Capitalization
Ugh. On the back covers and inside the first and second editions, this book's title is written as AHistory (when it's not written in all caps). But for the third edition, apparently Lars Pearson (or somebody) decided to change it to Ahistory. So which version should we use for the name of the page? The original, or the most recent version? —Josiah Rowe ☎ 06:10, January 24, 2013 (UTC)
- My vote would be for the original, unless the third edition says something about correcting the first two. Shambala108 ☎ 06:28, January 24, 2013 (UTC)
- It depends whether we honour the book's original formatting of the title or evolve the article alongside the most current edition of the book. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:29, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
Faction Paradox
The Third Edition actually includes a lot of material from the Faction Paradox spin-off series, which this wiki supposedly considers apocryphal. This is not mentioned in the article in any capacity. What should be done about this? 75.191.239.179talk to me 12:01, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
- By saying it's not considered apocryphal, that means we don't cover it (see Tardis:Valid sources for more information). However, this material can be included at the Faction Paradox wiki. Shambala108 ☎ 13:20, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
- Except the Faction Paradox wiki considers DWU material apocryphal. Meaning there's no place to talk about this book where Lance Parkin, (who has written extensively for Doctor Who, who has written a Faction Paradox novel himself, who, as part of his research for A History, asked Lawrence Miles, Mags L. Halliday, Kelly Hale and others where they felt their books fit into Doctor Who continuity,) reconciles the two settings. Because both wikis consider the material of the other apocryphal, neither can talk about the way this book considers neither apocryphal.75.191.239.179talk to me 13:33, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
And, frankly, noting where this book's definition of valid sources contradicts the wiki's as a whole seems like something worth pointing out.75.191.239.179talk to me 14:02, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
This book's policies regarding inclusion of materials differs from the wiki's severely. This is a fact that requires attention.75.191.239.179talk to me 16:39, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
- You are of course free to bring this issue up for discussion at Board:Inclusion debates, but I have to caution you that I don't think you will succeed. Certain Faction Paradox material clearly violates rule number four listed at Tardis:Valid sources. But if you think it's worth a try, you can spell out in more detail the point you want to make and get other users' input.
- You might be interested in reading the original discussion regarding FP's inclusion at Forum:How do we best include Faction Paradox on the wiki?. Shambala108 ☎ 18:05, June 3, 2014 (UTC)