Talk:BBC New Series Adventures

Merge proposal
A merge has been proposed for this article. Please share your opinions at the linked page.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍ 21:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * both external links go to the same page. Americanwhofan 19:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's right. The merge was completed and both links are redirect pages. That just leaves all the pages that use the old links to be updated.--Nyktimos 19:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

audio books
The whole table is in the article twice. Americanwhofan 11:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed Layout
I've changed the layout of this page to include future releases. The section includes future Quick Reads, Audio Books and the announced Eleventh Doctor novels. Is this ok with everyone? Matta jr 02:38, December 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks OK. I have given the article further revision to remove redundancy (we don't need the chapter numbers explained multiple times). We also don't need a future releases section - just rolled it into the main lists. I also tightened the intros to each section and added some additional information. 23skidoo 14:42, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth considering having a 'placeholder' image for upcoming books/audios until official covers are released - possibly just a black box with the new Who logo to match the dimensions of existing novels? It would hel[ maintain the spacing and layout of the page, they look kinda squished for upcoming titles. Ponk 14:51, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

What about The Moorcock novel?
Isn't the Michael Moorcock novel considered part of this series? If so, it should be included in the chart. If not, there should at least be a link to the article. 68.146.64.9 18:40, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

I'm also wondering the same thing about those new 2 in 1 books. Surely they fit into this as well. Unlike Moorcock's novel however, there is nothing about the 2 in 1 books on the wiki. TheCoud&#39;veBeenKing 08:33, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Lead
When I encountered it, the lead had these two grafs:
 * Behind the chapter numbers in the books are symbols similar to the "Gallifreyan writing" seen in the series. The same symbols appear on the spines, and are referred to as Gallifreyan numbers by fans. The recurring patterns in the symbols suggest that Time Lords count in base seven, although a recurring error means that the symbol for 13 is accidentally replaced by the symbol for 11 every time it should appear. This system is not continuing beyond the Tenth Doctor novels.


 * To date, all NSA releases have utilized photographs of the lead actors as part of the cover design, returning to a practice last used by Target Books during the Peter Davison era.

I'm not really understanding the importance of these points. The first graf isn't worded in a particularly clear way, to my mind. Are we really trying to take something canonical by the page decorations in a book? Seriously, I don't think we can assert that Time Lords count in base-7 based on a series of page decorations that have a logical flaw in them. Moreover, if they're not in the Eleventh Doctor range, they're not a ubiquitous feature of the range, and shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. This info might be re-purposed for inclusion elsewhere in the article, but it's certainly not lead-worthy.

As for the second graf, well, that's just reaching. It's hardly significant to the lead that these books share something in common with a few 1980s Target Books. Especially when that connection is so tenuous. Yes they're photographic, but the thing about the Davison era stuff is that it was drawn directly from the episodes in question, without any sort of manipulation, aside from maybe color balance. These are wholly new works with some original photographic elements. They have much more in common with Big Finish covers than Davison Target covers. In any event, characterising the covers is worth putting in the article, but probably in the body of the article rather than the lead.
 * Please sign your comments. I agree the bit about the photo covers doesn't need to be in the lead, but it does need to be in the article because it is a notable superlative, although having said that it is more accurate to cite the Past Doctor and Eighth Doctor Adventures lines in this regard because they used photos of McGann and the other Doctors as part of their design. 68.146.80.110 17:18, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

What about the upcoming past Doctor novels?
What's being done with regards to the three past Doctor novels that have now been announced? (Shada, and the new works by Reynolds and Baxter) It's not going to be accurate to call the New Series Adventures. Have they been designated under a new line? 68.146.80.110 17:18, November 4, 2011 (UTC)