Forum:New past Doctor stories: PDA?

In order to avoid needless (near-)duplication of posts, this discussion has been put on hold until a broader conversation about the nature of prefixes can take place. Please proceed to Forum:Prefix simplification. This thread may be reopened for editing, if necessary, at a later date, so it is not being archived at this time. 03:31: Tue 21 Aug 2012 As I've learnt on my Facebook feed today, The Wheel of Ice is out now. I'm not entirely sure if "BBC X Doctor Adventures" is an official term or just something based on consensus, but either way, are we considering this new line of books starting with this Second Doctor novel a continuation of the BBC Past Doctor Adventures? -- Tybort (talk page) 16:49, August 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * Good question. As far as I know, "BBC Past Doctor Adventures" was only ever a fan term used to distinguish the BBC Books novels featuring Doctors 1–7 from those featuring the Eighth Doctor. Over at Virgin, the New Adventures and Missing Adventures were distinct lines, labeled as such, but BBC Books never officially used the PDA/EDA terms. That said, I do think that they were used in Doctor Who Magazine at the time.


 * For the time being, I think we can use PDA for The Wheel of Ice. But it might be worth dropping by Gallifrey Base to see what the folks there are saying, if there's any information on this publication or an emerging fan consensus in how to refer to it. (From a practical, publication standpoint, this is really a continuation of the line that started with Shada, but since that was a novelisation it makes sense for us to treat it differently.) Have any other "past Doctor" novels been announced? —Josiah Rowe ☎  02:04, August 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * I know it's probably not directed at me, but still, I'm...absolutely not touching Doctor Who forums. Not ever.


 * I've only seen a reference to one specific story (not including Shada and The Wheel of Ice) with an insinuation of further books. I'd link to the announcement of another book, but doesn't that break T:SPOIL? Or is that mostly for episodes? -- Tybort (talk page) 03:31, August 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you probably have a point about T:SPOIL... but I did find the announcement that you're probably referring to, on the Doctor Who News Page from July 21, 2011 for release scheduled in 2013.


 * I'll take the plunge for the cause. It's been an age since I was over at Gallifrey Base (though I was actually briefly an admin at its predecessor, Outpost Gallifrey)... I'm sure the place is just as awful as ever. —Josiah Rowe ☎  04:50, August 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, in the relevant GB thread somebody has kindly reprinted the publisher's summary sent to booksellers, which includes the following:
 * The first original past Doctor adventure since the list re-booted in 2005.
 * I'd say that's enough to justify us using the PDA prefix. —Josiah Rowe ☎  05:09, August 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I've created the page for the book and put it on the front page. Hope I didn't mess anything up too badly. —Josiah Rowe ☎  06:03, August 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * I notice there's a comment at the bottom of BBC Past Doctor Adventures' page added by CzechOut a year ago stating not to add the 2010s novels, as they must count as a different range, due to the different format. Thoughts? -- Tybort (talk page) 06:36, August 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it's true that it's published in a different format, and it's not really #76 in the previous series. But if the publisher calls it "the first original past Doctor adventure since ... 2005" (emphasis added), what should we call the range if not "Past Doctor Adventures"? Will we need to disambiguate BBC Past Doctor Adventures (1997–2005) and BBC Past Doctor Adventures (2012–)? It's the same publisher, and it's a past Doctor adventure. I dunno. —Josiah Rowe ☎  07:06, August 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well it seems the range is continuing with "The Harvest of Time" by Alistair Reynolds in 2013. I can't see anything that contradicts the view that it's set in a different range to the others, and "the first original past Doctor adventure since ... 2005" comment says to me that it is meant to be a continuation of the range. --Revan\Talk 09:10, August 17, 2012 (UTC)

{reset} I say put in under PDA. It is a BBC Books adventure with a past Doctor, is it not? Just because of a 8 year gap in publishing and a new cover format, they still share the same premise.  Tardis1963   talk  09:27, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it's not just a new cover format. It's a proper, full-sized hardback book with an adult word count. It's a "real book", for lack of a better definition. And the idea of this line isn't just to use a past Doctor.  It's to invite established writers to write a DW book.  It has more in common with the recent Eleventh Doctor book by Michael Moorcock than it does with the PDAs of old.  Plus, weren't PDA's actually numbered on the spine/frontispiece?  If this book isn't, then it's definitionally not part of the same series.


 * I have no idea what we'll eventually call it, but it's pretty obviously not the same series. I'd be more inclined to go with a temporary prefix of NPDA just so that it'd be easier for the bot to correct it to a more appropriate prefix once we have an idea where the series — if indeed it becomes a full series – is headed. 19:42: Mon 20 Aug 2012
 * Yeah, the more I think about it, the less satisfactory I find the idea of calling this a PDA. The prefix should denote format.  This is part of a line which includes Eleventh Doctor and past Doctor adventures.  The keys to this line are:
 * adult reading level
 * page count around 300
 * "Proper" hardcovers — which is to say jacketed, with stitched bindings, of dimensions consonant with mainstream fiction
 * the (general) use of authors who are established authors outside the franchise, writing for Doctor Who for the first time (excepting, obviously, Dan Abnett)


 * I've no idea for a great name for this line, but there is no doubt in my mind that it's NOT a PDA. Using a different prefix — anything really, but maybe ADULT — is what we need to do in the short term, to make transition at a later date much easier.


 * The books in this series clearly include:


 * The Coming of the Terraphiles
 * Dark Horizons
 * The Silent Stars Go By
 * The Wheel of Ice
 * Harvest of Time


 * 20:09: Mon 20 Aug 2012


 * Another thought occurs to me. We could use this opportunity to simplify rather than further stratify.  Two radical (but bot-achievable) solutions include:


 * The complete elimination of all the false distinctions. Make everything BOOK. NSA, PDA, EDA, MA, NA, TN, SJAN, TWN — make the whole lot (except for DWN, which has a special status) — just BOOK. Personally, I dig this idea as I think it's a much more comprehensible prefix for the casual reader of our site.  It's really not important to someone casually reading an article that they know that The Pit comes from the NA line.  It's enough to know that it's a book.  If they really want to know more, let 'em click on The Pit.
 * Making just the BBC books BBCB. EDA, PDA, TWN, SJAN and NSA would collapse into a single prefix.  We'd still have to figure out what to do with this line as far as an overview page were concerned, but this would neatly solve the prefix issue, while preserving MA, NA and TN.
 * As I've said, of the two, I quite prefer choice 1. I think readers and editors alike would find reading our articles much easier if we poured off some of the alphabet soup. 20:25: Mon 20 Aug 2012


 * Neither of those sound really appealing to me. Even if there's good precedent for the individual prose lines not necessitating a prefix, I don't appreciate lumping Doctor Who, Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures prose all as BOOK or BBCB. Also, why DWN, but not SJAN? If I absolutely had to side with something, then I'd choose choice 2 as the lesser of two evils. -- Tybort (talk page) 23:41, August 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * I also think that of those two options, #2 is preferable, though I don't much like either one. I don't like option #1 at all. The different lines really do have quite different tones and styles, and I think it's useful for readers to be able to distinguish between them easily. And no, the PDAs did not have numbers on them anywhere — the numbering is purely a fan convention. (The NSAs for the 9th and 10th Doctors did have numbers, sort of — the "Gallifreyan" numbering system was used for chapter headings and also on the spines of the books.)


 * If we don't like the idea of adding it to the PDAs, I'm OK with NPDA. Though what might be the best thing to do is to email BBC Books and ask whether they have a term for the "adult hardbacks" line. If they do, that would solve things. —Josiah Rowe ☎  03:20, August 21, 2012 (UTC)