Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,198
edits
More actions
no edit summary
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
|||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
::::: Normally I'd agree that book covers aren't unique works of fiction unto themselves, but the Hanley ''IW'' are a different beast. All of them depict in-universe events, and are often used on many many pages given the amount of in-universe information that they contain (there are no floating heads in the sky here!) but are awkwardly cited to the anthology itself; giving these covers separate pages makes their coverage much easier and is also helpful when elements on the cover but not in any of the stories in the anthology itself. The cover of ''[[Iris Wildthyme of Mars (anthology)|Iris Wildthyme of Mars]]'' is a veritable menagerie of cameos, basically featuring every single pop culture Martian out there, so having a page just to list every different Martian would be great for coverage. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 21:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC) | ::::: Normally I'd agree that book covers aren't unique works of fiction unto themselves, but the Hanley ''IW'' are a different beast. All of them depict in-universe events, and are often used on many many pages given the amount of in-universe information that they contain (there are no floating heads in the sky here!) but are awkwardly cited to the anthology itself; giving these covers separate pages makes their coverage much easier and is also helpful when elements on the cover but not in any of the stories in the anthology itself. The cover of ''[[Iris Wildthyme of Mars (anthology)|Iris Wildthyme of Mars]]'' is a veritable menagerie of cameos, basically featuring every single pop culture Martian out there, so having a page just to list every different Martian would be great for coverage. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 21:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC) | ||
Oh this takes me back. I'm getting nostalgic for some old forum discussions, aren't you Scrooge? Anyhow - I think "abrogated" has a clear meaning from the context. What would you like clarification on in that post Corrie? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC) | Oh this takes me back. I'm getting nostalgic for some old forum discussions, aren't you Scrooge? Anyhow - I think "abrogated" has a clear meaning from the context. What would you like clarification on in that post Corrie? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC) | ||
:: @Najawin: Regarding the idea that "''reopening discussion on illustrations as a whole might also be doable''"… I mean, not without new evidence, or at the very least some specific novel argument. And at that point it becomes a vacuous statement insofar as ''anything'' can be discussed if such things are procured. | |||
:: @DWCorrieFan: This seems like a complaint against the wording of the closing post, not against the actual policy in and of itself. And I think when dealing with finnicky policy such as this, actually "dumbing it down" would be a terrible idea. I generally strive to bold important bits, and offer summaries of what changes in practice; the more elaborate discussions are there for those who want them, but aren't supposed to be essential to ''implementing'' the policy. (Also, dictionaries/Google exist.) | |||
:: @Epsilon: This is a fair point, yes — the sheer wealth of ''content'' in Hanley's covers that has no easy venue for coverage if we don't give these covers discrete pages. But still — there are strong arguments against, and it wasn't quite within the scope of the original ruling. So if we're going to get into this, I think a thread would be warranted. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 21:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC) | |||