Forum:Prefix simplification

Index → Panopticon → Prefix simplification

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

Do you know how many prefixes we have on our wiki? 90. Nine-zero. And rising. In order to make sense of our article citation system, you have to wade through some seriously thick alphabet soup.

This whole prefixing "thing" came from early administrators' (well, okay, Freethinker1of1's) love of w:c:memoryalpha. It's all there in the early forum archives. But the thing is, MemAlpha is much simpler. They have seven prefixes, by my count: TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and MOV. So there's no great barrier to understanding. Even newbies know within their first day of using the site what all the prefixes are.

And, yanno, back in 2005/6 when this system emerged, there were much fewer lines to worry about. More than MemAlpha deals with, but much less than today. Big Finish have created tons of new lines since 2006. We've got a thriving new series book line now; we've had the explosion of new comic lines, and — let's not forget — we've had three televised spin-offs since the prefixing system started.

I think we've reached the point of critical mass. Casual readers shouldn't be made to feel like they need a cheat sheet just to read an article.

Prefixes should be something that people can pick up almost intuitively. They really shouldn't have to go to a scorecard to figure them out.

Call this a last-minute "think about a way to make it simpler for the newbies that will be arriving once the new series start" moment. But we've got to simplify this mess.

What if we reduced all the prefixes to the bare minimum? What if we concentrated on medium rather than range? Now I realise that most of the people who respond to this thread are going to be long-time editors. So you're all used to the system we have now. But imagine you're someone who's discovered us because you just watched one of the brand new Matt Smith episodes a couple of weeks from now. Is the need to become familiar with 90 prefixes gonna retain your interest or hamper it? Even though I've done a lot to build the current system, I have to say that I think it's gonna turn you off.

If you're one of the thousands of people who come here every day just to read our articles, it's probably more than sufficient to know that a factoid derives from "a comic strip", "a book" or "a television episode". You don't need to know, if you're reading, say, Martha Jones, that the fact comes from a DWM strip versus a DWBIT strip versus an IDW strip. A comic is a comic is a comic. If you want greater details, you'd click on the name of the comic strip and quickly scan the infobox.

By site policy, MAs are not more authoritative than PDAs, and DWBIT stories aren't more valid than IHP ones. So why should we continue to make these trivial distinctions within the body of our articles?

I think we should consider carefully the advantages of going with something like this:

Fiction

• PROS — any prose story — novel, novella, novelisation or short story from any range
• COM — any comic strip from any range
• TV — any TV story from any programme
• AUD – any audio from any range

---

Non-fiction

• REF — used as now
• INFO — used as now
• PCOM — used as now
• DCOM — used as now
• DOC — used as now
• CON — used as now

And that's it.

Changeover is incredibly simple with a bot. The entire wiki could be converted in probably 72 hours. Thus "oh my God, this is an impossible task" is not a valid reason not to adopt this change.

However, you may have other good arguments for why I'm not thinking straight in this instance. If so — or if you actually agree with me, or have a counter-proposal — please put your comments below.
czechout ☎ ✍ 03:05: Tue 21 Aug 2012 

i remember when i first started reading this site slightly over a year ago, i got super confused with the prefixes. even now i only feel comfortable with the most popular ones. tbh, when i first started i didn't even know there was any official spin off media. i think the simplification would help a lot, and will avoid much confusion for newer users. i'm all for it. Imamadmad ☎ 06:07, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

As one of those long time editors, I do quite like our quirky prefixing system. However I will admit having to check the list of prefixes when editing some articles. The annuals especially I find needlessly complicated. I think it's things like this and the 90 different prefixes is putting off new editors.

So I support this proposal, though I do have a few questions;

With this new system will WEB finally be shifted out of use in-universe articles as it's non-narrative (except for when websites are seen onscreen).

Also what of VG? We'll need to make it clear that ones that have a narrative are covered under the PROS prefix.

And BFX, CD extras don't really fit within the presented non-fiction prefixes presented here. I'd suggest AUDX so it's a broad coverage so we're not limited to CDs or producer as Big Finish release their stories/extras as downloads and the prefix can be used for any other producers of audio story. --Tangerineduel / talk 07:19, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

I don't edit much here, but I thought I'd throw my view in. I'm afraid I have to disagree with the proposal. At the moment, the system (while complicated) makes it clear what format each item is and whether it is canonical. By condensing these down into much larger groupings, we lose some of that disambiguation. Tangerineduel's comments above highlight this to me quite well - the system has evolved over time to give everything a proper group that it fits in with. By reducing the prefixes available, we'll likely have to shoehorn items into groups that they probably don;t belong in.     ǝsʞpɐןǝ  (talk page)  09:13, 21/08/2012

I'm also of this view. I think the imposition of a "cover everything" prefix for each format will confuse more people than it will help. The current system is better as it allows for easy identification of what range the source is from, and makes it easier for our readers, rather than them clicking on the source to find the information they're looking for.

This wiki is about getting things right, and as Eladkse says, we will most likely end up having to shoehorn items into groups they don't belong, as nothing is ever simple with Doctor Who, and we've already made it as simple as we're going to get it. --Revan\Talk 09:30, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

Could you please develop the point about "shoehorn[ing] items into groups they don't belong"? I'm not getting how it's "shoehorning" to put a comic strip under a COM prefix. It's not, in my view, shoehorning if you organise by medium instead of range. And it seems to me that the present system is so overclassified that there are some points where we're just making prefixes up. We're trying to make up a definition for the prefix PDA right now, for instance. And in the recent past we've tried to find prefixes for particular parts of the Iris Wildthyme prose.

See, to my mind, we've — and I definitely include myself in the "we" — not applied a consistent standard to the creation of prefixes. Sometimes it's about the range (CC), sometimes it's about the publication (DWM applies to both short stories and comics), and other times we've created a range where none exists (NSA). On still other occasions, we don't really have a clear notion of what the prefix means at all (BFA is a total mess). It's really the current system that shoehorns. This new proposal was designed specifically to eliminate shoehorning.

If we prefix by medium, we're not only simplifying, we're organising along indisputable lines. I think if you're going to allege shoehorning, you're going to need to provide cases where a story's status as "prose", "comic", "audio", or "televised" is at all ambiguous.
czechout ☎ ✍ 09:47: Tue 21 Aug 2012 

I mostly agree with CzechOut. There's no real need to know which comic series a story comes from, just that it is a comic, as opposed to an audio story or novel. I would (possibly) consider splitting the prose one up, but the TV one definently needs to be split by series. If I want to see where a source comes from, opening up hundreds of them just to check if it's a Doctor Who or Torchwood or SJA episode is far too much work. I'd also consider splitting up the audio one, but only into TWA or DWA or BSA. All main Big Finish audios, plus CCs, and the Eighth and Fourth Doctor ones would all simply be DWA, but the BBC Torchwood ones would be TWA, and the Benny ones would be BSA, ones with Sarah Jane would be SJA, etc. Tardis1963 talk 10:42, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

Why does it matter what series an episode comes from if all programmes have equal validity? Does it matter that a particular fact comes from DW as opposed to SJA? I can see why the medium matters, because if we cite a story with which the reader is unfamiliar, at least they'll be able to say, "Oh, it's an audio; no wonder I've never heard of it." But beyond that, I'm not sure I see the need for establishing that the fact comes from an SJA audio, or a TW radio drama.

What's the compelling reason for moving away from an acronym that parses upon casual inspection (I think most readers would assume AUD means "audio"]]) to something that is actually ambiguous (DWA means Doctor Who Adventures, and it would upsset our issue listings to have DWA as a prefix that doesn't indicate Adventures.)
czechout ☎ ✍ 12:03: Tue 21 Aug 2012 

Nobody said anything about validity; this issue is, as said above, about making things easier for newbies. I agree the current system is unwieldy, and am in favor of simplification, but don't think we need to go to the other extreme. As the Manual of Style says, "Please consider that many of our readers will not necessarily know as much about Doctor Who as you." Most of the newbies will come from the television show, and many will not even know (at first) that The Sarah Jane Adventures and Torchwood exist. So, yes, simplify by medium, but keep the original television prefixes is my suggestion. Shambala108 ☎ 16:18, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like DW, TW, SJA, KAC and K9TV not to be merged as some single television prefix. In an ideal world, I'd also at a minimum clearly divide Doctor Who spinoff series from "just Doctor Who" prose, audio, comics. I don't have too much issue in consolidating EDA, PDA, NSA and the problems brought up in Forum:New past Doctor stories: PDA? into one BBC Books thing, as they're not strictly speaking lines. It's just putting Torchwood novels and SJAN into that as well where I draw the line.

I'm gathering that WC and VG can remain as they are, though? -- Tybort (talk page) 18:36, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

Shambala, I'm not quite understanding how you agree with the basic logical underpinnings of this proposal, but then conclude by arguing for a bit of complication. I would think that the quote from the manual of style argues for the simplest system possible. Everyone can get that TV means "a story you can watch on your TV". As you point out, not everyone will know that the spin-off programmes even exist. Thus, for the sake of the newbies, it seems to make more sense to go TV: Title, than to include some prefixes, notably K9TV and KAC, that don't parse quite as clearly to newbies. Also, it's a bit unsatisfactory to suggest that we would allow a broader range of TV prefixes than those in other media. This implies that television is a more "important" medium, which goes against one of the foundational principles of the wiki.
czechout ☎ ✍ 18:42: Tue 21 Aug 2012 

[/edit conflict]

I will try to make myself more clear. The current system is complicated and confusing. The suggested system is simple, but it is also confusing. I've only been doing this for about a year, so I remember how overwhelming the Doctor Who universe is. I don't think the very simple method gives enough information to a newbie. If we can only choose the very complicated or the very simple (with no middle ground), I change my vote to keeping the status quo. 06:07, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Tybort, your meaning is a bit unclear. Are you saying that you want to have a system where we keep the current television show prefixes, and then prepend those to letters suggesting a medium. So: SJAC, SJAN, SJAA, DWA, DWC, DWN, and so forth?
czechout ☎ ✍ 18:46: Tue 21 Aug 2012 

I understand the trouble with using DWA for Doctor Who audio stories and potentially DWN for all Doctor Who novels, but essentially, yes. -- -- Tybort (talk page) 18:48, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

It's not a potential problem. It's a Big Honkin' Problem. You can tell by the blue links that it wouldn't work to have a DWX convention. All the potential acronyms are genuinely already taken. They all have at least one, but often multiple, meanings. DWA is obviously Doctor Who Adventures, but there's an argument for Doctor Who Annual, too. Doctor Who Audio doesn't even come close to being a natural meaning for the prefix DWA. DWC means Doctor Who Classics. I'm not about to change every single issue of Doctor Who Adventures, Doctor Who Classics and Doctor Who Classic Comics just to make way for DW Audio.

Since you can't do it with any of the DWX things, it wouldn't make sense to do it for any of the spin off material either. Which means that, as a matter of technical practicality the best, most easily comprehensible course of action is to go to prefixes that simply identify the medium, period.

IF you're okay with changing the prefixes, the change should be to something better and simpler — something that makes sense without having to go to a help page. COM and AUD and TV make sense inline. There is literally no user on the site, regardless of their familiarity with the DWU, who will misunderstand what TV and AUD and COM mean. DWA and DWC are not nearly so universally and immediately understood.
czechout ☎ ✍ 00:41: Wed 22 Aug 2012 

I think we do need to go to the other extreme, Shambala108, because if we do something less we'll be compromising so much so we'll get another iteration of what we already have.

I also disagree that many of our new readers and editors have come from TV. Doctor Who is on TV for 6-12 weeks of the year, it's greatly, hugely outweighed by the other mediums which produce stories for the DWU. It is also just as possible that new readers/editors may not know the full extent of the DWU having come here via Torchwood, SJA or Bernice Summerfield.

If for sake of argument we don't merge DW/TW/SJA/KAC/K9TV the next question is why and why don't we have individual prefixes for the other mediums / series? If we did half-hearted merge along these lines it smacks of us favouriting one line over another.

We are all agreed and have been for some time that all the stories are as valid as one another then why separate them as we have done so? Is it not better to be able to look at a citation like this COM: Battle for the Moon and know instantly that's a comic whilst AUD: The Sound of Fear is an audio? As it is the citation for the former would be DAN (a Dalek annual) and the latter IW neither of which is particularly enlightening and both you would need to click through to the prefix to discover more. People also would more likely click through to the story to discover more than the prefix, and as I've said above the infobox on all stories contains information that is currently wrapped into some (though not all) the prefixes. --Tangerineduel / talk 10:14, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

I know that there's hundreds of books and they have a dedicated fandom, but it seems ridiculous that they've had more (if any!) mainstream attention than the 80-odd most recent episodes of the shows.

It is favouritism to only defend those, I'm sure. In an ideal world, I don't want to merge anything outside of maybe lumping "everything Doctor Who BBC Books" together, as Past Doctor Adventures, New Series Adventures and so forth don't seem to be actual names of lines like Virgin New Adventures. But as there's 90 prefixes, it's not really feasible to just merge a couple.

I'll concede to simplifying it down to PROS, COM (or COMIC to avoid conflicts with the commentary prefixes), AUD and TV. I won't completely like it, but I can't think of any proper alternatives.

I'm gathering that special cases of DW (Meanwhile in the TARDIS, the Prequels, Night and the Doctor) would be TV, Are we expanding TV to "anything moving picture" such as webcasts and the semi-licensed videos?

Unless there's a discussion I missed with video games as sources, I assume we can keep VG as well? -- Tybort (talk page) 16:43, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to make a suggestion, regardless of any decisions made about prefixes, which could make the system a little clearer to readers without having to open any more pages. By using a template that surrounds prefixes in a span tag, we can add a sentence which explains the group to the user when they hover over it. Some of you probably know how this works already; but for those who don't, hover over this for an example: TV. For those who are not quite sure about what an abbreviation means, they can find out in a few seconds without changing page.     ǝsʞpɐןǝ  (talk page)  16:53, 22/08/2012

Personally, I really don't see the point in simplifying the prefixes, especially since it would probably cause more problems than it would solve as people would have to read around the Wiki to a greater extent in order to find out whether a reference was made in, for instance, in a Missing Adventure or a Past Doctor Adventure. For what it's worth, I'm against it. GusF ☎ 20:10, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

I'm 100% with Gus on this one. But Eladkse's suggestion does seem like a perfect compremise. --Revan\Talk 21:23, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

I very strongly agree with simplifying prose and comics, and some audios. But not TV - a user may not watch, eg, SJA. If they see (TV: Death of the Doctor), they're gonna think that there's a new Doctor Who TV episode out.

I quite like the hover over idea though. Is there any way to keep the same word, but change the hover over? You could have 'AUD', but then the hover over would read 'Big Finish', 'Sarah Jane Adventures', 'The Lost Stories', 'Torchwood' etc. Tardis1963 talk 10:28, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Possible, but not practical. To do so would render this entire conversation as pointless, as we would still need the old categories anyway in order to label them. The hover idea will only really work if a) we keep the current system, or b) we move to the proposed system.     ǝsʞpɐןǝ  (talk page)  10:51, 23/08/2012

(Edit) It could work as Tardis1963 suggests if we use some semantics. We would need to call some sort of 'type' or 'series' semantic from each article, then use that to generate the hover. I've made something pretty similar in my sandbox recently. Take a look here.     ǝsʞpɐןǝ  (talk page)  10:55, 23/08/2012

The only problem with the template based system is of course implementation, not creation. It's easy to create this template, and in fact we've tried something similar in the past. The problem is retrofitting it to existing cases. Because people have done a variety of things with their citations, we may never get complete, 100% adoption of the template.

But we can probably expect something over 85% of instances will use the template — higher if my bot programming successfully predicts more unusual cases.

In any event, this change will eventually come with a new template that not only incorporated Eladkse's idea, but auto-italicisation and proper dab truncation (Castrovalva (TV story) --> Castrovalva) at the same time, thereby improving overall compliance with the manual of style.

Also, I think people are wrongly thinking it's "bad" that newbies might have to click on a story name to see where, specifically, the story came from. That's good. That means we're keeping people here a little bit longer. We want that. The greater our pageviews, the more we improve a number of popularity metrics. And, yanno, we're not forcing people to go on some kinda treasure hunt here. We're just adding one click to look at an infobox. I'd argue that on many of these prefixes, they were having to click anyway in order to decode the prefix. So really, we're just swapping the click target, not actually adding a click. We may even be decreasing click throughs in some instances, since people might be curious what PHS means, but will probably not think twice about clicking on COM (or COMIC).

To answer Tybort above, VG will probably be supplanted by GAME, and we'll probably need to invent something like HOMEVID for the stuff now prefixed with RP and BBV, as well as the Meanwhile in the TARDIS and Night and the Doctor stuff.
czechout ☎ ✍ 16:18: Thu 23 Aug 2012 

Okay, I've kicked the tires on Eladkse's template-with-semantics notion and I think it needs to be made clear that such a notion depends on a lot of work on my part. I'd have to tag every single story page with a little bit of code. And just adding it with a bot isn't going to be enough. I'd have to integrate it in such a way that it was likely that people would remember to add it to new pages. Maybe, for instance, I'd co-opt the {{{series}}} variable that exists in all infoboxes.

It's not impossible, but it is time-consuming and will require testing. Getting a cool hover is therefore a discussion for another thread. We're putting the cart before the horse a bit by suggesting templates for a prefix system that isn't even installed yet. Down the road, something like the "Eladkse gambit" is possible. But when Revanvolatrelundar says of Eladkse's plan, "Great, that's a good compromise", I feel compelled to be honest and say, "No, this thread isn't actually offering that compromise". I could lie and say, "Yes, definitely, i'm going to incorporate Elkadse's plan by 15 September 2012" — but I'm not going to do that. There will definitely be a period of time where there won't be a mouseover on the prefix. It'll be PROS and that's it for an unspecified period of time.

Of course, I probably will instal the wherewithal to have something very close to the "Eladkse gambit". But I'm not about to do all the work for that unless this motion passes. So: one step at a time. What we have on the table right now is the question of whether or not to change the range-based prefix system to the medium-based system.
czechout ☎ ✍ 17:17: Thu 23 Aug 2012 

Okay, I take back what I said on the prequels. It seems to have nothing to do with the home video "special cases". It turns out the only uses of DW for them were on images that I added and Forum:Timeline - Eleventh Doctor, which I started off. Everywhere else it's WC. They're web broadcasts, though they're clearly produced by the same BBC Wales production team as the television series, which I'm sure CzechOut brought up elsewhere. That must have been what confused me.

I'm abstaining on whether to do this for now, but if we do go through with it, if we are continuing the use of WC and WEB, maybe we should turn them into WEBCAST (plus a few online PROS-es) and WEBSITE. That's not too long for a prefix, is it? -- Tybort (talk page) 17:40, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I really don't like "PROS". I think 3 letters work best, so I'd go for either a 3 letter abbreviations - "PRS", "PSE", or the first 3 letters - "PRO". I like "PRS", "CMC" and "AUD" the best for prose, comics and audio stories. Tardis1963 talk 07:34, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

Not sure either way about how to approach a prose prefix, but CMC definitely seems like a better idea than COM, which in my opinion could just as easily be confused with "commentary". After all, if there wasn't PCOM, wouldn't the DVD commentaries likely have been called COM? -- Tybort (talk page) 17:17, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

Can we take it that Tardis1963 and Tybort are in support of the concept of simplifying the prefixes?

At the thread's outset CzechOut did say "something like this", the proposition at the start doesn't state it's going to be exactly as shown here.

I think we can develop the prefixes, but essentially what we're looking to do is get rid all the prefixes we have and get down to 6 or so for stories and 6 or so for non-fic ones. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:30, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

By my count there are 4 in favor of and 5 against (or 3 in favor of, 5 against, and 1 abstaining from) the proposal. Once again, and for the last time, I will state that I don't think reacting to one extreme by going to the other extreme is helpful. Some simplification is necessary, to be sure, but too much simplification is just as confusing as too much complexity. Shambala108 ☎ 17:22, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm abstaining the "six or so in-universe prefixes" decisions. I support the concept "having much less than 90 prefixes", but I'm not 100% behind that specific proposal, but at the same time, I don't know what alternatives ther are. What I'd be happy with is prefixes for Doctor Who and each spinoff in each medium (i.e. consolidate Doctor Who prose with the prefix NA, EDA, PDA, ST, VD, NSA, DWF, DWM, DWAN, DWS, DWY, TDL, QR and BE into one prefix, but not all prose ever), but as pointed out above, DWA, DWC and so forth are pre-existing acronyms. If the Doctor Who universe had a massive "Doctor Who" on the various covers of every story, we wouldn't have this problem. But we don't. There's tons of spinoff series that barely or infrequently feature the Doctor. -- Tybort (talk page) 18:20, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

ok, i think we should cut down on the amount of prefixes used, but to six (in universe) i agree might be too few. but i would preferably have too few than too many! the average user wouldn't care if the format of one novel series is slightly different from the format of another novel series if they both contain the same main character set (ie both based on the doctor, or both following torchwood etc) and are published by the same people (eg the BBC). so, i think we should definitely narrow it down. here's my suggestion. we should categorise the works based on medium (tv, prose, comic, audio...), main character set (eg. doctor who, torchwood, sarah jane and co. etc) and publishing (eg not mixing BBC with BBV works). also, does it really matter if an acronym is pre-existing if we are going to change them all anyway? Imamadmad ☎ 02:18, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

What would we do about the prefixes for DW84, DWC, DWMAC and DWPM, which seem to be for altered versions of pre-existing comic stories, but not used for anything? DWMI and DWPM have absolutely no links at all beyond the prefix page, while the lone link for DWMAC I'm not sure if it really qualifies for that page.

Also, I have no idea whether Evening's Empire counts as DWM or DWCC. If it's the former, then my question about reprint issues prefixes is for this as well. -- Tybort (talk page) 03:26, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain in more detail what you're narrowing the 90 prefixes down to, Imamadmad? I can understand "publisher + medium" or "medium + main characters", but I'm not sure if I can get my head around all three.

And I suppose CzechOut's issue is that they're in use outside of this wiki as initialisms/acronyms? Or possibly that magazine titles use initialisms for page titles with nothing to do with prefixes, such as issues of Doctor Who Classics being DWC Issue 1, DWC Issue 2 and Doctor Who Adventures being DWA 1, DWA 2, DWA 3... -- Tybort (talk page) 23:18, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

ok, scratch the publisher bit. but i do think that the prefixes should be divided up by medium and main characters. i just think that medium alone isn't enough, and what we have at the moment is too much. Imamadmad ☎ 04:12, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

You're rather proving the point, Tybort. The need for one, simple COMIC (or whatever) prefix couldn't be clearer when you start to wonder about whether something counts as DWM or DWCC. It doesn't matter to the average reader. All that counts is that it's a comic strip.

We won't be going to any sort of publisher + medium or character + medium solution. Neither solve the underlying problem, and both represent the substitution of one form of complexity with another. Simplicity is what we're after here.
czechout ☎ ✍   05:00: Fri 31 Aug 2012

A disambiguation page will be needed for TV, as normally, the page TV would be an explanation of the prefix, but, quite logically, it currently redirects to the article about Television. I suggest choosing a different prefix for television stories. TVS? As in TeleVision Story. There's no page already there.  Digifiend  Talk  PR/SS  KR  MH  Toku  JD  Garo  TH  CG  UM  Logos  CLG  DW  19:54,9/1/2012 

Moving to conclusion

There's a good reason why finding consensus is not the same thing as having a vote — as this thread shows. If you look at people's opinions throughout the thread, you'll see that they migrate over time. Is Tybort actually opposed to the proposal? Early on, yes; later he says he's abstaining. And that's not to single him out; in a discussion, people's opinions are naturally refined over time. Strong opposition frequently melts to grudging acceptance. Staunch advocates sometimes hear the soft whisper of doubt. So we can't just go off a vote.

That's why it's been a truism of wiki editing that we sift through the comments made and come up with a consensus. We have to find the most logical interpretation of all comments left. In general, on a bigger wiki, it would never be allowed that the admin who proposed the change would also be the one to actually make the change. But we don't really have that kinda luxury here. I could possibly pass it off to Tangerineduel — but you'll note that he's in complete agreement with the proposal. So it might as well fall to me, since ultimately it falls to me to actually implement the results of the debate.

In any interpretation of consensus, the key is to look at at where we agree, first.

Everyone who responded believes that the current system is too complicated. There is 100% agreement for the general notion of prefix simplification.

Therefore, the prefixes will be simplified.

The one detail on which every respondent seems to agree is this: all the Doctor Who novel ranges should take the same prefix. There's no one who's offered up even the slightest peep of resistance on this point. That is therefore ordered.

It is logical, then, that other mediums should also be so collapsed. All the Doctor Who comic ranges should be the same prefixes. All the Doctor Who audio ranges should be the same. And so forth. That, too, is hereby ordered.

But now it gets tricky. There is dissent on the notion that we should just go to medium-based prefixes. There are a couple of people, who have proposed that a publisher or a franchise should appear. Thus, we'd have DWPROSE, TWCOMIC, SJAAUDIO, and the like. However, I think it has successfully been countered that the acronyms beginning with DW would be very confusing, in light of the T:MAGS rule that magazine issues use an initialism of their title. Thus, we can't use DWC for "Doctor Who Comics", because that could be confused with Doctor Who Classics, a comic title. DWCOM wouln't be very much clearer, thanks to Doctor Who Classic Comics, and DWCOMIC would be a seven-letter acronym that would be confused with DWCC, too. The audio situation isn't much better. DWA could confusingly mean Doctor Who Annual or Doctor Who Adventures. Thus, since segregating the Doctor Who media in this way would offer additional complication, we just can't do it. And if we can't do it for Doctor Who, we really can't do it for Torchwood or SJA. So, inasmuch as audio, comics and prose are concerned, the most logical approach is to go for simple, media-based prefixes that do not distinguish between franchises.

That leaves us with television stories. There's been a lot of debate about these, and there's a strong contingent of people who want to keep DW, TW, SJA and the like. And I was very strongly tempted myself to go this route. Again, however, we have to look to the quality of the arguments advanced. It seems to me that Tangerineduel's notion that this would show favoritism for a particular medium is clearly in philosophical keeping with the main precept of this wiki: no medium is deemed more important than another. If we have to use simple, medium-based prefixes for non-televised stories — and I think it's been proved that we must — then we can't have mutliple TV prefixes.

Shambala108's argument that there is such a thing as too simple has been carefully considered. However, despite making several attempts, he failed to establish how new users wouldn't understand what an audio, comic, or TV story is. It's really not clear how the proposed system is over-simplifying things for new users. It might be oversimplification for those of us who have taken time to learn the system intimately — but the goal of the exercise is to make things simpler for new users. I think Imamadmad's expresses a better sentiment when he says: "six [prefixes] might be too few, but I would preferably have too few than too many!"

Taking all this into consideration, the original proposal carries. Now comes the details of what exact prefixes will be used. Your input is further sought in the following section.
czechout ☎ ✍  01:14: Wed 05 Sep 2012

Just for future reference, Shambala108 is a she, not a he. Shambala108 ☎ 03:32, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

same with me. i'm a she. Imamadmad ☎ 09:51, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

The prefixes

In the rather arbitrary debate which is now left to us, there are two basic philosophies:

• Tardis1963 has argued for three-letter prefixes: PRS, CMC, AUD. I assume this would mean he'd argue for TEL for TV and WEB for web and VID for home video. I don't think there is a logical three-letter thing for games — GME, GAM? I dunno, but it can't be VGM because of the need to allow for non-video games.
• I would argue for a system less beholden to number of letters, and one which makes more immediate sense while reading: PROSE COMIC, AUD, TV, WEB, HOME, GAME. (Digifiend has pointed out that TV would need to become a disambiguation page if we used TV for a prefix. But the truth is that, in a medium-based prefix system, people will assume that TV is the right prefix. The prefix page TV will naturally have a link to the word television, so it naturally will act as a disambiguation page. Even if we choose the 3-digit approach, realistically, we'll still use TV, not TEL.)

The system will be changed over this coming weekend. You have until roughly the BBC One broadcast of Doctor Who this Saturday to offer up any concerns about the actual prefixes to be used.
czechout ☎ ✍  01:30: Wed 05 Sep 2012

Thinking about it now, I guess using the same prefix for all TV stories, i.e. not differenciating between Doctor Who, Torchwood, SJA and K-9, isn't really that bad. There is still way more Doctor Who episodes than the others, so it's not like Doctor Who is losing it's 'priority', as such.

As for prefixes, I vote for:

• Prose - PRS
• Comic - CMC
• Audio - AUD
• TV story - TVS (either for Television story or Television)
• Web (like Shalka, Pond Life, Prequels) - WEB
• Home video (Meanwhile, Night and the Doctor) - HVD (possibly "HMV", but thought that might get confusing with the retailer)
• Games (I'm assuming this included video games as well as online games and board games) - either "GME" or "GAM" will do - they're both as incorrect as each other

I really don't like having a prefix of longer than three letters, because it starts becoming less of a prefix and more of an actual title. We have 2 digit titles - 42 - and (even though it's a TV story) COMIC: 42 just looks wrong. Tardis1963 talk 01:42, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the "readable" in place of "it must be three letters", though if it's both readable AND 2-4 letters, that would be a bonus. Not sure how to approach that with a home video prefix though.

• TV (including Dreamland on Red Button) - TV. As the redirect to Television, it has all of three links.
• Audio - AUD or AUDIO
• Home video - HOMEVID (VID?)
• Games - GAME
• Webcast - WC or WEBCAST (though only actual moving pictures. Prose and comics would presumably get a prose and comic prefix.)
• Comics - COMIC or CMC (probably not COM if we're keeping commentary prefixes)
• In-universe websites - maybe keep it WEB, maybe make it clearer. Not sure...
• Prose - PROS or PROSE
• Stage plays - SP or PLAY
• Theatrical film - FILM?

And keep CON, TWD, BFX, INFO, PCOM, DCOM, REF, DOC and maybe CP for the time being.

Should Tardisodes be consolidated into one of the above, or is "mobile phone" really none of the above?

Also, now this is definitely going through, what do we do about outgoing prefixes that are used in categories like Category:BFC audio stories, Category:BNA novels, Category:BFBS novels and so on? -- Tybort (talk page) 01:50, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and dab terms like (SJAA audio story), (DWA comic story) and (BNA novel). What do we do with that? Especially considering we have two 2011 audio stories called "Judgement Day". -- Tybort (talk page) 01:59, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer the least mental processing needed as possible for prefixes.

So looking at it it's the first look the sways my decisions.

PRS doesn't mean anything on first look, whilst PROSE does. AUD is fairly also logical for audio.

Tardis1963's point though is somewhat valid, there should be a limit on how long a prefix is, just from a typing stand point, as holding shift and typing more than 5 or so letters does become tiresome.

One group of stories that hasn't been mentioned too much is BBV and Reeltime Pictures' straight-to-video contributions. I initially thought that VHS would be a fitting prefix for them, if it weren't for Dæmos Rising which went straight to DVD. Though HOMEVID (put forward by CzechOut up-thread) could work, even if it is 7 letters. Tybort's and Tardis1963's suggestion of VID might be a good alternative.

Would VID or whatever be used for Meanwhile in the TARDIS and Night and the Doctor?

As for Tybort's question of DAB terms I think we can draw up a table based on series article names so many would remain the same. --Tangerineduel / talk 06:20, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

i say PCOM and DCOM need to be changed, because i had no idea what they were until i clicked on them a few seconds ago. the prefix is definitely not clear enough. maybe PCOM (which to my understanding from the linked page are podcasts) should be PODC and i have no ideas for DCOM. Imamadmad ☎ 10:02, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

I would assume Meanwhile in the TARDIS and Night and the Doctor would be HOMEVID or VID, though I can definitely understand if their prefix is TV instead, given that they're dabed (TV story). -- Tybort (talk page) 11:32, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

If we're open to 6-letter prefixes, and I'm just throwing it out there, how about PODCOM and DVDCOM? If not, then forget I said anything. -- Tybort (talk page) 19:37, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

Given the way navigation templates are organised, especially under Category:Villains navigation templates, I'd assume it'd make sense to remove the prefixes altogether on those (with the exception of non-DWU stories listed that don't specify the medium), given that on, say, Template:Cyberman stories, the section that already says television stories would go TV: The Tenth Planet, TV: The Moonbase, TV: The Tomb of the Cybermen and so forth. -- Tybort (talk page) 19:34, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

i'm just wondering, since we have the dab terms for all the stories, could we just not cut them out when referencing a story in articles? seems to me it would be easier than changing all the prefixes as they are already sorted by medium. or, if nothing else, we can use slightly more in depth prefixes as it would also say (TV story) or whatever after the name. is this possible? would this work? Imamadmad ☎ 00:07, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would, no. I'd much prefer (TVS: Dalek) than (Dalek TV story). Tardis1963 talk 02:17, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

that's not quite what i mean. i mean, the page for the story is already called Dalek (TV story), wouldn't everything be clear enough if we stick to the current prefix system but leave the ending on for clarity, eg (DW:Dalek (TV story)). then, the people who want the specifics keep their prefixes and the people who just want the medium are also happy. also, people wouldn't have to pipe Dalek (TV story) to Dalek, leaving less room for error. Imamadmad ☎ 09:58, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

Leaving the current prefix system more or less as-is leaves 90 prefixes. I may have abstained the current decision of "only the mediums" prefixes, but there is no way in hell we're keeping the old prefix system. I don't think an average user would really make more sense of TN: Time and Relative (novel), KC: Occam's Razor (audio story) and DH: Time Bomb! (comic story) with the dab terms showing than without. -- Tybort (talk page) 17:16, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Just to briefly answer Imamadmad: no, the dab term can't be used as a "suffix". There are several templates whose job it is to strip these dab terms. It would be a major undertaking to completely change their philosophy. As for "error" in piping, I'm not really sure I see it. What's the inherent error possible in simply adding a pipe? You don't have to type [[Dalek (TV story)|Dalek]]. You only have to type [[Dalek (TV story)|]]. Let the system do the replacement term for you, and you'll never have an error.
czechout ☎ ✍  21:03: Fri 07 Sep 2012

Getting back on track

The last few posts have taken us off track, so, as the deadline approaches, we need to get back to the decision that's actually before us.

Which of the following should we go to?

1. Strict three-letter prefixes?
2. Prefixes which make more literal word that would be easier for newbies to read and make sense of?

Going back up in the previous section, it seems like we have a fairly firm split between the two ideas. If I told you that I definitely would make a template that required only the shorter forms to be typed but allowed the longer forms to display, would you see this as an acceptable compromise? That is, you'd type {{HMV|Meanwhile in the Tardis}} but get HOMEVID: Meanwhile in the TARDIS. My point is that we could have both with only a tiny bit of work.
czechout ☎ ✍  21:03: Fri 07 Sep 2012

I'm probably reiterating what I've already said, but I'm going for somewhere in between. TV and AUD are self-evident, and neither of those are full words. That said, a short initialism for home video is nigh-impossible, so I'm okay with the seven-letter HOMEVID. I'm also uncertain about the legibility of WC and WEB, though naturally, the BBC website short stories would be the prose prefix.

How about:

• TV (including Dreamland on Red Button) - TV
• Audio - AUD
• Home video - HOMEVID
• Games - GAME
• Webcast (animated or filmed only) - WEBCAST
• Comics - COMIC
• In-universe websites - WEBSITE, or maybe WWW
• Prose - PROS or PROSE
• Stage plays - PLAY
• Theatrical film - FILM
• DVD commentary - DVDCOM
• Podcast commentary - PODCOM

And keep CON, TWD, BFX, INFO, REF, DOC and maybe CP for the time being. There's probably a good alternative for Torchwood Declassified and some of the others, but I'm focusing on the new in-universe prefix suggestions for the time being.

Interesting idea though about creating a little less effort with typing and making the prefix readable. -- Tybort (talk page) 21:25, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

This probably goes without saying, but your template idea...it would automatically remove the dab term like so much other code does, correct? -- Tybort (talk page) 21:32, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Why does everybody sugest to go with just PROS? That's the stupidest idea ever, leaving off on letter so it becomes 4 letters long. I still think there should be a 3 letter limit, but I could stand PROSE - I could not stand PROS. Calling it PROS would be like calling it COMI or AUDI - absolutely stupid.

To sum up, I very strongly go for a limit of three, but I could live with the above, as long as PROS is not used. Tardis1963 talk 05:43, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's stupid Tardis1963, it's just a different idea to yours.

CzechOut's idea seems like it'd introduce two different systems that would be in use throughout the wiki (if for instance some didn't use it and some did).

So, I object to the template implementation. Keep templates separated from the main text and that system. I think introducing a template system that was different to other wikis and wikipedia would just be more confusing for new users.

Limiting ourselves to a self-imposed strict 3 letter limit seems somewhat mis-thought. But I think we do need a word limit for the prefixes, just based on typing comfort and needing to get them all as capitals. But a 3 letter limit I think means we sacrifice simple understanding.

So in short I support a literal word system, though there should be a limit of 6-7 letters. --Tangerineduel / talk 09:19, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Seven letters sounds like a reasonable limit. Three seems too restricting for making it clear what medium's what. I think the reason I put PROS is because it's still recognisable as the word PROSE. I think they're equally readable (maybe it's just me), but I have no objections to PROSE instead, hence my "PROS or PROSE" statement. -- Tybort (talk page) 11:14, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

Lemme rebut Tangerineduel on the issue of templates. Templates for citation are actually extremely helpful, and I will implement some kind of template solution. As was said upthread by Eladkse, templates allow you to give a tooltip explanation of the prefix. They also — and this is really important for us — allow people to enter the short form of the name — say, Castrovalva — but get a link to the "proper" page name — say, Castrovalva (TV story). Compare the number of keystrokes in the following:

([[TV]]: ''[[Castrovalva (TV story)|]]'')
versus
({{TV|Castrovalva}})

As I said upthread, though, this is a separate issue. At this point we're merely looking at the literal prefixes we're gonna use. But for the future, the simplification of the prefix system, along with the already-implemented dab term system, means that a templated approach to citation is easy on the servers, helpful to users, and ... imminent.
czechout ☎ ✍  16:52: Sat 08 Sep 2012

[/edit conflict]

I think we need to move in steps with this discussion. Let's get the length of the prefixes sorted before moving to what they'll actually be. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:44, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

I'm standing by more than three (apart from when it's perfectly legible to have that few, i.e. TV), and the upper limit for me feels like seven or eight. -- Tybort (talk page) 16:52, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think we're probably talking about maximum length, so TV is safe. Seven seems a good upper limit. I think Tardis1963 has said he would accept more literal prefixes, so long as we don't use PROS. Although I initially proposed that clunker, he's right: it is stupid. One more letter makes it perfectly plain, so one more letter it should get.

I'm a little curious about the affection for PLAY, though. Under what circumstances would we actually use that one? How can you cite ephemera? It seems to me the prefix would be AUDIO/AUD, cause that's the form in which we'll have experienced, say, The Ultimate Adventure. I'd much rather go with LIVE for any modern performances, like that thing from last year that toured Britain. PLAY would seem confusing, to me.
czechout ☎ ✍  16:59: Sat 08 Sep 2012

Are stage plays / live shows / experiences something we even need to worry about citing? Aside from the super-dodgy recordings of the 80s plays are they something we can even check in order to cite? (Have we had a discussion on the canon of stage plays? Half of the stage plays seem to have been tagged notdwu).

Also, I agree the template is a separate issue, let's get this discussion in the bag first, and as I've said on previous occasions I can be persuaded on a topic. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:10, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about a way of differentiating the live and Big Finish versions of The Ultimate Adventure, Seven Keys to Doomsday and The Curse of the Daleks from a production, if not narrative, standpoint, regardless of whether or not they "count" as valid sources.

There's a page for the Doctor from Ultimate Adventure as played by David Banks on stage as well as a "Fourth Doctor" in Seven Keys and you can't really use an audio prefix for info on year and actor pages about the original stage play only.

I understand if PLAY is too opaque, but I usually associate the word with theatre stuff. -- Tybort (talk page) 17:24, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

Here's where my mind is on the suggestions Tybort gave above:

Story type	Tybort's provisos	Tybort's proposed prefix	My comments
Television story	including Red Button premieres like Dreamland	TV	Yes, certainly TV should be the prefix. But I'm not so convinced about Tybort's proviso. Red Button is essentially on-demand video from the internet. Is there really a material difference between Pond Life and Dreamland And back in the day wasn't Scream of the Shalka really on BBCi, the forerunner of BBCRB? I mean, wasn't it possible to see Scream on your TV if you turned to BBCi?
Audio		AUD	I kinda think I prefer AUDIO now that we seem to be agreed to a 7-letter limit. Why not take the extra two letters and remove all doubt?
Home video		HOMEVID	I know I've thrown out HOMEVID, and that's fine if ya wanna go that way. But I'm wondering if British readers might take this too literally and think we only mean "stuff on video tape". A lot of Britons seem to think video is short for videotape, rather than a word in its own right. It might be better to go with just HOME.
Games		GAME	Yeah, hard to do better than this.
Webcast	animated or filmed only	WEBCAST	Again, there's the question in my mind as to the actual difference between video on a website and video on Red Button. If we say that RB stuff is TV, then I don't think there's such a thing as a webcast. I guess what I'm saying is that "webcast" isn't a different medium. It's a different dab term, but it's not a different medium.
Comics		COMIC	Yep, agreed. This will mean that COMIC is used only where the dab term is (comic story). But I can't think of times where you'd cite, say, Endgame (graphic novel) over Endgame (DWM comic story). If you really needed to cite the graphic novel, you're certainly referencing the non-narrative extra features, so you'd do something like "According to the graphic novel The Flood, RTD had approval rights over the way the Eighth Doctor was written out of DWMs comic series."
In-universe websites		WEBSITE, or maybe WWW	Do we really need this? Seems to muddy the water, and there hasn't been a new one in years. Are they even active anymore?
Prose		PROS or PROSE	Definitely PROSE
Stage plays		PLAY	I don't see the need for this one at all. Its usage would almost always violate T:WHAT'S A CITATION
Theatrical film		FILM	Not needed. These prefixes are for in-universe articles. All films that have been released so far are not valid sources according to our policies. Therefore, there are no films to cite. This might have newbies trying something like FILM: Doctor Who (1996), which won't fly. Anytime you need to reference one of the two 1960s Dalek films, just go without a prefix.
DVD commentary		DVDCOM	Not a fan. The major subject of this thread is the reorganisation of in-universe prefixes. So I'll leave in abeyance the matter of the various real world tags.

So that means

• I agree with TV, PROSE, COMIC GAME and AUDIO.
• I'm not sure whether to go for HOME or HOMEVID, but am leaning towards HOME.
• I don't think I believe webcasts are significantly different enough to TV to warrant a different prefix. But we're talking about less than 10 actual titles here, so if other people really want WEB, I guess they can have it. I suppose I think that if we have it, we'll need a separate discussion to determine why Pond Life is a webcast, but Dreamland isn't. Of all the prefixes, this is the one with the most ambiguous meaning to me.
• I disagree with the rest of Tybort's suggestions.
  czechout ☎ ✍  17:43: Sat 08 Sep 2012

[/edit conflict]

Ok, I'm ok with TV, PROSE, COMIC, GAME and AUDIO. For Internet stuff like Pond Life, I'd just go with WEB (with WWW for the couple of old/defunct in-universe sites). For stuff exclusive to home video like Night and the Doctor, neither HOME nor HOMEVID work for me; I'd prefer HVD or HMV. But seeing as everything else is going to be the full length, it might better to go with something like HOMEV. That way we know that it's not talking about a house of something (HOME: Ponds house or something), and it's not as prominent for people to automatically assume video tape. Tardis1963 talk 22:42, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

The UNIT and Defending the Earth pages are still online, though I have a feeling that Martha's blog isn't. Considering that there's over a hundred citations, the website prefix still seems useful for those old sites. Maybe a separate discussion is in order to decide if they're really in-universe.

Maybe the line with Red Button is arbitrary, but then I'd just give that a webcast prefix rather than make everything with frames TV. -- Tybort (talk page) 00:42, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

I'm also fine with TV, AUDIO, COMIC, PROSE and GAME.

I agree a separate discussion is needed for the in-universe websites (though as they're not narrative, although may be part of the narrative) that would still make them non-citeable. But if we need a decision on them WWW is good and better than WEBSITE which could be confused with WEBCAST.

I think we also need WEBCAST for those things that debuted as a webcast; Real Time (webcast), Shada (webcast) and Pond Life (webcast)

But as far as the "red button" goes, it's an on-demand service, but it's still accessed via a TV, that's where you're most likely to use it. Dreamland remains TV as TV, other things above WEBCAST.

Red Button I think is not like the BBC's iPlayer which is a cross platform on-demand service, Red Button is something unique to DVB.

As for HOMEVID or VIDEO neither really work, how about MEDIA? Ideally it'd be HOMEMEDIA though at 9 letters it's a bit long. That would at least cover whatever media it's released on and not be confused with VHS (videotape).

DVDCOM and PODCOM are in keeping with the logical terms and make more sense than PCOM and DCOM. --Tangerineduel / talk 06:23, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

I take it you don't like HOMEV then?

As for MEDIA, the problem is that nearly everything could be classed as it. CDs are a medium, are they not? So then people might think that Big Finish audios are to be classed as MEDIA, rather than AUDIO. In fact, MEDIA would end up being like one big prefix encompassing everything. I can't see MEDIA working.

The Wikipedia page for home video pretty much sums up what we are trying to say, but it offers no other names - just 'home media' to encompass it all, and individual formats like DVD or BD. Tardis1963 talk 09:10, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

You're right, MEDIA is a little too all encompassing.

HOMEV is better than HOME, HOME doesn't enlighten much in this context. Ultimately I think HOMEVID is the one that works best, any other iterations like HVID or HOMVID just become more vague. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:38, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

MEDIA is too general, and as much confusion as there might be with video cassettes, HOMEVID is far clearer than something as broad-sounding as "MEDIA" and not quite as clunky as HOMEMEDIA. Maybe red button should be a webcast prefix, maybe not, (as CzechOut says, separate discussion) but I'm not merging TV and moving-picture webcasts as simply TV. In my opinion the distinction is still there.

Also, I forgot to repeat this concern earlier: what do we do about Tardisodes? It wasn't initially streaming on the Internet, and I don't think we can just use TV just because narratively it's part of the TV show's continuity. -- Tybort (talk page) 16:53, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

Moving on

Okay, so here's where we are.

Ideas that won't be implemented

• PLAY. No. Just no. This is a big ol' can of worms. Plays are different from night to night. How can they possibly be relied upon for information? I don't think they're valid sources. I'm sure we had a discussion about this at some point.
• FILM. Again, there are no films that are valid sources, so, no need for this prefix.
  czechout ☎ ✍  04:42: Sun 16 Sep 2012

Things that will be changing very soon

• TV, AUDIO, COMIC, PROSE and GAME are locked, save for the exception which follows.
• HOMEVID seems a lock to me too. This is BBV + any special features on home video releases.
• WEB is for motion picture webcasts only. Short stories on the web are PROSE.
• INFO and REF are non-controversial and will be retained.
• DOC isn't going anywhere, but see below. Other things might get merged into DOC.

This portion of the discussion is now closed, and I will begin the changeover soon enough.
czechout ☎ ✍  04:42: Sun 16 Sep 2012

Things where a bit more discussion is needed

• The meaning of TV when it comes to minor videos not delivered by terrestrial broadcast is still in dispute. Is Dreamland TV or WEB? Is Pond Life TV or WEB? I still don't think we know just yet, but the discussion can continue on with that one.
• It's unclear to me that we need to preserve a prefix at all for URLs. We could just put them in parentheses and be done with it. Even if we keep, though, I think we probably need another round of discussion. Should it be WWW or URL?
• I personally think we can merge CON and BFX with DOC. I don't see any strong rationale to separate by medium on the non-fiction side of things. I'm not sure there's a rationale for allowing Confidential to be the only show to retain its separate prefix. It's a documentary show, so why not simplify down to DOC for everything that's factual and features people who speak aloud?
• I really don't like DVDCOM and PODCOM. My thought is this. Let's just make COM the standard. Because podcast commentaries are long gone, now, let's just say that they get PCOM. I'm not really sure that people won't have to click PODCOM, because it's been almost three years since one was made. People who started with Matt Smith DW simply won't know a PCOM from a PODCOM, so the "OD" is more letters for no reason. The default condition of a commentary is that it exists on DVD, so let's just call it COM.
  czechout ☎ ✍  04:42: Sun 16 Sep 2012

• Not sure about Dreamland, but I'd put Pond Life as WEB.
• I'm starting to think maybe just go without a prefix for these websites.
• So DOC will cover all documentaries? Both on DVD and Confidential? Sounds good to me.
• COM for commentaries sounds good. Tardis1963 talk 11:02, September 16, 2012 (UTC)