Talk:Come on TARDIS, let's go party (illustration)

Insta
Was that in the comments somewhere? (If so, probably a screenshot should be linked.) His post just says vworp vworp. Najawin ☎  15:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It was in the comments, yes. I wouldn't have created this as a valid or even invalid source without RTD saying it is in-universe, as I found that to be compelling evidence. 15:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think we should shift this page away from being about *the image* and towards being about the public art... You know, the pink TARDIS itself? And not just one image of it posted to a few sites? OS25🤙☎️ 18:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * What should we call it instead? We could dab it "Statue", perhaps, or "landmark"? Aquanafrahudy  📢  19:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Well I mean this specific photograph has been referred to as something that exists in-universe so I feel we ought to have a source page on it, but for the larger BARBIS TARDIS campaign, I mean we can cover it on Barbie (franchise), although that page will need to be created first. 19:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think you're entirely wrong, without any doubt in my mind. It's a very wiki way to look at things - I don't think the people involved saw the photograph as the media in the slightest. This was an "in-universe event" in the same sense that an escape room might be. It's a physical attraction to go-see but the official stance is that your action of visiting it is in-universe. I do not believe, at all, that the point was that the Instagram image was itself a piece of fiction being released. OS25🤙☎️ 20:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The attraction
Wouldn't it make more sense for the attraction to simply get its own page from the illustration/photograph? If only because Russell explicitly cites the image as depicting an in-universe event? Ergo, the image should be covered as a piece of "fiction", for lack of a better word. WaltK ☎  17:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)