Talk:Audio Adventures in Time & Space

Capitalisation
Shouldn't time be capitalized in the title? Americanwhofan 19:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not. See BBV Online BBV's spelling of it is 'Audio Adventures in time and Space'. --Tangerineduel 16:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Audio Adventures in time and Space
On BBV's store online they spelt it 'Audio Adventures in time and Space'; see BBV Online (via Internet Archive Wayback Machine). --Tangerineduel 14:16, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, on that page they do. On this page and this page and several other pages, they spell it with a capital-T.  The actual products themselves bear the logo, which is in all caps, meaning that we assume standard capitalisation (title case, except for articles and prepositions).


 * More to the point, the phrase "Adventures in Time and Space" comes from Audio Visuals, not BBV, and their official Facebook page goes with "Adventures in Time and Space". (Incredibly the Audio Visuals community is still active; they just posted two days ago!) Also, the closest thing to an official web page off Facebook is http://www.justyce.org and they use a capital-T.


 * All that said, I'm changin' it. 15:34: Sat 03 Mar 2012

"The Time Travellers" canon?
Should the stories not be judged canon or not on an individual basis? For example: I know that laters stories in "The Time Travellers" have Dominie and Alice so obvioiusly can't be canon earlier stories have enough ambiguity to fit in. Take Republica: While the Doctor is refered to as Professor being introduced by Ace he never calls himself that name so could be the actual Doctor...
 * I'll answer this for the record: it was decided at the deceptively titled thread Forum:BBV and canon policy, a decade ago, that we do not cover the entire Audio Adventures in Time & Space series, so in a sense we did end up litigating these things' status on an individual basis.


 * But in fact you have the criteria backwards. As per T:VS, narrative contradiction isn't a factor in validity, so stories about "the Dominie and Alice" could perfectly well be valid sources in theory. And besides, both Sylvester McCoy and Sophie Aldred have played other roles than the Doctor and Ace in the DWU with the resemblance going unexplained and unmentioned. The Dominie and Alice could be knocking about in N-Space separate from the Seventh Doctor and Ace, for all we know.


 * The thing is, however, that what we care about is licenses. Yes, "The Professor" and "Ace" in the early episodes of The Time Travellers could be interpreted as the Seventh Doctor and Dorothy "Ace" Gale, but BBV didn't have a license from the BBC to use those characters; so either the stories use coincidentally-named characters with no relationship to the originals, in which case there is nothing to tether it legally to the DWU; or we treat them as the Doctor and Ace, but they're being used illegally, and therefore it falls afoul of T:NO FANFIC.


 * Bottom line, no episode of The Time Travellers is covered on the Wiki at all, whether as valid or invalid. Other Audio Adventures, however, are included, on a case-by-case basis boiling down to whether they're exploiting a license to a preexisting DWU concept.


 * …Oh, and this change had yet to go through back when this message was posted, but for the record, we don't deal in "canon". Either something is covered or not; if it's covered, either it's a valid source|| or an invalid one. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck  ☎  18:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Tables
I'll be honest: I find it quite jarring that the current setup for the tables of this page is at it is for so long. Not only it is completely different from basically every other table on the wiki, but the color scheme is no doubt a leftover from previous color schemes of the wiki itself. To add to that, there's no separation between seasons, so every time we have to add new content to it, we have to load the whole thing.

Therefore, I propose that we get a new, updated table instead of trying to "fix" this one. I'm slowly creating it on User:OncomingStorm12th/Sandbox 2. There's basically no differences in it, except for the Author/Released columns and the fact that I propose we don't use color schemes at all in it. I mean, the big "No"/"Yes" on the last column, added to the fact that there's not even a redlink on the stories we don't cover should be enough to indicate we... don't cover them. I don't see why further add a color to inform this to readers. Opinions? OncomingStorm12th ☎  23:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that your version looks far better already. But I have one question, where do the "seasons" come from? I can't find any branding for seasons one through four (although I haven't looked very hard) and I'm pretty sure the new releases haven't been branded as a fifth season. Are these seasons just a contributor's interpretation? RadMatter ☎  23:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a great question.. I'd assume production breaks from one story to the other? Or perhaps the old website grouped them as such. Anyway, I'd be quite willing to group the stories "per series", and then a further table for the "single releases", if no hard evidence is found to the current system (or, even if it is. For a matter of comparison, we somewhat shifted our arrangement of the Bonus Releases and Special Releases into The Fifth Doctor Adventures, The Sixth Doctor Adventures and The Seventh Doctor Adventures after BF rearranged them on their website). OncomingStorm12th ☎  23:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Wayback Machine confirms that the Seasons 1 through 4 were listed as such on the original website. And the recent burst of new releases really can't be called part of a Season 4 that clearly ended a decade ago, I should think, so IMO it's common sense to call it a new season — though if we prefer to make a separate table for these new releases but not call them "Season 5" exactly, due to concerns that the name is too speculative, I suppose that's also an option until such a time as BBV clarify things. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  20:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that forward! Nah, given the original website divided them as such, it's not only natural to place this new batch as a season 5, but also supported by our usage of Series 3 (BFTW) and the likes of it (for context: Big Finish originally called the first two batches of releases "seasons/series", but have since abandoned it. Still, we call each new batch a season for simplicity and linkage sake). At most, if we end up doing separate pages for each AAIT&S season (bar series 1 ofc) we can use a tag to "Season 5"'s page.
 * That said, does anyone else have any opinions regarding the formatting of the old table vs my sandbox one? OncomingStorm12th ☎  22:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey there all. I've made this sandbox demonstration to show everyone my idea of how I think this could work. Any suggestions? LilPotato ☎
 * LilPotato, I really like you table setup, even more than my own if I'm honest. If anyone else agrees or has further suggestions on how to improve it, they'd be more than welcome. OncomingStorm12th ☎  19:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OS12, I like the way you included the author and release date for each story. And LP, I like the way you listed each story's "Licensed DWU Elements". But I understand that combining these approaches and presenting all that information would make for an awkwardly wide table. How about we follow the lead of comparable pages (like Wonders and Señor 105 & the Elements of Danger) and get rid of the "Covered here?" column? That information is already redundant to the "Title" column: if the story is linked, it's covered; if not, it's not! I've cobbled together a proposal along these lines at User:NateBumber/Sandbox/4. I also took the liberty of making the tables sortable with et al, along the lines of my experimental work at Sabbath Dei - list of appearances; I believe this will help make it easier to view the stories from specific series within each season. Let me know what you think. – n8 (☎) 17:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)