File talk:Intrip.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Advice: should we use this smaller, clearer version that has provenance? Or the bigger one that doesn't? Mrs. Potato Head 17:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say go with the bigger one. I think the potential that whoever made that photo of the zine is disgruntled that we filched their photo is slight, because it is not like it is their own art. What I find curious is that appparently there is a comb bound and a stapled version of this zine.--RatCreature 17:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Provenance is always something I'm thinking about after a certain HASSLE I had two months ago *scowls, feels like kicking something*... I think the staple/comb thing is interesting, too. Perhaps, I should include both and put all three covers in a gallery? Mrs. Potato Head 17:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- The comb thing would be apparent just from the backcover as well, which I assume we'd still put in the article. So there'd be a picture of the front with staples and the back with a comb. I find it a bit overkill to have two pictures of the same cover.--RatCreature 17:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Works for me. Mrs. Potato Head 18:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- The comb thing would be apparent just from the backcover as well, which I assume we'd still put in the article. So there'd be a picture of the front with staples and the back with a comb. I find it a bit overkill to have two pictures of the same cover.--RatCreature 17:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Provenance is always something I'm thinking about after a certain HASSLE I had two months ago *scowls, feels like kicking something*... I think the staple/comb thing is interesting, too. Perhaps, I should include both and put all three covers in a gallery? Mrs. Potato Head 17:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
