Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,202
edits
More actions
Forum:Coverage/validity: In the Domain of the Daleks (edit)
Revision as of 20:59, 17 September 2023
, 17 September 2023no edit summary
Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
::::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) | ::::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) | ||
:: Not sure I grasp how ''that'' would help — we don't have a framework for covering/citing "sculptures" any more than general "merchandise". I truly think ''game'' is the closest fit as it stands. You play (with) it; it's not a thousand miles off from something like ''[[War of the Daleks (novel)|War of the Daleks]]''. | |||
:: I actually wonder if Part 3 and Part 4 aren't meant to be two possible outcomes, but you're right that it's a bit fuzzy. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 20:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC) | |||