Doctor Who fans are aware of Tom Spilsbury and his contributions to the show, his decade-long tenure as editor of Doctor Who Magazine but also for his contributions to the BBC DVD range, his interviews on the TV and spots on the news. He has written articles, been name-checked in the series itself and is a well known figure amongst followers of the show. The fact that half a dozen previous editors of the magazine have their own page entry and were editors for a shorter time is counter intuitive, I think he definitely warrants his own entry. I'd propose a strong keep. ~ TheBabelColour — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheBabelColour (
talk •
contribs) 19:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not exactly "chiming in", I'm contributing to the discussion. Because I've just been made aware that there was one to have. ~TheBabelcolour
Re your point that three months had passed, that is irrelevant, as the proposal simply hadn't been noticed until now. As for your concern about lack of sources, I am happy to build up the page, in order to add sources etc that are currently missing. Other editors of Doctor Who Magazine have their own page, so there is no reason why this editor should be an exception. -- Themileshuntclub ( talk) 20:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Argento Surfer does seem defensive. Does it matter if others hadn't contributed to Ms. Spilsbury bio before now? I'd suggest not. The presumption in Argento's discussion seems to be that, other than him, others should have been paying more attention. I'd argue that Wikipedia is a massive project & no one could be expected to pay attention anywhere near 100% of the time. 3 months may seem a reasonable amount of time to Argento, but for a page that's been up for many years now, who, other than him/her, was looking to make changes? Your arguments make sense to me, that Mr. Spilsbury had been editor of DWM for a long period, certainly makes him worthy of a page of his own, and once source citations are added there should be absolutely no reason for Mr. Spilsbury's article to be merged with another or deleted altogether. That's my 2 cents. ~ George Larson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.221.253 ( talk) 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I've just seen on Twitter that it's gone and I think it's an error of judgement. Ironically the last edit I did was adding to the guy's page. Kiss of death I guess. It needed citations, but that doesn't mean the chap's not a public figure of note to a genre fans Thecurryman2004 ( talk) 20:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it is important to let this discussion play out for a little while, now its existence is more publicly known. If the consensus swings predominantly one way then we have our answer. BabelColour ( talk) 21:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Tom is a person and the magazine is an item. If and when Tom decides to leave DWM he is bound to continue his career elsewhere - like many other previous editors who also have their distinct pages - and his page would be updated accordingly. Why would we want to merge his 'existance' into a generic entry and then have to create it yet again for future projects? Chuck Foster ( talk) 21:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I have greatly expanded the page, adding a lot of sources and quotes wherever possible – but there is more that can be added to get the page up to speed. Any advice of what further is required would be gratefully received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.199.242 ( talk) 22:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please fix the paragraph for Volume 90 in The Complete History article please? Foxx247 ( talk) 22:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)