Forum:Don't over-abbreviate magazine issue titles

''[The following comment was placed on an archived thread. It is rescued, here, and turned into a new discussion, per archiving conventions. -- CzechOut]''
 * You know, we really shouldn't overtly prefix things. It's understandable when used to shorten citations or to explain them on the prefix pages, but to have articles titled "DWBIT 1" and such just leads to confusing article titles, whereas the above example stating it's issue 1 of Doctor Who: Battles in Time is a lot more unambiguous. It would make a lot more sense to move all the DWM's and DWA's and so on to the more unambiguous titles and leave the prefixes where they belong (as citations or pages explaining the citation).--Tim Thomason 03:51, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, Tim, the majority of magazine issue pages have long used abbreviations. DWM pages, for instance, have used DWM since, I think, they were originally created.  Same with DWCC, DWA.  DWBIT, was, as Forum:DWBIT: Odd man out stressed, very much the exception rather than the existing "rule".  I'd argue that DWBIT 1 is much less confusing than Doctor Who: Battles in Time Issue 1, because in the old way of doing things, you'd have to remember to include the words "Doctor Who" (when you were probably more used to thinking of it as just "Battles in Time"), you'd have to remember the colon, and you'd have to remember that the word "issue" was, rather oddly, capitalized.  There are a lot more chances to screw up the link with a long-form name than there are with an [acronym] + number format.


 * In this new scheme of magazine issue naming, things follow a normal and predictable pattern. Take the full name, make a proper acronym out of it, then add the issue number.  That's a lot easier to explain to people than to rationalize the use of a colon in a title (where none actually exists) or the use of a capital-I in "issue" (where that goes against common-sense capitalization rules). 13:36:28 Tue 05 Apr 2011