Forum:Coverage/validity: In the Domain of the Daleks: Difference between revisions
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
::: I had been thinking of making a thread to add (merchandise) or something similar as a type of source (with the same prefix ("MERCH")). Whether it should really be done in a forum about a specific source is something else, though, might be a bit tricky to find down the line if it causes a major change like that. [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC) | ::: I had been thinking of making a thread to add (merchandise) or something similar as a type of source (with the same prefix ("MERCH")). Whether it should really be done in a forum about a specific source is something else, though, might be a bit tricky to find down the line if it causes a major change like that. [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
::::I'm not entirely sure that part 4 follows from parts 1-3, as depicted in the image. That would be the one issue? And, well, since we don't have a well thought out policy for covering merch as sources and that's a big can of worms, we might want to call it a sculpture instead? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:44, 17 September 2023
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
I've got something a little unusual that I think might be eligible for coverage by this wiki. A playset produced by Bluebird Toys in 1997 called In the Domain of the Daleks. The playset appears to be trying to tell a specific story, so I think it should be a source on this wiki. The problem is, I'm not exactly sure if it qualifies as a work of fiction. This might be a case of something passing the old version of Rule 1, but not the current version of it. If this is the case, I think coverage as invalid might be an option, as this wiki covers several things that aren't quite works of fiction as invalid. Cgl1999 ☎ 20:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
Yeah, I think this'd definitely qualify for valid coverage. I'm not quite sure how it where you'd cover it, though. Aquanafrahudy 📢 20:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Sure it's a work of fiction. Why wouldn't it be? It's… rather more difficult to figure out what the medium is, which would be rather necessary whether it's valid or invalid. "(game)"? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- (Merchandise) would be a closer fit, I think, and it's a sensible dab term to have (as an extension of this I would suggest either MERCHANDISE or MERCH for a new prefix). (Game) is also fairly close, but it's hard to pin down quite what it is. Aquanafrahudy 📢 20:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- I had been thinking of making a thread to add (merchandise) or something similar as a type of source (with the same prefix ("MERCH")). Whether it should really be done in a forum about a specific source is something else, though, might be a bit tricky to find down the line if it causes a major change like that. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure that part 4 follows from parts 1-3, as depicted in the image. That would be the one issue? And, well, since we don't have a well thought out policy for covering merch as sources and that's a big can of worms, we might want to call it a sculpture instead? Najawin ☎ 20:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
