Difference between revisions of "Sonic the Comic 015"
From Sonic Retro
(Created page with "==STC Template== The wiki entries for issues #1-14 follow a different template to issues #175-184. Which standard should we use going forward, for the sake of consistency? I'...") |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The wiki entries for issues #1-14 follow a different template to issues #175-184. Which standard should we use going forward, for the sake of consistency? I've kind of split the difference a little with this one. Do we want to give each "other feature" (News Zone, Review Zone, etc.) its own sub-heading, or will a bullet point do? Should Review Zone scores be a special exception? Given the anthology nature of the series, is listing artists/writers in the info box worth it, or just redundant? --[[User:Pecky|Pecky]] ([[User talk:Pecky|talk]]) 17:48, 24 September 2019 (EDT) | The wiki entries for issues #1-14 follow a different template to issues #175-184. Which standard should we use going forward, for the sake of consistency? I've kind of split the difference a little with this one. Do we want to give each "other feature" (News Zone, Review Zone, etc.) its own sub-heading, or will a bullet point do? Should Review Zone scores be a special exception? Given the anthology nature of the series, is listing artists/writers in the info box worth it, or just redundant? --[[User:Pecky|Pecky]] ([[User talk:Pecky|talk]]) 17:48, 24 September 2019 (EDT) | ||
| + | :It depends how Retro thinks these things should be documented | ||
| + | :The goal will be to have actual scans of the comic at some point (good ones - not those chopped up versions that are floating around the internet). So do these wiki articles simply point to pages in a PDF, do they summarise the contents, or do they act as a full digital copy of all the text? I think it's probably a mixture of all three, but some of the content might be too small to write summaries. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :It's worth keeping a note of the credits. I wouldn't want to say with confidence that a story spread across four issues will have exactly the same staff behind it. Also we'll probably want to turn it into something like Sega Retro, where the production history lists can be automatically generated. -[[User:Black Squirrel|Black Squirrel]] ([[User talk:Black Squirrel|talk]]) 12:38, 25 September 2019 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 12:38, 25 September 2019
STC Template
The wiki entries for issues #1-14 follow a different template to issues #175-184. Which standard should we use going forward, for the sake of consistency? I've kind of split the difference a little with this one. Do we want to give each "other feature" (News Zone, Review Zone, etc.) its own sub-heading, or will a bullet point do? Should Review Zone scores be a special exception? Given the anthology nature of the series, is listing artists/writers in the info box worth it, or just redundant? --Pecky (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
- It depends how Retro thinks these things should be documented
- The goal will be to have actual scans of the comic at some point (good ones - not those chopped up versions that are floating around the internet). So do these wiki articles simply point to pages in a PDF, do they summarise the contents, or do they act as a full digital copy of all the text? I think it's probably a mixture of all three, but some of the content might be too small to write summaries.
- It's worth keeping a note of the credits. I wouldn't want to say with confidence that a story spread across four issues will have exactly the same staff behind it. Also we'll probably want to turn it into something like Sega Retro, where the production history lists can be automatically generated. -Black Squirrel (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2019 (EDT)