User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20160528204037/@comment-24894325-20160530182612

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20160528204037/@comment-24894325-20160530182612 Thank you for a comprehensive reply. It touches upon many things. I would like to discuss them separately. Firstly, the information that scripts are the least respected source compared to the audio itself is probably self-evident for experienced editors. Luckily for me, I've been explained before that in-universe perspective (sound of the audio) always trumps anything out-of-universe (production materials). However, I do not believe this is explicitly formulated with respect to spelling in the Naming conventions or Spelling policies. And I think new editors could benefit from being able to read this information in the policies. My own ranking of valid sources in determining the spelling is as follows: If I am wrong, please correct this ranking. But putting the corrected ranking to the policy pages would, IMHO, help in both resolving disputes and suggesting ways to verify spelling for new editors.
 * 1) Sound on the audio
 * 2) CD packaging and booklet
 * 3) Web page of the release
 * 4) Other promotional materials published by the producer of the audio, e.g., release announcements, news about the release or Vortex magazine. (Two recent examples of spelling verified using such sources are "Aldriss"  and "Goritania".)
 * 5) Scripts published by the producer of the audio

To be continued...