Talk:Violet: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Fennel Soup (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::The Saurian picture on this page is being used to indicate what violet looks like, but it comes from an Annual short story. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC) | ::The Saurian picture on this page is being used to indicate what violet looks like, but it comes from an Annual short story. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
:::I'm not an authority, but I was recently looking at [[Forum:Temporary_forums/Overhauling_image_policies]] for another reason, and I don't get the sense that anything is wrong with the citation of this image, or even that the usage of cover art is disallowed. (Associated [[T:ICC]] note calls cover art "acceptable as illustration".) Given the forum's conclusion "promotional images that are essentially illustrations that happened not to be packaged with the story itself should be valid, cited to the story they apply to", then an illustration that ''was'' part of a story's original publication seems firmly within bounds. [[User:Fennel Soup|Fennel Soup]] [[User talk:Fennel Soup|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC) | :::I'm not an authority, but I was recently looking at [[Forum:Temporary_forums/Overhauling_image_policies]] for another reason, and I don't get the sense that anything is wrong with the citation of this image, or even that the usage of cover art is disallowed. (Associated [[T:ICC]] note calls cover art "acceptable as illustration".) Given the forum's conclusion "promotional images that are essentially illustrations that happened not to be packaged with the story itself should be valid, cited to the story they apply to", then an illustration that ''was'' part of a story's original publication seems firmly within bounds. [[User:Fennel Soup|Fennel Soup]] [[User talk:Fennel Soup|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
::: Yeah, illustrations are part of the story. They're valid even ''if'' they should happen to conflict with the text (and I don't believe this one does) — we would treat it like any other contradiction between different parts of a single source. | |||
::: And this also goes for covers — sorry, it took me a moment to realise CzechOut's old, nonsensical anti-cover diktat from [[Forum:Character infobox image standards?]] was what you had in mind. That insanity hasn't been policy for years now; it was essentially struck down by [[Thread:259980]] (archived at [[User:SOTO/Forum_Archive/The_Panopticon_IV]]), which brought an end to the near-ban on BF cover images in character infoboxes in the favour of judging them as we would any other in-universe image. Even on its own terms, Czech's highly dubious rationale that covers should be invalidated due to being "promotional" has long been voided by [[Forum:Temporary forums/Trailers]] establishing in no uncertain terms that being promotional is no longer a reason for invalidity ''anyway''. As [[User:Fennel Soup]] brought above, [[Forum:Temporary forums/Overhauling image policies]] may be looked at as an additional nail in the coffin, though it didn't touch on covers explicitly. | |||
::: All of this being said, I'm actually not sure that this image should be used here for the wholly unrelated reason that if the text doesn't call the Saurian's eye colour "violet", [[User:Doug86]]'s revised standards for the colour policies would deem it to be speculative to ''call'' the hue "violet", even if we accept that the Saurians' eyes "looked like this" validity-wise. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:49, 10 October 2024
Saurians
Do we consider Annual pictures to be accurate depictions of the stories? We don't consider cover art, I know. Najawin ☎ 06:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Eh? What are you talking about? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 09:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- The Saurian picture on this page is being used to indicate what violet looks like, but it comes from an Annual short story. Najawin ☎ 17:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not an authority, but I was recently looking at Forum:Temporary_forums/Overhauling_image_policies for another reason, and I don't get the sense that anything is wrong with the citation of this image, or even that the usage of cover art is disallowed. (Associated T:ICC note calls cover art "acceptable as illustration".) Given the forum's conclusion "promotional images that are essentially illustrations that happened not to be packaged with the story itself should be valid, cited to the story they apply to", then an illustration that was part of a story's original publication seems firmly within bounds. Fennel Soup ☎ 19:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, illustrations are part of the story. They're valid even if they should happen to conflict with the text (and I don't believe this one does) — we would treat it like any other contradiction between different parts of a single source.
- The Saurian picture on this page is being used to indicate what violet looks like, but it comes from an Annual short story. Najawin ☎ 17:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- And this also goes for covers — sorry, it took me a moment to realise CzechOut's old, nonsensical anti-cover diktat from Forum:Character infobox image standards? was what you had in mind. That insanity hasn't been policy for years now; it was essentially struck down by Thread:259980 (archived at User:SOTO/Forum_Archive/The_Panopticon_IV), which brought an end to the near-ban on BF cover images in character infoboxes in the favour of judging them as we would any other in-universe image. Even on its own terms, Czech's highly dubious rationale that covers should be invalidated due to being "promotional" has long been voided by Forum:Temporary forums/Trailers establishing in no uncertain terms that being promotional is no longer a reason for invalidity anyway. As User:Fennel Soup brought above, Forum:Temporary forums/Overhauling image policies may be looked at as an additional nail in the coffin, though it didn't touch on covers explicitly.
- All of this being said, I'm actually not sure that this image should be used here for the wholly unrelated reason that if the text doesn't call the Saurian's eye colour "violet", User:Doug86's revised standards for the colour policies would deem it to be speculative to call the hue "violet", even if we accept that the Saurians' eyes "looked like this" validity-wise. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
