Solicitation Cover
I'm removing solicitation covers from the omnibus pages on which they appear. They're variously listed as 'alternate', 'early' and 'preliminary' covers, when in fact they're none of those things--they're bits of recycled artwork used to promote the book before the real cover is ready. They don't add anything to the article and just clutter it up considering how short they are. If anyone disagrees, feel free to discuss. Nick Fel 09:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- They aren't recycled artwork. They are exactly as they are labeled. They are preliminary covers, and therefore, can remain just as they were. Fact is, you should not have removed them without discussing it first. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 18:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, I was being bold and left my justification. The discussion was here had you chosen to join it. Secondly, to quote Randy Stradley: "the new cover wasn't finished into time for solicitation (seriously, for the bookstore, many of these books are solicited nine months or more in advance), so we used an existing cover for the catalog." [1]. They're just stand-ins. Since the original comic covers featuring the recycled artwork are on Wookieepedia, there's not a lot of point in cluttering up these articles and falsely implying that these covers were ever intended to be printed. Nick Fel 08:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- And the original artwork is here, here, here, here and here. Nick Fel 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm with JMAS. Even if they are "recycled" artwork, they are still relevant to the history of these comics, and as such, should remain a part of the page. —Xwing328(Talk) 22:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Relevant, perhaps. Relevant enough to deserve two covers, one of which was only a placeholder, in a short article? Nah. What does it add to the article to justify its existence? What does it illustrate? If the artwork was unique, I'd be up for keeping it for archival reasons, but it isn't. At the very least, if people want to keep these images they need to decide on a consistent size and position and a non-misleading label. Sitting off down the bottom like that just looks a mess. Nick Fel 08:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm with JMAS. Even if they are "recycled" artwork, they are still relevant to the history of these comics, and as such, should remain a part of the page. —Xwing328(Talk) 22:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Publishers Summary vs Back Cover Text
I notice someone has been through all the Omnibuses adding back cover text in addition to the publisher's summary. Since they're mostly near-identical, I'd suggest it's pointless to have both and propose we go with the back cover text for ones that have been released. Nick Fel 13:06, January 28, 2010 (UTC)