Talk:Radio Times 40th Birthday Special photoshoot

Feel like this is going to keep on happening, so I want to point to the closing statement that allowed for illustrations to get pages:
 * While some things we already have pages on as "comic almost-stories", and things like graphics and maps, can definitely be validated on this basis, some degree of caution is warranted regarding the broader class of illustrations. Some illustrations are genuine works of fiction — some even functionally "tell a story" — but we shouldn't start creating bespoke source page on every single untitled picture of the Doctor printed in DWM. As a rule of thumb, illustrations with titles, or otherwise treated as their own items in whatever publication runs them (e.g. their own entry in the Table of Contents), can safely have pages created about them, but untitled ones should probably require their own case-by-case discussion.

While I already take issue with the assertion this page makes that this photoshoot of the surviving actors in costumes posing are in fact “scenes with the Doctor” —I don’t even think I need to pick that bone. These are cover photos for the Radio Times special “40th Birthday Special” release that focuses on Doctor Who. These are not works of fiction in the sense that they should be covered like this —“we shouldn't start creating bespoke source page on every single untitled picture of the Doctor printed”. Trying to refer to a four-page photograph of the surviving Classic actors as multiple discrete scenes just feels like dishonest coverage (not that I’m accusing the creator of this page of deliberate dishonesty, just that this sort of coverage would lead readers to think these magazine covers are something that they aren’t). Not only should this not be valid, but I’m not convinced that the pages existence (in this form) makes sense. NoNotTheMemes ☎  03:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)