Talk:DWM illustrations: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Created page with "== Scope of this page == Right, so. We absolutely need this page, but I think there are worrying trends in what's being included on the "Other illustrations" table, and we'd better have this discussion now than be sorry later. To wit, the table currently seems to include both standalone illustrations, illustrations accompanying features, illustrations accompanying short stories (!), and illustrations promoting specific stories or ranges that are not ''technically'' DWM...") Tag: 2017 source edit |
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Scope of this page == | == Scope of this page == | ||
Right, so. We absolutely need this page, but I think there are worrying trends in what's being included on the "Other illustrations" table, and we'd better have this discussion now than be sorry later. To wit, the table currently seems to include both standalone illustrations, illustrations accompanying features, illustrations accompanying short stories (!), and illustrations promoting specific stories or ranges that are not ''technically'' [[DWM illustrated previews]]. This is a mess. I think the latter category should probably have their own table distinct from "free-floating" illustrations; and I don't think illustrations of things which have articles of their own (e.g. ''[[Gallifrey: A Rough Guide (short story)|Gallifrey: A Rough Guide]]'', ''[[Winning Designs]]'') should be included. Thoughts? [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 08:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC) | Right, so. We absolutely need this page, but I think there are worrying trends in what's being included on the "Other illustrations" table, and we'd better have this discussion now than be sorry later. To wit, the table currently seems to include both standalone illustrations, illustrations accompanying features, illustrations accompanying short stories (!), and illustrations promoting specific stories or ranges that are not ''technically'' [[DWM illustrated previews]]. This is a mess. I think the latter category should probably have their own table distinct from "free-floating" illustrations; and I don't think illustrations of things which have articles of their own (e.g. ''[[Gallifrey: A Rough Guide (short story)|Gallifrey: A Rough Guide]]'', ''[[Winning Designs]]'') should be included. Thoughts? [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 08:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC) | ||
: I think it's a difficult thing. We should eliminate short stories, because there's just going to be too many for a page like this. Features we should also get rid of, because we're basically treating them in a similar way. As for the rest, how are you suggesting we split these up? Into what specific phrases and categories? [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 08:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:33, 16 March 2023
Scope of this page[[edit source]]
Right, so. We absolutely need this page, but I think there are worrying trends in what's being included on the "Other illustrations" table, and we'd better have this discussion now than be sorry later. To wit, the table currently seems to include both standalone illustrations, illustrations accompanying features, illustrations accompanying short stories (!), and illustrations promoting specific stories or ranges that are not technically DWM illustrated previews. This is a mess. I think the latter category should probably have their own table distinct from "free-floating" illustrations; and I don't think illustrations of things which have articles of their own (e.g. Gallifrey: A Rough Guide, Winning Designs) should be included. Thoughts? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 08:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's a difficult thing. We should eliminate short stories, because there's just going to be too many for a page like this. Features we should also get rid of, because we're basically treating them in a similar way. As for the rest, how are you suggesting we split these up? Into what specific phrases and categories? OS25🤙☎️ 08:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
