Given their inactivity since 2009, and the loss of their Internet domain early this year, would it be prudent to change the tenses in this article from "is" to "was" until such time as BBV possibly starts something back up again? Rob T Firefly 02:39, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
- It certainly does appear they've dropped off the face of the internet.
- Is there anything to suggest they're still a production company? --Tangerineduel / talk 14:29, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
Back in business?Edit
What is the status of BBV now? The TARDIS Library website lists BBV reissuing a stack of their shows to DVD in March and August 2012. See here and look for Cyberon, Bidding Adieu, PROBE, etc. 220.127.116.11talk to me 04:21, July 19, 2012 (UTC)
BBV Wiki Edit
seeing as though there is now a faction Paradox Wiki. I wonder if maybe you might be interested in a wiki for the various BBV series. I already made a wiki for it and done some articles on The Stranger series, the Cyberon series and the Auton Trilogy . Unfortunately i haven't been able to spend a lot of time on it right now, but if anyone wants to adopt it it or wants to help out, feel free to ask or contribute the address is www.bbv.wikia.com
Does anyone mind if I get rid of the stories listed here that aren't DWU, like The Stranger, Audio Adventures in Time and Space? Like, we don't cover the entire publication history of the rest, so this seems outdated. It's really only the DWU content that the readers come here for, anyways. Also, it prevents a future creation of a page that wasn't meant to be made. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 00:49, June 20, 2020 (UTC)
- no, they're there to explain why they aren't covered to avoid the pages being mistakenly created. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 00:56, June 20, 2020 (UTC)
- I'm with DiSoRiEnTeD1 on this one. Many, many new fans come to our Wiki and find it weird and confusing that we cover, for example, Zygon but not Cyberon. Not explaining the situation properly on this page would make it more confusing for these readers, not less.
- Besides, while they do not warrant individual pages (let alone validities), these unlicensed production are still part of Doctor Who's real-world history, and are covered as such by many "official" documentary resources about Doctor Who — not least of which DWM itself, which, back in the day, would usually report on the latest BBV releases regardless of whether they had individual DWU licenses as opposed to just shared cast & crew. Let's face it, all vintage BBV, save perhaps Infidel's Comet, is either officially Doctor Who, or unofficially Doctor Who. The latter warrants it the same kind of coverage that the Audio Visuals get.
- Also, unless a page gets really, really big (like, say, The Master in its unsplit form), I think the instinct to "downsize" pages is wrongheaded in a Wiki context. There's no word count on these things. Sometimes a big topic warrants a big page, and I think that's perfectly all right. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 01:01, June 20, 2020 (UTC)
- I agree they should be covered, and am broadly with Scrooge as for the reason why. They're an important look into the history of the show during a certain period of its time. Obviously they shouldn't be covered as we would cover an actual DWU story, but I think not covering them all on this wiki would be a mistake and would be an erasure of an important facet of the program's history (something I think has already happened far too much for Wilderness Years era events). Najawin ☎ 01:06, June 20, 2020 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, I wasn't saying 'take out all explanations'. I know we need to keep those and support it. But what I'm talking about is the infobox. We've already had an incident where a page for Punchline was created.
But, I do agree with the fact that my headline was a bit misleading. If anything, I'd rather that the pages were much, much bigger. I like the size of the Master page, the Doctor page, etc. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 02:00, June 20, 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think the table had anything to do with the Punchline incident. The row for Punchline on this page, after all, has a big, brash, conspicuous, angry-red "NOT COVERED ON THIS WIKI" sign on it. There is a level of clarity past which we cannot be held responsible for new editors' lack of reading comprehension, and shouldn't have our service to the readers who pay attention be harmed by it. (Assuming, again, that the creator of the Punchline page even visited this one; I don't think they did.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:05, June 20, 2020 (UTC)
- One could argue that "not covered on this wiki" just means "we do not as of yet have a page for it or have incorporated its events into the rest of the wiki". I think this is, uh, poor reading comprehension given the rest of the page. But arguably the table could be reworded. I don't care. Najawin ☎ 02:09, June 20, 2020 (UTC)