User:Cookieboy 2005/How to best cover exhibits

Right, so, we've already validated non-narratives such as illustrations and features... So what about exhibits?

Now, a lot of the time, Doctor Who-related exhibits are pretty out-of-universe, with descriptions of what episodes used a prop being prevalent in places like Worlds of Wonder. However, the main reason that I feel that we need to cover exhibits is a recent promotional exhibit for a certain film - however, I do have some other suggestions for sources that would be better-fit as exhibit pages.

"Come on TARDIS, let's go party"
"Come on TARDIS, let's go party" was the social media caption applied to a photograph of a pink TARDIS which was placed in London as cross-promotion between Doctor Who and the upcoming Barbie film. Although in and of itself, this wouldn't be sufficient reason for coverage, a Mr "Russell T Davies" (heard of him?) stated explicitly that the exhibit is "in-universe", which means it should proooobably be a source on this site. A page was made under the false belief that this statement regarded the photograph itself, but this doesn't seem to be the case. (Also if we alter coverage to not be of the photograph, I'm not entirely sure what the page should be called... "Untitled (Barbie exhibit)"?)

Presenting... The Lady Cassandra!
Presenting... The Lady Cassandra! was an exhibit which was featured at the Worlds of Wonder exhibitions. Now, unlike the other exhibits featured there, this one featured original audio of Lady Cassandra talking about the various augmentations her body had gone through (additionally, the brief summary of who she is seems to be fairly in-universe). This should probably be a source, but if it wasn't, it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Unknown object—RHCTDM-OEI-OLOAW/0209
Unknown object—RHCTDM-OEI-OLOAW/0209 was an exhibit which was featured at the Science Museum, London, as part of the #FindTheDoctor ARG. Now, I've heard some people wanting #FindTheDoctor to be a single source, but as it stands, it's its own page, currently covered as a "feature". I feel that covering it as an exhibit would be far more accurate than how it's currently covered.

How to cover them
In terms of dab terms and prefixes, I already have an idea for them: "(exhibit)" and "EXHIBIT: " - thus, "The TARDIS was once painted pink. (EXHIBIT: Come on TARDIS, let's go Party) (or (EXHIBIT: Untitled), depending on people's opinions). Although not too many sources would use these, this isn't too far removed from the "(theatrical film)" dab, or even the "(illustration)" dab, in that only a few sources necessitate them - nevertheless, they are important to allow accurate citation. Now that prefixes and dab terms are out of the way, we have the question of how much to cover - i.e. should we cover the background of the Barbie TARDIS? What about the other side of it, where (for example) Dave's Kebab Shop can be seen? Should that get a page, if we edit Tower Bridge for the other view? With Lady Cassandra, where do we say she was? Can we allow fan photographs of the exhibits?

My opinions are that with regards to the Barbie TARDIS, it may be appropriate to mention important facts of its location that can be derived from the original photograph, but other locations may not warrant pages, as anything to theoretically be visible from it. Additionally, with regards to Lady Cassandra, I personally feel that we should just say the objective facts of what she says, and no more, as intent would seem to be that her location is non-diegetic (unless there's dialogue that I'm missing). Finally, with regards to fan photography, I feel that it may be warranted to allow fan photographs of the exhibits (such as closeup shots/photos of exhibits with no official images) as part of the source, naturally categorised under "Category:(source title) exhibit images". I'm curious what other people think, though. (And after this, we only have a few things left to validate, such as stage plays and merchandise...) ~