User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-5442547-20130415215520/@comment-188432-20130417193152: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Well, in truth, I didn't even know there ''was'' {{tlx|BF illustration}}. That one's only been around since August, and I guess I didn't notice it slip in. | Well, in truth, I didn't even know there ''was'' {{tlx|BF illustration}}. That one's only been around since August, and I guess I didn't notice it slip in. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 6: | ||
If that's true, a single license would create less confusion. | If that's true, a single license would create less confusion. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20130415215520-5442547/20130417193152-188432]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 23:48, 27 April 2023
Well, in truth, I didn't even know there was {{BF illustration}}. That one's only been around since August, and I guess I didn't notice it slip in.
But the thing is, I think it's a bit of proof for my initial statement in this thread. If we have both {{BF illustration}} and {{BF audio cover}}, people will put things from the CD cover into the illustration license. That's pretty evidently the case now, as several of the things in Category:Big Finish Productions illustrations are in fact specifically from the covers, and not from the interior of the booklet. I think having just one license (and, therefore, category) would be less confusing.
I mean, there aren't any BF books that have interior illustrations, are there? So when we say "BF illustration", we only possibly mean things from the interior of the CD booklet, right?
If that's true, a single license would create less confusion.
