Three Fantasies: Tales from the Cosmere

[lacrossedeamon]

Should this publication be added to the Coppermind: https://www.gollancz.co.uk/titles/brandon-sanderson/three-fantasies-tales-from-the-cosmere/9781473211087/

Edited September 6 by lacrossedeamon

[Starwatcher]

Hmm, that's a good question. I'm inclined to say no though; we do include some anthologies, but I think it'd be best if we don't bother with collections (or split volumes) from foreign publishers.

[lacrossedeamon]

While looking to see if it was already on the Coppermind I did come across this: https://coppermind.net/wiki/File:Emperor's_Soul_Legion_Twofer_Cover.jpg. So it seems like some policy needs to be put in place.

PS Having looked at that other cover it seems Stephen Leeds is on the cover of the Cosmere only collection as well? Weird.

[Starwatcher]

Yeah, we probably should have a conversation about this, especially with the non-cosmere anthology probably coming soon. Plus, the Skyward Flight collection is already in a weird place--unlike Arcanum Unbounded or the Legion anthology, it doesn't have its own page and its covers are just living in a section on the page for the whole Skyward series (though, with Skyward Legacy coming soon, we might need to do some reorganization there anyways).

That said, I was primarily thinking about the Bibliography page and book pages in my initial response; I could see us potentially deciding to treat book covers differently from those questions.

[lacrossedeamon]

It is a weird niche case. I only found out about it looking for clean versions of the art used in the 10th Anniversary Edition of Elantris. I could at least upload this cover and add it to the galleries for Elantris, Emperor's Soul, and Warbreaker for now until a consensus is reached on how else to handle them.

[PanicPug]

This might not be the right place for the discussion, but reading your posts a thought occured to me: at the moment the Coppermind is a Sanderson Wiki though with a focus on the Cosmere. With the name Coppermind explicitly being linked to the Cosmere, would it maybe make sense to split the Wiki into two separate ones? One (the "Coppermind") for Cosmere stuff and maybe a "Sanderson" one for everything else? Though in the case of the covers you are discussing, this might convolute it even more (not to mention the work that would be needed to split the Wiki)

[Chaos he/him]

18 hours ago, PanicPug said:

This might not be the right place for the discussion, but reading your posts a thought occured to me: at the moment the Coppermind is a Sanderson Wiki though with a focus on the Cosmere. With the name Coppermind explicitly being linked to the Cosmere, would it maybe make sense to split the Wiki into two separate ones? One (the "Coppermind") for Cosmere stuff and maybe a "Sanderson" one for everything else? Though in the case of the covers you are discussing, this might convolute it even more (not to mention the work that would be needed to split the Wiki)

There is vastly less interest in noncosmere works. Splitting wikis would be a lot of work, and kind of send the noncosmere stuff off to die. The only benefit would be some easier categorization, but in literally every other scenario, this feels like a negative. I think it's fine and appropriate to have the Coppermind name and have it evoke the cosmere, while not being exclusively cosmere. None of our 17th Shard sites, 17S, Coppermind, or Arcanum split these, and every bit of branding indicates it is the Brandon Sanderson wiki in this case. 

[lacrossedeamon]

I mean going by name I'd say Coppermind should have been for WoBs and Arcanum for encyclopedic content but that's off topic (it is a shame about how categorization is affected though) so Chaos do you have an weighing in on adding Three Fantasies or and if yes how so?

[Chaos he/him]

I don't disagree with Stargazer's logic. 

And personally, I never agreed with the logic that Arcanum and Coppermind should be switched  

[lacrossedeamon]

20 minutes ago, Chaos said:

I don't disagree with Stargazer's logic. 

Their logic in their first comment being no action needed or the logic in the second comment being at least add book covers of anthologies/collections/omnibuses and having a later conversation on the topic once there are more cases?

[Chaos he/him]

9 hours ago, lacrossedeamon said:

Their logic in their first comment being no action needed or the logic in the second comment being at least add book covers of anthologies/collections/omnibuses and having a later conversation on the topic once there are more cases?

I do not have an opinion beyond that we do not need to include it on the books or Bibliography page, which is why I did not comment on this earlier. 

[lacrossedeamon]

Okay then. Pulled the trigger and only added it to the applicable cover galleries.