User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-28349479-20180405163637/@comment-188432-20180416210410

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-28349479-20180405163637/@comment-188432-20180416210410 As there is general agreement for the proposal, novelisations are now to be considered primary sources alongside the TV stories from which they arise. Much of what has been said upthread is to now be considered policy here at Tardis. In broad particular, the notion of using phrases like "according to one source" and "another account held" are easy ways to make performed and novelised versions of the same story easily co-exist.

However, two parts of the OP's proposal are not accepted:
 * The dab term (novelisation) remains appropriate and will not be changed. It's odd logic to argue on the one hand that novelisations are an important part of the fabric of DW fandom — and then simultaneously argue for the term's elimination. Novelisations are different from novels, and it brings them no dishonour or lessening of importance to retain that dab term. Moreover, it's important in the cases where the novelisation's title is different from the TV story, to indicate that this is a novelisation and not a wholly original work.
 * The proposal to change article naming to include the names that might have been given in novels is denied. The point of naming an article is to make it easily discoverable by casual readers of our site. Easily-provable statistics — the total print run of the Doctor Who (1996) novelisation versus the viewing figures for the televised event, and sales of home media thereafter — mean that to most people trying to use the site, the character's name is just Miranda. Miranda Gerhardt would be entirely confusing. In the case of naming articles, we need to go with what makes it easiest for the greatest number of people.  While I appreciate the T:NPOV argument,  naming articles is and must be done with respect to the convenience of the greatest number of people. We can't be so media-neutral that we then make it hard for people to find the article And indeed, it's better for accuracy if we put article at the name given in the widest-reaching version of the story — Miranda (Doctor Who) — and then in the lead, give her full name and indicate from where that full name comes. Finally since there has never been an objection to using redirects from the name arising from novelisations — as the existence of Miranda Gerhardt proves — there is an acceptable technical remedy that gives those more familiar with another medium a way to find the article.