Why the move? / Article title[]
This article was originally titled Radio Times Doctor Who 2005-2010 Special, which was clearly incorrect as that is not what the cover title of the publication is. I went with Doctor Who: David Tennant and the Regeneration Years 2005-2010 rather than including Radio Times in the title because a) it became a bit cumbersome and b) it's sort of like we don't use titles like BBC Books: The Monsters Inside when referring to books published by BBC Books. I see the RT title as being a label more than actually part of the title. If someone disagrees and wants to go for the full-out RT title, be my guest. The original title was incorrect in any event. 23skidoo 14:04, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, this is quite a mouthful of a title. Is it really the only possibility? What's the name on the inside? Is there an indicia title? If there's not, and it really is "David Tenannt and the Regeneration Years (2005-2010)", the "Doctor Who" should be dropped. We don't conventionally put "Doctor Who" at the front of publication titles, else every book would have that prefix, as in Doctor Who: Autopia, or the like. Can someone check the publication interior thoroughly for the legal name of the publication? Surely the legal name would have the words "Radio Times", which I think would be helpful in actually identifying the item.
- Another problem is that the "cover title" isn't, apparently, universal. Here's a shot of a version where the title is merely Radio Times: Doctor Who 2005-2010, minus any mention of David Tennant. Here's a link to a closed Ebay auction where the picture is even bigger, and you can obviously see that it's a photograph of an actual magazine, not a proof copy of the artwork. Look at the lower left-hand corner; you can see actual height to the picture, and a little wrinkle on the spine. YOu can also see that there's curvature along the top edge of the book, which you wouldn't get if it were just artwork proof.
- So there are apparently at least two "cover titles" to this book, unless the design we've got on our site is actually an artwork proof. This is why it's important to check the inside for the official, legal title. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 18:08, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Kasterborous call it the Radio Times Doctor Who Collectors Edition, which seems a much more sensible title to me. I dunno if it's accurate in terms of the indicia, but somehow our title really should have the words "Radio Times" in it. Also, you'll note at the Kasteroborous article that they have a different picture of the cover, which confirms the cover images above, not the one we have on the article. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 18:23, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
- DWO call it the Radio Times Doctor Who Collector's Edition: 2005-2010. [1], though occasionally in their review they sensibly drop "Doctor Who". Their picture is in line with what we have, but somehow I'm just not buying that image. Why would the DW logo extend off the frame of the page like that. More to the point, why would the "David Tennant and the Regeneration Years" thing at the bottom not be centered with respect to the RadioTimes logo. And, of course, why is it not an image scanned from an actual book? No, the more I look at this, the more I'm thinking our image is faked, or a mock-up. Plus, there's the fact that Kasterborous characterize it as a celebration of the RTD era, not just the DT era. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 18:33, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Kasterborous call it the Radio Times Doctor Who Collectors Edition, which seems a much more sensible title to me. I dunno if it's accurate in terms of the indicia, but somehow our title really should have the words "Radio Times" in it. Also, you'll note at the Kasteroborous article that they have a different picture of the cover, which confirms the cover images above, not the one we have on the article. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 18:23, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, here's the clincher, as far as I'm concerned. If you go to ebay.co.uk and look at current auctions you'll find at least three separate auctions, each with three slightly different scans. But they all confirm the Kasterborous shot, above. The absolute best picture, though, is at this auction. There's no way that's a faked image. It's aken in a room with poor, uneven lighting ad pictured up against real life objects which establish that it's the right height and that the photo was taken likely in Britain (because of the electrical plugs in the background). On the basis of this picture, and other sites opinions, I'm going to now change the name of the article, and change the picture. If anyone has superior information from the actual indicia, they may of course update later. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 18:53, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
- When I moved the article, I had originally thought to move it again to Radio Times Doctor Who Collectors' Edition 2005-2010. In the end, however, I didn't do that, because I still would like someone to check the indicia. I have a sneaking suspicion there is no date range in the official title, because RT have never published anything like this before. It is the first and only "Doctor Who Collectors' Edition", so why would they qualify the name further? And, indeed, why should we do so? It's a unique item, which doesn't require further modification. Also, the plural possessive form of "Collector" is the one given on the cover, so it's likely to be the one on the indicia. Not to mention that it's grammatically correct, despite what DWO and Kasterborous maintain. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 19:14, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
- So there are apparently at least two "cover titles" to this book, unless the design we've got on our site is actually an artwork proof. This is why it's important to check the inside for the official, legal title. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 18:08, March 16, 2010 (UTC)