Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,198
edits
Talk:Isaac Newton: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
no edit summary
Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
:::I was treating the illustration as a distinct non-narrative source. So Newton doesn't appear in the ''associated short story'', but he does appear in the illustration. (This bit is still a headache for us and we might need a thread to clean it up.) I also want to emphasize that there's no explicit mention that the illustration is even of Newton. Like. It obviously ''is''. But I think the [[T:NO RW]] concerns alone give it second billing. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC) | :::I was treating the illustration as a distinct non-narrative source. So Newton doesn't appear in the ''associated short story'', but he does appear in the illustration. (This bit is still a headache for us and we might need a thread to clean it up.) I also want to emphasize that there's no explicit mention that the illustration is even of Newton. Like. It obviously ''is''. But I think the [[T:NO RW]] concerns alone give it second billing. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::I was treating the illustration as a distinct non-narrative source. | |||
:: You shouldn't! That is very specifically not the policy. Illustrations are part of their associated prose story, (and, as a special ''ad hoc'' addendum,) illustrations for a given audio series are lumped in with that audio even if they're not released via the same physical medium). If the illustration were considered a GRAPHIC source in its own right, ''it would have its own page''. Naught is a valid source of its own which hath no page of its own. The illustration is clearly not presented as ''a complete work of fiction unto itself'' — it's not its own item on the BBC website separate from the short story — ergo it's not eligible for GRAPHIC status. | |||
:: Regarding the T:NO RW concern, that's on me for not having finished the closing post yet, isn't it… Bugger. But let it be known that the WIP closing post is not particularly geared towards ideas about giving "second billing" to non-explicitly-described illustrations ''while still recognising them as depicting the thing they appear to be depicting''; that seems rather woolly, and too ''ad hoc'' even for me. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 22:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
