Talk:Wild Thymes on the 22 (illustration)

Deletion
This page should not exist --it is already covered sufficiently on the Wild Thymes on the 22 (anthology) page, which is pretty evidently demonstrated by the fact that the only content on this page is explaining that it's its own story and thus deserves a page rather than actually describing the "story" it purports to reflect. I once again 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.

An illustration of all of the characters from a book (and Janice) posing outside of a building is not a discrete piece of fiction. As the closing post said, “we shouldn't start creating bespoke source page on every single untitled picture of the Doctor printed”. At bare minimum, this should not be valid, but I am entirely convinced that the page's existence is unnecessary as well. NoNotTheMemes ☎  15:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting one, for me; while it may not deserve a page, I do very much feel like it genuinely portrays a work of fiction. Iris is sitting in a cafe in France while writing in books about herself, while famous people she knows all watch her. It's all very plausible that this could happen to Iris, heck, she essentially does what with all the appearances of Paul Magrs (in-universe) and Obverse Books (in-universe); this sort of event essentially happened in Party Fears Two where she invited lots of her old friends and nearly everyone from Obverse Books to a party in Las Vegas.
 * If this had been released on Paul Magrs's blog, I don't feel covering this by itself would be an issue? I dunno. But it ain't clear cut and I feel discussion is warranted. 16:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * We should definitely cover this, though whether it deserves its own page is another matter entirely. Aquanafrahudy  📢  16:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Anthology pages are usually pretty bare as it is. The place readers go to learn more about the anthology is the anthology page, so it seems pretty logical to talk about the cover of said anthology in the notes section of that page. If need be, I don't see why we can't cite it (or other covers in the same vein) as GRAPHIC: Wild Thymes on the 22 (anthology), citing the anthology page itself. With the new citation template we can even specify further details. That last point might need a forum discussion, however. Danochy ☎  03:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The citation template won't currently work in this situation but I can see about making it work. Bongo50   ☎  18:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for dropping in, this caught my eye because I was reminded of my own adverse-come-positive reaction when Scrooge first convinced me to make the pages The Dr Who Annual 1966 Contents (illustration) and The Dr Who Annual 1969 endpaper (illustration).

Concerning the sparseness of anthology pages: conciseness is often a byproduct of clarity. Other websites and wikis sometimes cover anthologies by listing all the stories on the anthology page, but this wiki has long aimed for clarity by separating pieces from their multi-pieced publications.

The first poster is right, its awkward how this page fights for its fictionality. However, its clearly fictional in the ways that matter for validity and would be advantageous to cover as such; the validity rules are to keep out non-fiction and this ain’t that. Look at the (a likely influence on this piece); would you say that this single image contains within itself a created moment in time suggesting a surrounding artist-created past and present? If no, look at the Voord in the Doctor Who Storybook 2010 and think again.

A Paul Hanley book cover is a bad example for the arguments in this thread against (illustration) page coverage, because its filled with so many details and subtle in-jokes which I, as a wiki reader, really want to understand. Given how Hanley’s Obverse artworks are horizontal pieces which continue onto the backcover only seen on physical releases, there’s even an argument to be made that the full illustration isn’t available in the digital copy of the book. As a reader, I want the smart people of Tardis Wiki to have a page telling me all the smart and non-always-intuitive continuity the cover illustration has with the rest of the anthology.

The Annuals illustrations I linked above are an example of how obscure DWU art is improved in coverage by having a page. Who knows, perhaps in six years some future wiki geek will go on a deep dive to find where the other monsters in the 1969 endpaper come from; it’s room for growth! It’s the “yes, and” rule of collaboration! Someday I think it would be good to have pages for all the unique and weird Annual art, including the painted covers of the 1960s (although perhaps not the photo covers of the 70s and 80s; I agree with NoNotTheMemes that pictures are rather different from illustrations.), so I think a good example should be set here. All of these complicated obscure-detail-rich Obverse book covers would be better covered on their own pages. Good day. CoT    ?  22:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)