Talk:The Women Who Lived (reference book)

Title
The title is faulty. Needs to be renamed. --DCLM ☎  21:20, October 19, 2018 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't The Women Who Lived (reference book) be a more appropriate suggestion since (book) is an in--universe dab term and we don't usually include the "Doctor Who" prefix? --Borisashton ☎  22:38, October 19, 2018 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps The Women Who Lived: Amazing Tales for Future Time Lords (a dab term is not truly necessary anyway). OncomingStorm12th ☎  23:07, October 19, 2018 (UTC)

Non-fiction?
It's just that the book itself claims to be fiction. And, honestly, I'm not sure what exactly is stopping it from being classed under PROSE, seeing as the contents are all formatted as if they were short stories? WaltK ☎  20:20, February 1, 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not sure why it's being covered as a reference book either. Epsilon  📯 📂 03:00, November 21, 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting one, since you could argue that the out of universe cast/episode listings + the fact that there's no new information added qualifies it as a "reference book". I think it doesn't really meet any of our nice neat categories, as it's not really a PROSE work, and it's not really a reference work either. (Though classifying it as a reference work really has no adverse consequences, as it adds no new information.) Najawin ☎  03:52, November 21, 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, it does have information of the totally inconsiquential variety. Bill Potts' father, anyone? WaltK ☎  22:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)