Talk:Doctor Who Magazine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Special Editions[edit]

As the collections have been listed how about listing the recent series of Special Editions? Bladeboy1889 15:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work!! Yeah go for it, can't hurt. I think it possibly needs expanding on the real world impact (reviews etc.) but, as I've just found my old copies of the early DW Weekly/Monthly issues I'll see if there is anything else that can be added but it does look pretty solid in that area. (Emperor 16:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
I'll try and have a go next week although my copies are buried in boxes at the moment whilst I'm decorating! Bladeboy1889 19:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I've added this now - makes the whole article a bit long now though. Perhaps we should consider breaking out the colections and special editions sections into separate articles? Bladeboy1889 13:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Good work. As it stands it isn't yet tripping the page too long warning and that is only the minimum size itself (given the increase in bandwidth). So it is something worth keeping an eye on but it is probably too early for a split. (Emperor 15:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
I've adjusted the formatting (as it is wise to avoid too much bold and breaks should only really be used when nothing else will do - usually in infoboxes). If it doesn't suit I'll reverse it. (Emperor 16:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Are the dates given for the Special Editions "on sale" dates, or do they need to be corrected? I have only The Complete Third Doctor on hand at the moment (and the only others I own at all are the analogous volumes for the 1st, 2nd, & 6th Drs., though I'd like to have all of the original series Drs.' editions) and the cover date there is "5 September 2002," not "July" as given here. I think that the cover dates are what ought to be listed anyway. Anybody else? Ted Watson (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cover dates are usually the date a magazine is to be removed from the shelf by the newsagent. Not just DWM, but all magazines, although these days some magazines produced every 4 weeks still have a "month" off-shelf date which doesn't quite match by the end of the year (and meaning that they end up having a "Christmas" dated issue, too) Stephenb (Talk) 08:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Magazines are to be removed from the retailer's display when the next issue arrives--if they don't send unsold copies back then, they can't get their money back (yes, this doesn't apply to direct-distribution outlets, but it is the way it is done in general, at least here on the west side of the pond). Issues started getting cover-dated a few months in the future in hope that it would get them left on the shelves longer and get more copies sold (presumably, the retailers-get-refunds-from-wholesalers process didn't exist way back then). The every-four-weeks-publication resulting in an extra (thirteenth) issue in the year is why they are given dates more specific than just the month, such as the "5 July 1995" one cited for DWM #227 in a ref. note on The Claws of Axos. Others include Analog Science Fiction and Fact and Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine. Furthermore, since cover dates are what are found on the issues themselves and are what are used in reference citations, I still feel that those are what should be listed here. Of what possible after-the-fact interest in an academic context can the original on-sale dates be (as opposed to the cover dates, which are in the general ballpark as to release, anyway)? Post a good answer to that question and I'll go along with them. Note that I am asking, not just making the changes. Ted Watson (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's the way that many American magazine cover dates work now; however, the traditional reason for the cover date is for when the retailer was to remove the magazine from the shelf. This has changed somewhat over the years, as the distribution process became more sophisticated and magazine publishing began to take advantage of that, but remains the tradition for the majority of magazines over here in the UK. In the "every 4 weeks" case, many over here don't give a specific date but still give a month (e.g. SFX magazine and other Future Publishing magazines) meaning they have a Christmas issue as well as Jan - Dec issues. DWM is fairly unusual for a 4-weekly in listing a full date rather than just a month, AFAIK. The on-shelf date is more important IMO - this is when the object in question went on sale and available to readers, and therefore the cover-date less useful in an academic context (who cares when it was due to be removed?). That's not to say cover dates should not be in the article, but the release dates ought to be there too. Stephenb (Talk) 11:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
(My apologies for forgetting to check this board yesterday; really, just absent-mindedness, not that I didn't care) OK, we are pretty much straight about what the dates mean in our respective countries (though I doubt the cover dates mean--or ever meant--removal time in the US; in theory, the next issue arrives before the date is reached, and in this sort of retrospective context, very few people think of them as anything more specific than the issue's date). However, as the cover dates are on the publications themselves (& in reference citations), and the on-sale dates are difficult to document (if not determine) years after the event, I really feel the latter have a lack of value here. A similar principle is why most general sources don't give precise release dates (just the year) for motion pictures. Anybody else want to weigh in on this? Ted Watson (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comic strip?[edit]

The entry says comic strip but that is a rather specific form and I've read quite a few back in the day and don't recall them being a "strip" (single panel high and usually 3 or 4 panels wide). They were full page (some single some multi-page) comics stories along the same lines as those providing the full content of other British comics anthologies. As I say it has been years so I could be wrong so I thought I'd check. (Emperor 18:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

That's correct — they're not comic strips, they're full-page comics; indeed, the vast majority were multi-page. I'll try to fix the article. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 22:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem is that comic strips and funny pages are often used rather informally in teh UK to mean comics too but (as I've discussed elsewhere) it is quite clear defined here and there is a distinction - for example Judge Dredd has appeared in comic form (in 2000 AD) as a comic strip (in the Daily Star) and as a comic book (when they did a US edition). Interestingly the collected volumes are described (at least at Amazon) as comic strips [1] but we should probably be clearer here as the comic strip entry that was linked in could cause a lot of confusion about the format they were published in. So thanks for sorting that out.
Actually I should mention the collections. (Emperor 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
For what it's worth, the "Doctor Who?" comic by Quinn and Howett was a comic strip in the strict sense (even though at the moment it's called a "cartoon" in the article). —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah OK. It might be worth clarifying as cartoon has a lot of meanings. That entry does say that in the UK comic strips are known as "strip cartoons" but it'd be best to be specific for an international audience. (Emperor 00:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Sheila Cranna[edit]

I think Sheila Cranna actually edited 31 issues, not 30. In addition to issues 107-136, she also was the credited editor for 97. CzechOut 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Panini have done a good job collectiing together the old comic stories all/most of which I assume were first published in the mag. [2] [3] [4] Would it be worth giing a quick outline of them an what they collect? It would I assume eventually give a reasonable outline of the comic stories published in the mag. (Emperor 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

Sure — if you want to do it, you can, or I can whip something up in the next day or two. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll see how things go. I might jot out an outline and take it from there. (Emperor 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC))
I've made a start, but haven't added the End Game stories as I wasn't sure what was in them. (Emperor 04:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC))
I've updated Endgame - I can do Flood when deliver it. (Bladeboy1889 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

So where should the Voyager details go? In chronological order of the Doctor (ie between the fifth and eight doctor books) or chronologically for the books based on release date? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Is this avliable in the US? User:Nokom

If you follow the link to the website, Panini offer overseas subscriptions. Otherwise, I believe some specialist stores or mail-order companies offer it. Stephenb (Talk) 19:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Its Nokom again, not logged in atm though :) I will check out their website now :) A normal book store like borders wouldn't carry them then? How often do they come out, also?

Asthe article notes, the magazine currently comes out every four weeks, for a total of 13 issues per year. I've never seen it in an average American bookstores like Borders, though. Your best bet to find copies on the shelf is in comic book shops. Rob T Firefly 17:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I know that Borders in Australia carries it, but I'm not sure whether it would be the same for the US. VaughnJess 08:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's turned up in most larger Barnes & Noble stores for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reversal of Vandalism[edit]

I have reversed the vandalism that was done to the Doctor Who Magazine jpeg image. Kathleen.wright5 09:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who comics[edit]

It is looking like it might be worth start something to bring together the Doctor's comic outings as IDW Publishing are producing their own original titles too (aas well as comics in Doctor Who - Battles in Time Comic Stories and Doctor Who Adventures#Comic) and this article doesn't really make the natural home for bringing them together.

I'd suggest "Doctor Who (comics)" in line with things that draw together comics for franchises produced by different companies: Battlestar Galactica (comic book), Xena: Warrior Princess (comics), etc. Although "Doctor Who comics" might be more natural following Buffy comics, Stargate comics - actually that makes sense as it can draw together Doctor Who comics while the others imply they are comics called Doctor Who - so Doctor Who (comics). This can stay here and get linked in via {{main}}.

Nosing around there also seems to be a Doctor Who manga. (Emperor (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

I'd probably suggest splitting this off to form the core of such an entry Doctor Who spin-offs#Comics. (Emperor (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
I've added a redirect at Doctor Who (comics) to the spin-off section but it is looking pretty big and could be easily split off. (Emperor (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

Bad Wolf[edit]

Any chance of mentioning the recent edition that changed the name on the front cover to Bad Wolf? (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Circulation and readership[edit]

If anyone has or is able to research circulation figures, please add and reference. It feels like a bit of a gap to me. --Cedderstk 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image[edit]

Looking at what just happened - the image being replaced with a non-compliant image - along with what the current image is, we really need to look at why there is an image in the infobox.

In all honesty, the infobox is not, and should not be, a place to feature "this months issue". It should be a stable image that is either a general representation of what the magazine is or the inaugural issue under Doctor Who Monthly.

Right now we have what amounts to a general representation, so let us please try an keep it stable.

- J Greb (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It should really be the first issue cover, which is actually already on the page, so adding new ones is unnecessary. (Emperor (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

Summer/Winter Specials[edit]

Is it worth mentioning these? There were at least two themed, if thats the right word, editions, the 1995 Summer Special- the Sixties Dalek Movies, and one, a rather thin edition, to coincide with 1996 TV Movie. (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been Winter/Summer Specials for years. In the early 90's there ones like the Time Lord Special. the UNIT Special, the Sarah Jane Smith Special etc. Doctor Who Magazine also produced Yearbooks for five years in the 90's. Yet none of this is mentioned in the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"Doctor Who: The Complete History" volumes?[edit]

Every volume that contains the first story of a new season (which is usually going to be about every 3rd-5th volume, it seems), also contains an overview of the whole season, and a list of all the stories in that season with the volumes that they'll be featured in. For instance volume 1 contains a list of all stories in season 1 (which appear to make up volumes 1, 2 and the beginning of volume 3). Is it worth adding this data into the table as we go along, and then add issue numbers and release dates for these volumes when they become available? KoopaCooper (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I think we should only add in details of issues when the full information relating to their release is available. You say yourself that the stories may only comprise part of a volume, leaving uncomplete information in the table. Besides, I know that the first few volumes have already been printed stating the volume number for particular stories, but we have to entertain the possibility that the contents of each issue might be altered before publication. Also, there's the possibility that the popularity of the series will wane and the set might not be completed. They're both unlikely, I know, but adding in volumes before the release information becomes available would come under WP:speculation. I see you've done it already, but I'll leave the information in place for now until we get a better consensus. Aw16 (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I did enter it, yes, but all in one go on the basis that it would be easy to revert if necessary. I worked on the basic assumption that the volumes are planned ahead of time and won't change, and that a volume will contain between 2-4 stories. The info in Volume 1 lists Inside The Spaceship through to The Aztecs in volume 2, and then the final two stories of the season in volume 3; I didn't include those as there's a good chance that information isn't complete, but the volume 2 info is. Volume 17's information lists 4 stories for volume 18, which is most likely to be complete, and volume 76 lists all the remaining series 8 episodes for volumes 77, 78, and 79, which must be complete because there's nothing else to go after them as that is the end of the season (and from past experience with partworks, the final volume is an index to the entire series). But fair enough, I won't do that with any future season overviews unless an agreement is reached amongst the editors. :) KoopaCooper (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Added info that issue 5 (Dinosaurs on a Spaceship, Town Called Mercy, Power of Three) is volume 71. I received the issue in the post this morning (together with issue 6, volume 22), so this is not speculation. :) KoopaCooper (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
New issues page on the Complete History website has been updated: Issue 6 (Robot, Ark in Space, The Sontaran Experiment), Issue 7 (Christmas Invasion, New Earth, Tooth and Claw), Issue 8 (Mind Robber, The Invasion, The Krotons), Issue 9 (Warriors of the Deep, The Awakening, Frontios), and Issue 10 (The Day of the Doctor, The Time of the Doctor) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Could someone more skilled than me at updating tables add this info (I can do it, but my table coding is sloppy and takes me ages to get everything arranged in the right place. xD) And as I received issues 5 & 6 this morning, I should add that issue 6 is Tom Baker's opening stories, not David Tennant's opening stories (which according to the linked images from the site, are issue 7). KoopaCooper (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Done. Also changed release dates for the rescheduled volumes. This new influx of info should hopefully mean we don't need to update the table in a major way for a good few weeks. After that, I think we'll need to look into placing the information into a collapsable table so it doesn't look so untidy on the page. Aw16 (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Cool. However, I just noticed that when sorting by issue number or volume number, the entries are not in strict numeric order - 1, 17, 18, 2 for volume numbers, or 1, 10, 2, 3, 4 for issue numbers. Is there a way to force the table to sort correctly that doesn't resort to using 01, 02, 03...? KoopaCooper (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind, I looked it up in the Wiki help pages and added data-sort-type="number" for both the Issue and Volume columns. Also added data-sort-type="date" for the Published column, so all sortable columns now sort correctly. :) KoopaCooper (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
A collapsible table would be easy enough for the volumes list, just a couple of bits of code to add to the table header - in fact, I just did it; then I undid it, because I accidentally finalised the changes without any agreement from other users, I had been meaning to just do a small test edit. KoopaCooper (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I've added collapsible tables for the Collected comics and Classics too, as the article was getting unwieldy. The Special editions should be considered for this too. Having said that, WP:INDISCRIMINATE probably applies to all of these. Stephenb (Talk) 11:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Collapsing contact is on the list of things not to do WP:DONTHIDE " toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, tables or lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions" GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not an ideal solution, I agree. But those lists are vast! They overwhelm the subject of the article, as they are not DWM, just related. They either need their own article (but are they notable in themselves?), or simply summarising. Reluctantly, I'd go for the latter if collapsing is frowned upon. Stephenb (Talk) 13:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a tricky one. The information does swamp the article and is probably not notable enough to warrant their own separate articles, but on the other hand I think it does provide information not readily available elsewhere. If collapsing is frowned upon (though I myself have no issues with it. It's done for album contents, etc on other pages so why is it an issue with lists of publications?) then we have three alternatives. One, create a series of new articles purely for the tabular information (unlikely to happen unless we can get past notability guidelines somehow). Two, expand all the tables fully (but that leaves the article looking incredibly messy). Three, delete all the information contained within (which would be a great shame as we loose a fantastic reference resource for back issues, etc). None of those seem particularly favourable to me. Aw16 (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree, none of those solutions seems particularly satisfactory at the moment, but it might end up coming down to one or another of them. If I may make a suggestion as to a forth option? Rather than creating articles for each of these other publications, which might not pass notability guidelines, how about creating one article for ALL of the other Doctor Who-related publications? It might be a better option - only one article created instead of several, so it wouldn't be a bunch of stub- or table/list- class articles, and also might stand a better chance of surviving a notability assessment? KoopaCooper (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that would work. First of all, where would you stop? Would this be an article for all Doctor Who publications (starting with the Target books going all the way through to today) or just Panini published DWM spin-offs? Secondly, if it does contain every publication then it would require an awful lot of coordination with the editors of numerous other pages to either merge or delete their articles, some of which may put up more of a fight than others. Thirdly (and perhaps most convincingly) I doubt that even then the page would survive notability. Numerous other similar articles have been removed, most recently a separate article for the Complete History partwork, all a new page would do is collect together a lot of non-notable information for quick and easy deletion. It's an excellent idea on paper, but in practice I don't think it will work.Aw16 (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Issue no 11 image is up on Doctor Who Complete History website now. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoopaCooper (talkcontribs) 23:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Further issues' covers are now shown on the website.
This table is getting very long now (much longer than the others on the article, I think), and it's only up to issue 31 of 80! I think the whole article would benefit from it being moved to its' own page, but of course that would only work if we can write up something that would make it notable enough to get an article of its very own... KoopaCooper (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] . KoopaCooper (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^
  19. ^
  20. ^
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^
  26. ^
  27. ^
  28. ^
  29. ^
  30. ^
  31. ^
  32. ^
  33. ^
  34. ^
  35. ^
  36. ^
  37. ^
  38. ^
  39. ^
  40. ^
  41. ^
  42. ^
  43. ^
  44. ^
  45. ^

Merge proposal[edit]

Tom Spilsbury is lacking in decent sources, and his notability seems to stem from him editing this magazine. Does he need his own article? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody seemed to object. Merge performed. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've reversed the edit of this merger, as there is information here which isn't simply replicated on the Doctor Who Magazine page, such as DVD appearances, and other magazine work. WP:MERGEPROP was done with no discussion on the talk page --Themileshuntclub (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Themileshuntclub: There were almost 3 months between my proposal and the merge, which was plenty of time for interested parties to chime in. The information that wasn't replicated was (and still is) unsourced. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I maintain that the majority of Doctor Who fans are aware of Tom Spilsbury and his contributions to the show, his decade-long tenure as editor of Doctor Who Magazine but also for his contributions to the BBC DVD range, his interviews on the TV and spots on the news. He has written articles, been name-checked in the series itself and is a well known figure amongst followers of the show. The fact that half a dozen previous editors of the magazine have their own page entry and were editors for a shorter time is counter intuitive, I think he definitely warrants his own entry. I'd propose a strong keep. ~ TheBabelColour — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBabelColour (talkcontribs) 19:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument. Do you have sources to support any of these notable things you're attributing to him? I'd also like to note the oddity of two editors suddenly chiming in within an hour of each other after such a long period of of whom hadn't made an edit in six years, and one who has edited nothing in nearly a year, and nothing but his user page prior to that. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not exactly "chiming in", I'm contributing to the discussion. Because I've just been made aware that there was one to have. ~TheBabelcolour

Re your point that three months had passed, that is irrelevant, as the proposal simply hadn't been noticed until now. As for your concern about lack of sources, I am happy to build up the page, in order to add sources etc that are currently missing. Other editors of Doctor Who Magazine have their own page, so there is no reason why this editor should be an exception. --Themileshuntclub (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Three months is very relevant. See WP:Bold. Also, read the second sentence here. However, I welcome your offer to improve the page. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Argento Surfer does seem defensive. Does it matter if others hadn't contributed to Ms. Spilsbury bio before now? I'd suggest not. The presumption in Argento's discussion seems to be that, other than him, others should have been paying more attention. I'd argue that Wikipedia is a massive project & no one could be expected to pay attention anywhere near 100% of the time. 3 months may seem a reasonable amount of time to Argento, but for a page that's been up for many years now, who, other than him/her, was looking to make changes? Your arguments make sense to me, that Mr. Spilsbury had been editor of DWM for a long period, certainly makes him worthy of a page of his own, and once source citations are added there should be absolutely no reason for Mr. Spilsbury's article to be merged with another or deleted altogether. That's my 2 cents. ~ George Larson — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a thing called a watchlist. Regular editors receive notification of any page edits. Being connected to a notable thing does not automatically convey notability, since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've just seen on Twitter that it's gone and I think it's an error of judgement. Ironically the last edit I did was adding to the guy's page. Kiss of death I guess. It needed citations, but that doesn't mean the chap's not a public figure of note to a genre fans Thecurryman2004 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Twitter eh? That explains a lot. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it is important to let this discussion play out for a little while, now its existence is more publicly known. If the consensus swings predominantly one way then we have our answer.BabelColour (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Or, you know, meat puppetry will make it all invalid and we'll have to start over unless someone actually improves the article enough to demonstrate notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I had to Google what meatpuppetry was. Never heard it before, but it's a fantastic expression, If nothing else comes out of this discussion you have taught me a great word. But I ultimately agree with you. The article was lacking, though I believe the person warrants a page. Not necessarily mutually exclusive views. Hopefully people voicing a request for it to stay will bolster the noteworthiness of the subject with sourced references and independent citations.BabelColour (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that would be an excellent outcome. Argento Surfer (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Tom is a person and the magazine is an item. If and when Tom decides to leave DWM he is bound to continue his career elsewhere - like many other previous editors who also have their distinct pages - and his page would be updated accordingly. Why would we want to merge his 'existance' into a generic entry and then have to create it yet again for future projects? Chuck Foster (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Because the page as it stood did not meet Notability requirements. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I have greatly expanded the page, adding a lot of sources and quotes wherever possible – but there is more that can be added to get the page up to speed. Any advice of what further is required would be gratefully received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Great work! I'm removing the merge tag. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)