Talk:The Discontinuity Guide

Potential addition/s

• As mentioned on the 'deletion' page; the format devised by the authors has been adopted (and expanded upon) by the BBC in their online 'Classic Who' episode guide - it is also employed by 'Whoniverse.net' and in this guide which was created to incorporate stories outside of the 'canon' television series; books/audio etc. - "Our method is to mimic the style and layout of the original DisContinuity Guide, including its several criteria and points of interest." - "APOLOGIES TO CORNELL, DAY & TOPPING".

• It could also be worth mentioning that (like a number of Who books) the guide can now sell for many times its cover price... although not as expensive as say, Lungbarrow or The Dying Days it can still be fairly pricey - which I would suggest is indicative of desirability.

217.33.79.34 (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Erroneous claim of "unofficial" status

The Discontinuity Guide was first published by the officially-licensed Doctor Who publisher at the time, who would not have done so without BBC approval. In fact, the title at first publication was Doctor Who - The Discontinuity Guide, with the series name rendered in the official "diamond" logo, and the BBC copyright of the series is acknowledged within. In contrast, the contemporary Virgin unofficial guides clearly state that they are unauthorized on the covers, and the relevant copyright is not acknowledged within.

I can only assume that someone has made a blanket assumption on the basis that Cornell, Day and/or Topping also wrote a number of unofficial guide of other series. As noted in the deletion discussion, the BBC's own website incorporates text from TDG into its DW pages with full acknowledgement. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Pushing opinions

Someone keeps adding the word "official" to the first sentence. Despite having no WP:RS. Their response is "Deal with it". He/she should read WP:BURDEN. And by the way, here's the Amazon.com link :http://www.amazon.com/The-DisContinuity-Guide-Unofficial-Companion/dp/1932265090 A Google link http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Discontinuity_Guide.html?id=3AoXAgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y (read near the bottom under Title) Need I even say more?

A)The book itself has the word unofficial in its own title.

B)Even if you felt the need to add the word "official", you can not do it without a RS stating that it is official. 41.132.178.141 (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The same person is still pushing his/her POV. His/her reason is "titles on publication are facts". Well, if that's so, then the links above explicitly show that the word unofficial is in the book's title. He/she has also clearly not read WP:BURDEN. which explicitly states

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Otherwise, it can and must be removed. And continuing to reinstate it without WP:RS is disruptive editing. 41.132.178.141 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And her'es a link for the cover, from Amazon. Note what it says on the sign on the left in place of the 'Pull to Open' bit. IE. on the front cover of the book. http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51PCVSFCSRL._SY445_.jpg 41.132.178.141 (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"Someone" has a name. When first published, the book was licensed by the BBC and featured the official logo. Subsequent non-licensed publication doesn't change that. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not there's any truth in that, the point about WP:V still stands. Unless someone can find a WP:RS stating that it is/was/whatever "official" then the article can not state that it is official. We do however have reliable links saying that it's unofficial. Funny that. 41.132.178.141 (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Only if you inhabit a world of your own in which the first BBC-licensed edition does not exist. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And your recent edits have been reverted too. Again, you say "BBC-licensed". Whether that is actually true or not, if you do not provide a WP:RS unambiguously stating that it was "BBC-licensed", you can not add "BBC-licensed" to the article. Your interpretation of information does not count, as it is WP:OR. Providing a link which mentions The Discontinuity Guide also doesn't count, unless that link states "BBC-licensed"...which the ref you used did not do. As with "official", "BBC-licensed" can not be added without a proper WP:RS stating it "official" or "BBC-licensed". A link that mentions The Discontinuity Guide in passing, or even a link using The Discontinuity Guide as its own source, does not count here if it does not actually back up what you are trying to use it to verify(in this case "official" and/or "BBC-licensed"). 41.132.178.141 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. At the time of first publication Virgin Books were the main licensed publisher for Dr Who publications. As noted above, the first edition features the series title on the cover in the trademarked diamond logo, and the BBC copyright of the series is acknowledged within. Nowhere is it indicated that it is unofficial or otherwise unlicensed, any more than all the other Dr Who books - fiction and non-fiction - published by Virgin and its predecessors around the same time. In contrast, the un-official guides of other series published by Virgin at the same time all clearly and unambiguously states that they are, and the relevant copyright is not acknowledged within them. The onus is, in fact, on you to come up with evidence that a licensed Dr Who book published by the BBC's main licensed publisher of Dr Who books at the time was somehow "un-official." Seriously, why do you think they would risk that overall licence by publishing something not covered by that same licence? I also added no link, so your protestations on that score make no sense whatsoever.Nick Cooper (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

My copy is

• Cornell, Paul; Day, Martin; Topping, Keith (1995). Doctor Who: The Discontinuity Guide. London: Doctor Who Books. ISBN 0-426-20442-5.

Neither of the words "official" nor "unofficial" appear on the cover or title page, or in the introductory chapters. However, it does say "First published in Great Britain in 1995 by Doctor Who Books an imprint of Virgin Publishing Ltd" - at the time, that company were licensees of DW merchandise. It also shows the diamond-shaped DW logo four times, and IIRC the BBC could get nasty with anyone who used that without authorisation. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

But that's not a WP:RS. It's you using WP:OR to come to a conclusion that is not backed up by any of the sources listed, especially not the one that NickCooper used to "cite" that claim.

I also still have living somewhere shirts with official logos that were/are actually bootlegged. Just because something has a logo on it means nothing. And, as has already been noted by NickCooper himself, just because a company has the rights to make certain licensed material does not mean that anything that company produces in that sphere is necessarily licensed or official.

What do we have?

1)Virgin had a license to publish Doctor Who novels. No one is disputing that

2)Virgin also produced other Doctor Who books(such as Howarth and Lyons' Encyclopedia)

3)None of these non-narrative Virgin Doctor Who books have any words like "licensed", "official" etc. on them

4)Someone trying to make the leap from "Virgin had a license to publish Doctor Who fiction, therefore...." is the very definition of WP:OR, as well as WP:POV.

5)The Discontinuity Guide was later republished, and this does indeed have the word "Unofficial" on the cover in big bold letters. It's the same book. And we have multiple WP:RS calling it the "unofficial companion".

6)Unless anyone can actually provide a WP:RS stating that The Discontinuity Guide was ever "official", "licensed" or any other similar word, then this article quite simply can not use any such wording to describe the book. Because without WP:RS, it's just someone pushing their WP:POV, regardless of whatever 'logic'(ie. WP:OR) they are trying to use to promote a totally unsourced claim. 41.132.178.141 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop talking nonsense. There is no comparison between some dodgy bootleg T-shirt producer, and the main licensed publisher of Dr Who books publishing - in the "Doctor Who Books" imprint - a Dr Who book emblazoned with the trademarked logo for the series. That it was republished in unlicensed form does not retroactively change the status of the first edition. Saying the other non-fiction books produced by Virgin (and its predecessors) don't explicitly state they are licensed means nothing considering the novelisations didn't say that, either. We get from your recent edits to Keith Topping and Martin Day that you have an issue with the book, but that doesn't mean you get to apply some extreme threshold to try to somehow argue that it was not properly licensed. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not make comments such as "Stop talking nonsense". Please read WP:CIVIL.

Now, I must assume you have not read WP:V. And you have not yet read WP:SYNTHESIS. Also WP:RS and WP:OR. Please read all of them.

Ok, there. You can not take take "Point A", and just assume that another thing naturally follows. Making the claims you have made without any WP:RS. Your personal arguments and reasonings don't count as WP:RS. Unless you can find an actual WP:RS that refers to this book as "official" or "licensed", that material will continue to be removed as unsourced. And you saying "But it's got the diamond logo" or "But Virgin had a licence to publish novels at the time" are not sources. It's WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS.

It's also wrong of you to make that claim then use as a "source" something that does not say what you are claiming it does say. That's just deceptive.

So again, if you do not provide a WP:RS that states what you keep trying to insert into the article. it will be removed. And you line of 'logic' does not count as a WP:RS. 41.132.178.141 (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No, when you keep claiming that the main licensed publisher of Dr Who books (adaptive and original fiction and non-fiction - stop trying to pretend they only did novelisations) published a Dr Who book within the "Doctor Who Book" imprint and emblazoned with the trademarked logo, that it was somehow not covered by the same licence, then you are talking nonsense.

You are completely and utterly wrong in insisting that the book has to explicitly state that it is "licensed" or "official," because all the scores of other Dr Who books published by Virgin and its predecessors didn't either. Even the first editions of Jean-Marc Lofficier's Programme Guides don't say it on the covers, or elsewhere. Are you going to claim that they were unlicensed and unoffcial as well now?

Whatever you are saying in your fourth paragraph is meaningless, because I did not, "use as a 'source' something that does not say what you are claiming it does say," and I challenge you to show the edit where you think I did. The onus also remains on you to prove that the first publication of this book was unlicensed and therefore unofficial. Considering the scrutiny all Dr Who merchandise received at the time, it beggars belief that it would have passed unnoticed if it was somehow not covered by Virgin Books' licence. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not claiming anything. I never did claim anything. This is not about my edits.

You on the other hand persist in adding the words "official" and/or "licensed" to the article. Whether or not the book actually was "official" or "licensed" isn't even the point.

The point is that are adding words that you have completely failed to provide a WP:RS for. That is the only thing being discussed here. You provide a WP:RS(and your arguments do not count) to back up what you say, everything will be jolly dee. However, if you add stuff that you can't provide a WP:RS for, then it will be removed. Simple as that. You need to find just one WP:RS that refers to The Discontinuity Guide' as 'official' and/or'licensed'. However, you can not do that. And if you refuse to do that, then your claims about being "official" and/or "licensed" can not be allowed to remain in the article, whatever you may or may not think beggars belief. 41.132.178.141 (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't need a source, because Virgin was the main licensed publisher of Dr Who books - fiction and non-fiction - and published this particular one in the "Doctor Who Books" imprint, emblazoned with the trademarked logo for the series. It was de facto offcial/licensed, and there is no evidence whatsoever that it wasn't, any more than all the other books publisher by Virgin and its predecessors were, while it/they held that licence.. The reprint obviously is unofficial - and is clearly labeled as such (big clue: the first Virgin edition wasn't) - so we have to make the distinction between the two. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts:

• @Nick Cooper: while I find what you are asserting likely, 41.132.178.141 is right: we can't put in the article without a reliable (preferably secondary) source.
• @41.132.178.141: that being said, calling edits vandalism and repeatedly pointing vaguely at various policies definelty isn't helping the collegial atmosphere of what is supposed to be a collaborative project. It would help if you would try to assume that your fellow editors are acting in good faith.

Thanks. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've given both of you a 24-hour block, primarily for going well beyond WP:3RR. Once these blocks have expired, you will find that the article has a full protection, to prevent further edit-warring. You can then discuss - calmly please, observing WP:TPG, WP:CIVIL etc. - on this talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

An outside view

I think that part of the difficulty here is in the difference between "licensed" and "official", and the implications of those words. It is unarguable that The Discontinuity Guide was first published by Doctor Who Books, an imprint of Virgin Books. It is also, I think, unarguable that Virgin used the "Doctor Who Books" imprint for books about Doctor Who which it published while it had the license from the BBC to do so. (If it is necessary to find a reliable source supporting this statement, it should not be too difficult.) Personally, I don't think that it's OR or SYNTH to say that The Discontinuity Guide was first published under an official license. I think it is acceptable under Wikipedia's guidelines to indicate, as the article currently does, that the book was first published under a BBC license and subsequently republished without one; the indicia of the books themselves should be reliable sources for this. Unfortunately, I own only the first (Doctor Who Books) edition, so I cannot verify what the indicia of the MonkeyBrain edition say.

The most helpful thing, of course, would be for someone to find the relevant 1995 issues of Doctor Who Magazine and see what sort of adjectives are used there in reference to the book, both in the lead-up to its publication and in the DWM review of the book itself. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there can be difference between "official" and "licenced". A licence can give you a degree of freedom to do things using someone else's copyright - eg to reproduce the diamond logo, or images from the programme, or to create derivative works (the novels). On the other hand there can be official books eg a history of a BBC programme which might be published by an imprint without a licence to do anything else with the subject matter.

I would avoid the use of "official", which also may suggest a level of oversight or approval that may not be present, and because the book does not become less official just because it is reprinted (legally) by someone else later on.

The copyright of the ebook (last page) lies with Cornell, Day and Topping, save that the foreword is (c)Terrance Dicks GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the wording. Saying that Virgin had a licence to publish Doctor Who novels at the time is one thing. Calling The Discontinuity Guide the "official guide book" is POV-pushing. And it's not "vague" to cite Wikipedia Policy as the reason for removing unsourced material. If one were to read the Policy Links that would be obvious. NickCooper insists on claiming that The Discontinuity Guide is an "official guide book". Of course, one must also understand the distinction between a guide book written by people who have a licence to publish Doctor Who merchandise, and a licensed guide book.

I have searched through old Doctor Who Magazines from both 1995 and 2004, and have yet to find a single reference to The Discontinuity Guide, even in passing. Later DWMs do however mention things like "About Time" and "AHistory", which makes the apparent total lack of mention of The Discontinuity Guide all the more interesting. I have also searched through old magazines like Dreamwatch, SFX, Starburst, TV Zone from the relevant years(at least the issues from that time that I have)...and can no find no mention whatsoever of The Discontinuity Guide.

In fact, it appears that someone has been adding glowing reviews of the book from certain sources that may not exactly measure up to the Wikipedia definition pf WP:RS. Of course, as the article is now locked, in a controversial and, I believe, POV-worded, version, this can not be tagged on the article itself. 41.132.178.141 (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The article will (I'm sure) be open to adjustment once the flames have cooled. In the meantime - regarding the chosen version while under protection there is "The Wrong Version", or the more sober WP:PREFER for guidance. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A few points of clarification:

1. Virgin (previously as WH Wllen) held a licence to publish Dr Who books. Please stop trying to push the the line that they only ever did novelisations/fiction. In 1976 they published the (revised) Dicks/Hulke The Making of Doctor Who, in 1981 Jean-Marc Lofficier's Doctor Who Programme Guide, various books by Peter Haining through the 1980s, in 1992 the Howe/Stammers/Walker Doctor Who - The Sixties, etc., etc., etc.

2. The term "official guidebook" was dropped in this edit. As Graeme subsequently suggested, "official" can be problematic, because it can be taken as an endorsement of the contents by the rights holder. However, "unoffical" would be even more misleading, as it is generally taken to have a much wider meaning, synonymous with "unauthorised" and "unlicensed." As the first publication of TDG was licensed, it would be wrong to describe the book as an entity as being "unofficial" simply by virtue of the second print edition being unlicensed. While you have claimed links "proving" the book as "unofficial," they are of course references to the MonkeyBrains edition only.

3. You can't have looked through Dreamwatch very carefully, as the book is reviewed in issue 11 (July 1995) on pages 32-33. The cover was revealed on page 6 of issue 4 (Winter Special 1994), flanked by the Missing Adventure Dancing the Code, and the New Adventure Human Nature, under the heading "MAY '95 RELEASES FROM VIRGIN." I can't speak for DWM or Starburst, as I stopped buying both in 1993, but I would be very surprised if the former at least has no mention of TDG, as you claim. Perhaps you would care to explain what is "all the more interesting" about the supposed lack of coverage? You seem to have suggested previously that TDG was not licensed, an idea which is, of course, preposterous. As Redrose noted, the book features a variation of one of the series' logo no less than four times, three of which render the book's title as Dcotor Who - The Programme Guide, which was in fact how Virgin subsequently referred to it. No publisher could get away with publishing an unlicensed Dr Who book with either the series name in the title and/or the logo on the cover, as this would be passing off in English law. That's why actual unlicensed/unauthorized/unofficial programme guides go to such tortuous lengths to avoid using series name, e.g. Virgin's New Trek Programme Guide, X-Treme Possibilities, etc.

4. WP:AGF not withstanding, you appear to have a degree of antipathy towards the book, as evidenced by your objection to "glowing reviews," and indeed your recent edits to Keith Topping and Martin Day to remove the adjective "(extremely) popular" applied to the book. One would think that there being a demand for a reprint nine years after first publication, and a ebook version last year (i.e. +18 years) would be a fairly good indicator that the title remains in demand, i.e. popular. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

1)Again, you miss the point entirely. Virgin had the rights to publish Doctor Who books. It does not naturally follow that all of these books were official. Eh. Howarth and Lyons' Encyclopedia. Are you also stating that Howe's books are "official"? And just because a company has a licence does not necessarily mean that the parent company endorses this licensed product as having any significance on what it's reflecting. The Cushing movies were licensed. But your wording implies a level significance for The Discontinuity Guide that no source actually states.

For that matter, despite all your hollow bluster, nobody had provided a single source stating anything about "official" or "licensed". it's all your making unsourced claims, and your own personal judgements.

On the other hand, we already have at least 2 WP;RS where the book is unambiguosuly referred to as "unofficial"(using that exact word).

In fact, there's no WP:RS for either "licensed" or "unlicensed". There's also no WP:RS for "official". But there are WP:RSs for "unofficial". But your choice of wording deliberately distorts that to reflect your own WP:POV. That is what I object to. Wikipedia doesn't go by what one person, whether you me or anyone else, wants an article to look like. It goes by what the sources actually say. Not your interpretation of them. And certainly not your personal beliefs that aren't borne out by a single source.

2)You are confusing the issue. We have no sources that say that the book was ever either "licensed" or "unlicensed". Those using either term would be WP:OR. However, we do have more than one source stating that the book is "unofficial". We go by what the sources say. And using any of "licensed", "unlicensed" or "official" is wrong.

3)I don't have every Dreamwatch, just several. As I have already stated earlier in my post that you are now responding to with unnecessarily hostile remarks. Anyway, since you do have that Dreamwatch, what exactly does it say about "The Discontinuity Guide"? Because what it says would be a useful addition to help improving the article.

4)The "glowing" was a response to the edit summary in this [1], which implies a lack of NPOV in editing. After the article has been locked. 41.132.178.141 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ps. You probably shouldn't have used Howe/Walker as an example to prove your point http://www.amazon.com/The-Television-Companion-Unofficial-Unauthorised/dp/1903889510 41.132.178.141 (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

1. You continuing to flog the "official" horse when it long stopped running suggests you don't want to discuss this matter properly. That you continue to suggest that the Virgin publication of TDG - along, it now seems, with other Dr Who books they published - was/were not licensed/covered by Virgin's overall licence only reinforces that impression. Also what exactly do you mean by "your wording," given the state I last left the lead in here? I see you are still maintaining your counterfactual belief that because the MonkeyBrains editions said it was "unofficial," then that somehow means the first Virgin edition somehow wasn't licensed/authorised/official, either.

2. Straight question: Do you genuinely believe that the Virgin first publication of TDG was unlicensed, either directly or as under their overall licence? Or are you just gaming the system because of your apparent antipathy to the book itself?

3. You were adamant that there was no coverage in certain magazines, despite not actually having access to a full run for the time in question. If you are uncomfortable with someone disproving your claims, maybe you shouldn't have made them, or used them to make veiled hints of significance.

4. So now you have an issue with what looks like a positive review being précised in an edit summary as "praise"?

5. Sorry, but are you now trying to suggest that the 2003 acknowledged unauthorised re-publication of what was originally published by BBC Books in 1998 as Doctor Who - The Television Companion, with the tag-line of "THE OFFICIAL BBC GUIDE TO EVERY TV STORY," somehow retroactively changes the status of the completely different book that I actually mentioned, i.e. the Howe/Stammers/Walker Doctor Who - The Sixties published by Virgin in 1992? How does that work? Nick Cooper (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, a few responses to 41.x:

1) The word "official" does not appear in the current version of the article. I do not think that anyone is arguing any longer for its inclusion. The current discussion is about "licensed" and "unlicensed".

2) If Virgin held the license from the BBC to publish Doctor Who books in 1995, how is it problematic to refer to a Doctor Who book published by Virgin in 1995 as "BBC-licensed"?

3) I added those reviews of The Discontinuity Guide because I came upon them while looking in Doctor Who nonfiction books for references to Virgin's license. If I had come upon a negative review or assessment, I would have added that as well. "Praise" was my summary of what the source had to say about the book. I fail to see how that "implies a lack of NPOV in editing".

4) Which of the sources I added do you feel fails to measure up to WP:RS? If Lars Pearson had published I, Who through Mad Norwegian Press, then I suppose an argument could be made that it was self-published — but he didn't. It was published by Sidewinder Press. And Greatest Show in the Galaxy was published by McFarland, a well-respected academic press. What exactly is the sourcing problem here?

One final question, to all participants: does the article really need the parenthetical "(which at the time also published licensed Doctor Who novels and other non-fiction books)"? To me, that looks like an attempt at point-scoring in the current debate, rather than providing relevant information to the reader, who can learn about Virgin's Doctor Who license and the Doctor Who Books imprint by following the link to Virgin Books. I'd have removed it myself, but apparently any edits without prior discussion in the current environment risk being labeled as The Wrong Version. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally: an age ago, 41.x pointed to the Amazon picture of the cover of the MonkeyBrain edition, suggesting that the cover identified the book as "unofficial" in the "Pull to Open" section of the police box image. That doesn't say "unofficial". As you can see in a larger copy of the image on MonkeyBrain's site, the image actually reads, "the definitive guide to the worlds & times of Doctor Who." Nothing about official, unofficial, licensed, or unlicensed there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The parenthical aside - that it was published as part of the Doctor Who books range under Virgin - would make sense as part of its publishing history/the history of the books development to give context. But within the lede it jars somewhat. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Barring any objection in the next 24 hours, I'll move the parenthetical comment from the lede to the "publication history" section. I agree that it makes more sense for it to be there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm been thinking that it might be best to only mention the first Virgin/DW Books publication in the lead paragraph, and move the subsequent editions to the "Publication history" section, which seems to be the fairly standard practice on Wikipedia. We can cover the detail of the Virgin/DW Books licence in "Publication history," along with the status of the reprint and the eBook. I think I'm right in saying that we don't actually need a citation for Virgin having published the book (at the moment this is cited to the Manchester University Press Book), as the edition itself is the source. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If we move the reprint information to "Publication history", I think it would be best for the lead simply to say "The book was written by Paul Cornell, Martin Day and Keith Topping and was first published as the Doctor Who - The Discontinuity Guide on 1 July 1995." Given the current dispute, mentioning the licensed Virgin edition and not the subsequent unlicensed editions in the lead might give the appearance of bias or WP:UNDUE. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Josiah, on your "final question" (point 5?!), the lead has certainly suffered from reactive editing over the years. When you first created the page in 2009, we had: "The Discontinuity Guide... is a humorous guidebook... first published in 1995 by Virgin Books, which at the time also published licensed Doctor Who novels." It wasn't until 6 September 2013 than an anon IP (41.135.200.67) first changed it to "... an unofficial guidebook..." here. This was immediately reverted by SuperMarioMan, followed by a two-stage change back to "... an unofficial guidebook..." by the same IP.

On 16 May this year I noticed the erroneous "unofficial" in the lead and amended it here, and explained the change on this Talk page above. This was reverted by an anon IP (41.133.46.195) on 24 June, and - after I had reverted it - again by 41.132.178.141 on 10 July. This was the point things started to get messy, but on 10 July I expanded the text to "... which at the time also published licensed Doctor Who novels and other non-fiction books..." as at the time I thought simply stating "novels" was potential misleading, i.e. the casual reader might assume that Virgin was licensed to publish fiction only, therefore this non-fiction book wasn't covered by the licence. As we can all agree, however, Virgin/Target had long been publishing non-fiction works outside of the novelisations, or indeed the original fiction they were moving into at the time in question.

Just what Virgin et al had a licence to publish Dr Who is clearly very pertinent to this whole matter, and I don't think it is without significance that 41.x implied on numerous occasions that the licence was for novels/novelisations/fiction only, and certainly seems to be trying to push the idea that TDG in particular was not covered by the licence. I think it's true to say that books relating to the series that weren't published by Virgin et were very rare, and in fact in some publicity material did style themselves as, "The Doctor Who Publisher." The BBC did occasionally license other publishers on an occasional basis, but these were generally things that WH Allen/Target either didn't do or weren't interested in (e.g. the early-1980s puzzle books, Doctor Who: The Unfolding Text, the Titan script books, etc.). It was only after the BBC licence expired in 1996 that we really started to see completely unlicensed books. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Since nobody has objected to the suggestion that we move the reprint information to "Publication history", I have done so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 July 2014

after the last sentence in the lede "....in 2004 through MonkeyBrain Books." add
"In 2013, it was published as an ebook -as ''The Doctor Who Discontinuity Guide'' - by [[Orion Publishing Group]] under its Gateway imprint.<ref>[https://www.orionbooks.co.uk/books/detail.page?isbn=9780575133181 "Paul Cornell, Martin Day, and Keith Topping - The Doctor Who Discontinuity Guide - Orion Publishing Group"]</ref> "

GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Done —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A couple of more useful links

• New Zealand Doctor Who Fan Club review
• "And Cut It... Now - Keith Topping's article detailing some of the material cut or otherwise not included in the finished book (declared interest as per the bottom of the page).

Nick Cooper (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this website considered a WP:RS for Wikipedia? 41.132.178.141 (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a site that's already linked to elsewhere on Wikipedia. Anyway, it's a piece by one of the authors directly about TDG, and offering an expansion of the subject. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Look under "The King's Demons" on the second link. I believe that Nick Cooper's declaring this to be a WP:RS is severely flawed, and would like an Admin to look at whether the NZDWFC website counts as a WP:RS. Clearly Nick Cooper has a personal connection to this fansite, and we require an Admin to decide. 41.132.178.141 (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have no connection - personal or otherwise - with the NZDWFC website. As I clearly drew attention to above, the page notes that the article first appeared in one of my fanzines around the time TDG was published, and was later reprinted in the NZDWFC magazine. I do not recall having been approached by the NZDWFC about it being included on their site, although I would have considered it a mere formality (more Topping's decision than mine). I think you will have to try a little harder to justify why you think it fails WP:RS. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that the NZDWFC review is probably on par with SFCrowsNest in terms of reliability. And even if one considers the NZDWFC site a questionable source, the page with the cut material would seem to meet the criteria at WP:SELFSOURCE. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. It's a contemporary expansion/companion piece to the book by one of its authors. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)