Talk:Brief Encounter

I think maybe these stories could have their pages using either the Template:Infobox Short Story or the Template:Infobox Other Short Story infoboxes. --Tangerineduel 13:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thought about this and decided to maybe rethink this as I revisited them. The infoboxes didn't seem entirely relevant with less than half of the boxes appropriate. As their wasn't much to add other than a paragraph maximum on each I felt it would be a lot of wasted page space and unnecessary links. As the stories were contained within the pages of DWM the wider short story importance didn't seem as strong. Also haven't worked out yet just how many there actually were. May need to split the page into 3 separate search pages I'll see how it goes.The Librarian 17:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is why I suggested the Infoboxes/Individual pages, from what I understand there were quite a lot of these (and other same style of things), so perhaps a page dealing with each year of the magazine (rather than the slightly baffling to an outsider Monthly/Doctor Who magazine division) (or Specials in the case of those). I think there's about enough to fill the infobox and an article, and this isn't just about what you can add, it's to put in place a frame work to encourage others to add to the wiki. Long pages make for hard to navigate information. --Tangerineduel 04:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just checked and found a total of 31 (plus odd specials) that appeared between issues 167-213. Not really enough to split into years. Another problem is that not all of them had individual titles and so would have to be referenced individually by DWM issue.I wasn't being egotistical in my remark, simply that the items are so short, and uncanonicable (?!) that I really can't think of much more that could be added beyond a larger summary which would amount to virtually reprinting the story. Possibly a line for Of Particular Note:. RE Infobox a new one would probably have to be done as Doctor number, companions, enemies, next, and previous, aren't really appropriate to the ones I've recently revisited. Even setting and period seem vague.So to be included would only leave title, author, illustrator (where applicable), where published, and featuring. Is this enough for a separate box? The article is marked as stub and it's something I'll end up coming back to later so we can discuss this further, maybe I'm missing something obvious, thinking time now The Librarian 19:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)