User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20151119211902/@comment-188432-20170501023907

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20151119211902/@comment-188432-20170501023907 This thread has meandered quite a bit from its original post back in 2015. I'm therefore gonna close it on the merits of the original question -- which was, essentially, "Is UNIT Extinction an audio anthology?"

Shambala108's closure this month of Thread:204223 determined that the name of that release on this wiki will be Extinction (audio anthology), and so she effectively answered the original post.

As for the rest of the thread, T:FORUM says:
 * ... you should make every effort to stay on topic in any given thread. Posts which stray from the point may be deleted without warning.

I think it's pretty fair to say that while the discussion is related to the original post, and contains some very thoughtful and detailed observations, it's gone quite a bit further than the original post's ambitions.

I'm therefore ruling that all the other proposals in the thread have failed. All names will remain where they were.

Let me go a little further, though, and say that the reason we use "audio anthology" as a dab term is to tamp down on the total number of dab terms. The fact that we use parenthetical dab terms at all is confusing to any number of people because they aren't super common in the wider Fandom network. The last thing we wanna do is to become so precise with the definition of "anthology" that we start creating a number of other terms with which to further confuse our beleaguered readers. So for our purposes, an "anthology" is just a collection of separately-titled stories, whether or not those stories are related. There are good reasons to keep a singular dab term for this kinda collection of stories, some of them technical and having to do with a lack of desire to change templates that depend on this standard nomenclature.

And, as both SOTO and PicassoAndPringles will well-attest, Big Finish have odd marketing practices that really don't consider our desires here at the wiki for consistency. It's therefore up to us to hold true to our own definitions and not give in to their shifting "marketing speak".

Finally, I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There was a good faith effort here to kinda go through all these multi-part releases, one by one, and figure it all out. That can continue, if the parties involved still think it important. However, neither these forums or the new Discussion product are the right place for such a complicated suggestion. If the parties to the latter parts of this thread wanna try again, please create a normal wiki page, say in the User or Tardis namespaces, and lay it all out so that it can be more easily grasped in one reading. Use these forums only to direct people there, and have the discussion there -- much in the same way that Tardis:User rights nominations are handled.