Forum:References into Worldbuilding

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → References into Worldbuilding

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Opening post

Just a short one, this, but a good 'un.

On this Wiki, we have a section for references on source pages (not the academic kind, but a collection of in-universe elements with their own pages that are "referenced" in a given source). I dunno where this practise started, but today, you can see it on pages from Rose (TV story) to The North West Historical Society (feature) to The Lonely Assassins (video game). It is quite a good section, although, as evidenced inadvertently in Forum:Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes, perhaps not the most intuitively named.

In said Forum, after @Najawin highlighted the fact that he didn't understand the difference between the References and Continuity sections of articles, given that "references" generally is more akin to a list of citations outside of this Wiki; @Scrooge MacDuck stated that, to be more precise when he was building the Jenny Everywhere Wiki, he renamed the "References" section to "Worldbuilding".

So yeah, that's the proposal. Follow the Jenny Everywhere Wiki's suit and rename "References" into "Worldbuilding". It is more concise and illuminates the subsection's purpose effortlessly. This change wouldn't even be difficult to accomplish, it'd take just a bot sweep. Thoughts? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epsilon the Eternal (talk • contribs) .

Discussion

Well, I wrote a section for this for my forthcoming R4bp post. (It's coming, it's coming, I promise. Almost done.) But briefly I don't believe this solves the issue in any way. See the comment I made at Forum:Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes just for the most obvious example of the problem.

Continuity is similar to the "references" section, really, except that it usually includes things of narrative significance.

I swear to God, I could not tell you what this means concretely. Quite frankly, I have no idea if I'm for or against this proposal because I don't understand what a continuity section is as opposed to a reference section.

If we just rename "references" this doesn't solve the problem - it just changes the words used to express the fundamental underlying issue. The issue is that "continuity" is poorly defined in terms of the wiki, not that "references" has a confusing name. See Thread:117229 in User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon I for more. Czech's criticisms in this thread are about the epistemic differences between continuity and references - how no user can ever be confident at placing any fact in either section, as well as the fact that based on how our wiki defines the DWU the definition seems perhaps slightly incoherent. I really do encourage everyone to read that thread. Najawin ☎ 22:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Even if it doesn't fix the underlying problem, as you say, there isn't any harm in renaming the section regardless.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

22:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but I do want to note that I don't think it's related to my concerns in the thread in the OP. If people wish to do it they may. Najawin ☎ 23:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

So firstly, I don't think this proposal, in order to be worth implementing, needs to single-handedly resolve the confusion on precisely what these sections are. It's enough that it makes it significantly easier to have a discussion on that confusion. Because as it stands, any attempt to explain what the "continuity" section does tends to start talking about "continuity references" in the plain-English sense of the phrase, and pretty soon it devolves into gibberish. If we give "references" a less ambiguous name, we can at least be free to talk about the items in ==Continuity== as "references to past stories" without needlessly confusing the debate! I think that's reason enough to make the change even if we don't thereby believe ourselves to have solved the broader issue.

But with that being said, I agree “Continuity is similar to the "references" section, really, except that it usually includes things of narrative significance” is gobbledegook. It's just that I think this thread is completely confused about what the sections even are; it wholeheartedly fails at capturing the underlying rules which I think editors have intuitively converged on, even without a pithy summary to guide them. And perhaps those were not the purposes that the originators of these sections had in mind, but, you know, new-T:BOUND. The way editors now do things across the Wiki is what matters, even if it should turn out that the whole thing started as something of a misunderstanding 90,000 pages ago.

By my reckoning, in terms of current practice:

"Worldbuilding" (hitherto "References") is for summarising in-universe tidbits that are present in the source, but are not plot-rlevant and thus not included in the plot summary. It basically ensures that every in-universe page that uses a given story as a source, will be linked to from the source-page, as well as linking back to it.

Examples: "The Doctor mentions the [[Urgulbons]] of [[Planet 15]], who are stated to have five legs." "[[Albert Einstein]] makes a cameo among the guests at at Santa Claus's Halloween bash."

"Continuity" is for discussing the ways in which the present source makes references to, or was later referenced by, other covered sources.

Examples: "The Doctor summarises the events of TV: Classic Story to Amy Pond", "A panel from this story was later shown as a flashback in COMIC: Anniversary Continuity-Fest when the Doctor's memories were extracted by the Muddlon Brain Machine".

I just don't think there's that much overlap when you put it that way. There are, I think, two main sources of confusion besides the current names. Firstly, sometimes "Worldbuilding" items (or "References" items) aren't original to the source; sometimes they're things that have shown up before. "The Doctor mentions the [[Zygon]]s". But the aims are different. In a "References/Worldbuilding" section we should not care whether the mentioned Thingie has been mentioned before, just document the mention/cameo and its context. In a "Continuity" section, the fact that mentioning the Zygons is a continuity reference to a specific past source is what we're interested in. Indeed, the same factoid might belong in boths sections, cast in dfiferent lights.

The second is that we used to word Continuity points as in-universe statements, i.e. very much like "References". In both cases the line would have read "The Doctor mentions the Zygons.", it's just that the Continuity version would have appended "([[TV]]: ''[[Terror of the Zygons (TV story)|]]'')". But, you know, that's been deprecated as of Forum:Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes. Now, in terms of best practices, Continuity sections should wear their out-of-universe perspective on their sleeve, and that makes it abundantly clear that they deal with ways in which a given story connects with other stories, which I don't think anyone in their right mind would confuse with the "Worldbuilding" points which explicitly should not bring knowledge from other sources into their wording. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I strongly disagree that there's little to no overlap, we can easily just apply the argument Czech gave from the thread I referenced to your hypothetical examples. Suppose there's a story where the Doctor decides to travel with scientists in the 31st century across the deserts of planet 15 and they've heard competing stories about how many legs the Urgulbons have but no editor has read the story because it's in some obscure short story collection from the 70s. Any piece of "worldbuilding" can be part of continuity and we just might not know it.

But I also am not convinced that this is how we consistently use the continuity section. See, for instance, Dalek. It's just the fact that the super phone appears that places it in the continuity section, not that it was upgraded in a past episode. Or just a joke being repeated. Hell.

The Doctor has previously had a group of soldiers aim their guns at him. (TV: Aliens of London, World War Three)

C'mon. If we're invoking T:BOUND as to what these things mean I'm really skeptical that your suggestion is at all accurate. Lest you think I'm cherry picking, I encourage everyone to click through, say, the Dalek stories from the new series. There's quite a few stretches. Najawin ☎ 02:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

To be honest that example from Dalek is a broad statement and should just be removed. Even without this discussion, it should be removed.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

02:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Examples like that are relatively common. From Journey's End (TV story):

The Doctor's TARDIS has been captured before. (TV: The Poison Sky)

This is not me tilting at windmills or cherrypicking examples. (I literally chose Dalek because it was rewritten as a test case from one of those "continuity v references" threads.) These sections are a mess. Najawin ☎ 02:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Najawin, after having the differencs explained to me by Scrooge MacDuck once, I think I fully understand and struggle to see your difficulty understanding. The current "references" section, terribly named and should be named "worldbuilding" (as I support, let the thread note) is for, basically, "new bits of lore this source introduced which may be referenced in another source's ==continuity== section". That's it. You should never see any citations in the Worldbuilding section, because it's all information from this source.

Also, I think that we should have two subsections for "continuity" - "references from other sources" and "references to other sources". But that's less vital than what this thread aims to do. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎ 06:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with renaming References to Worldbuilding, it's a lot more intuitive and makes more sense. (Although the line between Continuity and References/Worldbuilding is still somewhat thin.) Aquanafrahudy 📢 07:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I would welcome more clarity on the references/continuity divide, and renaming it in this way seems like it might help. SherlockTheII ☎ 09:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I grant that you're not cherrypicking, Najawin, but I maintain that such items are overreach and should be rewritten or deleted. People holding the Doctor at gunpoint is not a continuity reference to an earlier story. We probably needn't get bogged down in T:BOUND technicalities because the present thread will just be able to rule on whether such notes should be deleted or not, whatever the past state of affairs.

As for the hypothetical Urgulbons continuity point… again, what you're missing is that in my view this is not an either-or proposition. I say the item about the Urgulbons belongs on "Worldbuilding" whether or not it also belongs in "Continuity". It should be placed under "Worldbuilding" on principle, and if such a 70s Annual story is later discovered, we should additionally write "the Urgulbons were previously seen in PROSE: The Obscure Odyssey" in the "Continuity" section — but that does not thereby make the earlier "Worldbuilding" note incorrect. We can and should have both. If you bite that bullet, the only remaining issue is that the "Continuity" section can only be complete if editors have the required information to add, which, I mean, that's true of anything. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Ettolrahc, I've had that same distinction told to me over years. I still do not understand it. It's epistemologically bankrupt.

As for Scrooge's point, the issue is more subtle than this, and it's about deciding where on the page it belongs based on the subjective mental states of editors, not that we simply don't know about certain things. We recognize the thing is important, but not what section it's to be properly placed in. As for the idea that it belongs in both, in potential solution to this issue, this is only leaving me more confused as to what your new proposal actually is. Do you mean not plot relevant for the specific episode? If this is the case - as opposed to relevant to the relevant DWU plot's being referenced, then continuity is practically (not completely, but largely) a subset of worldbuilding/references.

And while we don't need to get into T:BOUND here as the thread can change things, I do think it's important to note that what you're proposing isn't current practice, we use continuity for all sorts of wide and varied things, such as, say, recurring thematic motifs. (That's a rare one, but it happens!) Najawin ☎ 14:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I support the proposal, not least for how it frees up the word "References" to be used for <ref>. Currently, editorial footnotes are messily interspersed with external references, such as in Faction Paradox (series)#Footnotes; Wikipedia separates these into "Footnotes" (using {{notelist}}) and "References" (using {{reflist}}), and so should we. I move that this be explicitly allowed in the eventual closing statement. The word "Worldbuilding" is a bit editorial for my tastes – it doesn't feel like a section header for a serious encyclopedia, does it? – but I haven't thought of a better alternative.

Regarding #Continuity, I understand neither the confusion nor the relevance. The practical difference is that bullet points in #Continuity include links to one or more other stories, whereas bullet points in #References don't. Relatedly, #References is where Shambala108 puts links to orphaned pages. We could spend thousands of words arguing about what bullet points fall under one or another definition of #Continuity, but this thread's proposal isn't about changing the title of #Continuity! A more relevant question might be, are there any bullet point in #References which can't be described as "Worldbuilding"? I've looked at many, and I'm coming up blank. – n8 (☎) 15:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Najawin: I do mean "not plot-relevant for the specific episode", yes. That is, not plot-relevant enough to already be linked to within the plot summary. That is the sole reason "plot" enters into it, it has nothing to do with continuity or other DWU plots being referenced!

Again, I think the sane way to divide them, and the one on which editors have largely converged, is that the difference is not in content but in focus, and it is absolutely normal and expected if a lot of the same elements of the story are documented in both sections, from different lenses. "Worldbuilding/References" just collates in-universe information from the story, with no external background given; "Continuity" discusses the ways in which this story relates to other stories (and some of those ways might involve some of the tidbits of in-universe information also listed in "Worldbuilding").

To what extent current practice matches this model is just the sort of T:BOUND debate I didn't want to get dragged into. I agree there are things like "the Doctor was previously shot at in [XYZ stories]" across the Wiki; but I can't help but think that their continued existence goes against the spirit of my ruling on how to format 'Continuity' sections at Forum:Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes, and falls under the umbrella of practices which that ruling encourages the gradual abandonment of. But, you know, this falls into the same sort of "probing admins' mind-states when they made adjacent rulings that relied on certain assumptions without formally clarifying them" issues as our discussion on Rule 2 and DiT.

Note that, given the OOU focus of the new-and-improved Continuity sections, actual thematic motifs are not necessarily out of bounds — it's just that the inference needs to be that it's actually a reference to a specific past story, as opposed to happenstance. If an Iris story is an extended riff on the storyline of a particular Classic episode, for example, I think that should go in the "Continuity" section even if there's no actual diegetic connection because everything is a goofy spoof-version of its equivalent in the Classic story. Or if a shot in a new TV story pays conspicuous homage to a famous one from an earlier story. Things like that.

@Nate, I think the Footnotes/References model has merit, but it probably bears discussing at greater length. I would be okay with a closing post to this thread declaring that a "References" section for {{reflist}} is now hypothetically fair game if a future thread rules in favour of that split, but I'd want to see more discussion of the practicalities of the split before agreeing to the split itself, and I feel like such discussion would be a off-topic for this thread. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 16:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's a fun one, what do we do with things like Doom's Day or TLV? They're written to interconnect, right? Even if they're published in sequential order, there will be calls forward in earlier works. Why does your notion of continuity only flow one way in this case? Najawin ☎ 18:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I never said it did; in fact I said exactly the opposite! See the second example under "Continuity" in my definitions above. "This story was later referenced in [Later Story] in such-and-such ways" is a perfectly valid continuity point. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

But this is precisely the confusion I had! Perhaps I was unclear.

Do you mean not plot relevant for the specific episode? If this is the case - as opposed to relevant to the relevant DWU plot's being referenced, then continuity is practically (not completely, but largely) a subset of worldbuilding/references.

How is it not just a subset if we allow for time reversal symmetry? Is it because we allow things like recurring themes, or similar? What would you put in continuity that doesn't go in references? I'm struggling to understand the difference. One is things we think are in reference to events and objects in the DWU as portrayed in other DWU works that we somehow think "intend" to "reference" other stories I guess (imagine my eyes rolling to the back of my head, etc etc), and the other is references to events and objects in the DWU as portrayed by this work or in other works (that we don't think "intend" to "reference" the other works, even if they reference the specific things in them? I have no clue what this even means). But that little parenthetical at the end is just there to exclude continuity from references/worldbuilding. It's not a natural delineation we find in the world or necessarily in the works. We're just making it up as we go along.

And there's nothing fundamentally wrong with using a socially constructed metric here, we do it for so much, but dear lord would I like a clearer standard than "well I think it intended to reference that prior work and not just the things mentioned in that prior work" and then other people agreeing or disagreeing. As I've said before, all standards are ultimately somewhat arbitrary in how we choose them, but they shouldn't be arbitrary in how we apply them. Najawin ☎ 20:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(that we don't think "intend" to "reference" the other works, even if they reference the specific things in them? I have no clue what this even means)

No! No! No! I never said this! [cries]

I don't know how much more clearly I can put it: the same data-point can, and often should, be present in both sections. We don't need to carve "Continuity" out of "Worldbuilding". The points in the "continuity" section will very likely have been included either in the plot summary or in "Worldbuilding"! This is fine! This is normal! "Plot" documents the narrative throughline of the story; "Worldbuilding" documents the remaining page-worthy fictional contents of that specific story, for their own sake; "Continuity" documents the ways in which the story relates to other stories, which it likely does through plot-points, minor fictional elements, or both.

Let's say we have a story that's, say, the return of the Slitheen, and they're causing trouble in Geneva. The Doctor might have a line that goes: "Slitheen in Switzerland? Well, why not. I've fought Zygons in Scotland, Judoon on the Moon and Urgulbons in Uganda!"

In the "Plot" section, we would discuss the general business of the Slitheen in Geneva, but not say anything about Zygons, Judoon and Urgulbons, because it's just a quip and our plot summaries aren't that granular.

In the "Worldbuilding" section, we would have an item that goes "The Doctor mentions having fought Zygons in Scotland, Judoon on the Moon and Urgulbons in Uganda". We would not mention the Slitheen or Geneva, as those are plot-points, already covered in "Plot".

In the "Continuity" section, we would have a line that goes "This story is a sequel to Aliens of London/World War Three, featuring the return of the Slitheen"; and also two lines that go "The Doctor's lines about fighting 'Zygons in Scotland' and 'Judoon on the Moon' reference the events of Terror of the Zygons and Smith and Jones, respectively". This time the Urgulbons would be the odd ones out, because they wouldn't be a reference to any other stories, nor referenced in any later ones. (But if five years later a Short Trip decides to show us the Eighth Doctor finding Urgulbons in Uganda, or if other stories decide to name-drop the ever-offscreen Urgulbons, we would then add notes about that.)

Do you see now how those sections do different things? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

No! No! No! I never said this! [cries]

Well I do rather think you said things that implied my confusion as to us reading intention here.

Firstly, sometimes "Worldbuilding" items (or "References" items) aren't original to the source; sometimes they're things that have shown up before. "The Doctor mentions the [[Zygon]]s". But the aims are different. In a "References/Worldbuilding" section we should not care whether the mentioned Thingie has been mentioned before, just document the mention/cameo and its context. In a "Continuity" section, the fact that mentioning the Zygons is a continuity reference to a specific past source is what we're interested in.

I think the issue here is that I'm trying to emphasize the ways in which one might fail to be a subset of the other. I'm simply not seeing a clear way for you to do this. If it were to be the case that continuity was not a strict subset of references/worldbuilding then references/worldbuilding would have the definition I gave above. But if it's not the case, and continuity is a strict subset... I... just... don't understand the point? And the criticism I gave at the bottom still seems applicable to me. Najawin ☎ 23:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

But my Slitheen-sequel hypothetical included an example just now showing that "Continuity" isn't a strict subset of "Worldbuilding"! To wit, sometimes plot points, or indeed the entire premise of a story, might be worthy of a "Continuity"-item. There's no way, say, "This story is a sequel to TV: The Daleks" on Return to Skaro could be rephrased as a "Worldbuilding" item. So that, right there, is an example of a "Continuity" item that's not also a "Worldbuilding" item.

Though I don't think this is key. Like… take characters. Let's look at Astrolabus. "Astrolabus reappears, having first been introduced in COMIC: Voyager" is obviously a shoe-in for the #Continuity section of his second appearance, COMIC: Polly the Glot. But no matter what, he should also be listed in the #Characters subsection. The same data-point — Astrolabus's presence in Polly the Glot — needs to be recorded both as a fact about the contents of the story, and as a point of continuity between it and other stories. I don't think this is confusing or redundant.

And to my mind, it is by the same, intuitive logic that "The Doctor mentions fighting the Zygons before" belongs in both sections, but cast under different lights. We include it in #Worldbuilding no matter what, as a fact about the contents of the story; then, if it's not just a fact about the story's contents but also a continuity-reference, we state as much in #Continuity.

If I'm reading you right, I think you've somehow misinterpreted me as saying that we should try and probe the writer's intention: put the Zygon line in #Continuity if it's "intended to reference that prior work" and in #Worldbuilding if it's "just intended to reference the things mentioned in that prior work". I agree this would be insane and unenforceable, but that is not at all what I'm saying. The Doctor mentioning that he once fought Zygons in Scotland is objectively both an in-universe reference to the Zygon species, thus warranting inclusion in #Worldbuilding, and a continuity-reference to the particular story Terror of the Zygons, thus warranting inclusion in #Continuity. And we should thus cover the line in both sections, at the same time, but from different points of view — much as we functionally write "Astrolabus is in it" twice over the length of the Polly the Glot page, for different reasons. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess the Slitheen example shows this insofar as you've walled off plot relevant things from references/worldbuilding, maybe. Surely this is a woefully inelegant solution at best. (I note that this walling off should have us question the usage of the Astrolabus metaphor, no? We hardly wall off plot relevant characters.)

I think you've somehow misinterpreted me as saying that we should try and probe the writer's intention: put the Zygon line in #Continuity if it's "intended to reference that prior work" and in #Worldbuilding if it's "just intended to reference the things mentioned in that prior work". I agree this would be insane and unenforceable, but that is not at all what I'm saying. The Doctor mentioning that he once fought Zygons in Scotland is objectively both an in-universe reference to the Zygon species

See: Android boyfriend. There is no objective standard here that you're proposing. There's a subjective standard - what we decide. I would very much like a coherent, clear standard. But it's very obviously true that there are cases where comments are veiled and there's just no metric you've given for how we can try to place things in the appropriate sections. Najawin ☎ 01:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I am running out of different ways to put it, but let's try this one more time. I think "trying to place things in the appropriate sections" is the wrong way to think about this. There isn't a mass of undifferentiated "things" that you're trying to place in one section or another!

The #Continuity section is here to discuss the ways in which a given story relates to other stories. It is not, in and of itself, a place to collate tidbits of in-universe information; some might just get brought up in the business of discussing the way in which the story relates to other stories. If any elements of the story that come up in #Continuity weren't already reflected elsewhere on the page, that would, if anything, be abnormal.

To my mind — if you take a given story, then all the raw, Wikifiable fictional information therein should be reflected on its story-page. Events in the plot go in "Plot", featured characters are listed under "Characters", and whatever is left that's Wikifiable enough to be cited back to this story on other (in-universe) pages, we list out in "References/Worldbuilding". Those three sections are the ones between which you divide the raw pile of in-universe data.

Then, the #Continuity section is something else entirely. It's the one place in the story page where, instead of using exclusively what's in the source, you're going to start bringing up the contents of other stories. It's where you look back at all those events and characters and miscellaneous-worldbuilding-details that you've extracted from the raw source, and you discuss the ways in which some of this stuff ties in with what was depicted in other stories; whether that be the consequences of a plot-beat, the reappearance of a character, or something else.

A measure of subjectivity might exist in terms of what we identify as continuity-points — but that's a different question. There is no subjectivity involved in what goes in the other three, this-source's-contents-only sections of "Plot", "Characters" and "Worldbuilding/References". Maybe "whether X is a continuity-reference or not" is sometimes debatable, but it's no argument against including "X" in #Characters if "X" is a character; it doesn't create a basic confusion between what the #Characters and #Continuity sections are. Why should it be otherwise if "X" is a name-dropped planet, and thus belongs in #Worldbuilding? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 01:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

There isn't a mass of undifferentiated "things" that you're trying to place in one section or another!

Of course there is! References to objects or events in the DWU! Indeed, you specifically reference differentiating factoids in your original post on the subject!

The #Continuity section is here to discuss the ways in which a given story relates to other stories. It is not, in and of itself, a place to collate tidbits of in-universe information

You cannot do the one without the other. Our article on Doctor Who universe quite clearly notes that for the purposes of the wiki we hold the DWU to be constructed through valid sources. OOU info has no place in connecting stories to stories. This has been the issue of how DWU and Valid Sources have been defined and how they've made the distinction between continuity and references meaningless since 2012. It's all in Thread:117229! We have to fundamentally rewrite T:VS, Doctor Who universe, or what "continuity" means for the story pages. It's a very specific trilemma here. It's honestly baffling to me how people fail to see the issues here. It's like we're speaking two ever so slightly different languages.

Maybe "whether X is a continuity-reference or not" is sometimes debatable

Rather constantly so, as demonstrated by the examples on real pages given above, one would think.

it doesn't create a basic confusion between what the #Characters and #Continuity sections are. Why should it be otherwise if "X" is a name-dropped planet, and thus belongs in #Worldbuilding?

Because I'm still unconvinced that this section isn't, properly speaking, a subset of another section. Why are we duplicating information in the Character list but not in References? It seems arbitrary to me. Najawin ☎ 02:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You cannot do the one without the other.

Well, of course. That was the significance of "in and of itself". Obviously you have to mention tidbits of in-universe information in the #Continuity section. But my view (my proposal? who knows anymore) is that in #Continuity this is merely instrumental — we want to explain how [Hypothetical Story A] relates to [Hypothetical Story B], so we talk about the Zygon name-drop in Story A — while in #Worldbuilding it's an end unto itself — we want to document the sheer fact that Story A has a Zygon name-drop, without going into any significance that name-drop might possess.

Rather constantly so, as demonstrated by the examples on real pages given above, one would think.

But I've already asserted that instances that don't fit my model should be deleted or altered! This is the T:BOUND thing again, but at this point we're discussing my proposed model for a formal redefinition of #Continuity's role relative to other sections, not current practice. (Though I believe my proposal merely formalises and universalises the intuitions that have emerged within current practice, in an imperfect, sometimes-inconsistent form.)

Because I'm still unconvinced that this section isn't, properly speaking, a subset of another section. Why are we duplicating information in the Character list but not in References? It seems arbitrary to me.

If the bullet we need to bite here, in order to get anywhere, is that in-universe-concept-mentions that are already present in #Plot should be duplicated in #Worldbuilding as well (in the same way as characters being cited both in the plot summary and in #Characters), in addition to potentially being echoed in #Continuity… I would honestly be willing to make that compromise.

But this doesn't feel like the heart of the issue. Indeed, I still feel like you have some root objection here that I don't grok. Again you talk of #Continuity being some subset to another section and I just fundamentally do not understand what you're going on about in gestalt, even as I'm able to engage with particular sub-points.

So. What actual confusion do you think results from my model? What's wrong with saying "Astrolabus's presence should be listed in #Characters but, separately, identified as a point of continuity to Voyager in #Continuity"; and with saying, quite similarly, "the Doctor mentioning the Zygons, in and of itself, should be recorded in #Worldbuilding, but it should also, separately, be identified as a point of continuity to Terror of the Zygons in #Continuity"?

And I stress again: I'm not asking you if you find such a setup arbitrary or redundant. I am asking you how attempting to follow such a policy would create confusion in a given editor; and in particular, how the hell this definition of a #Continuity section and a #Worldbuilding section could possibly reduce to one being a subset of the other. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 02:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You are giving me examples. I can understand examples. I do not understand the underlying principles that give rise to these examples. (I'm reminded of Aristotle contemplating the good in Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics. We understand intuitively the subpoints, and the examples, but the underlying issue is more nebulous.) I've tried to explain over and over how your model is confusing and seems to cause worldbuilding/references to subsume continuity. I feel like we have similar problems on opposite sides here, where I understand individual parts of what you're saying, but the broad model you're talking about is fundamentally unintelligible to me. I'll think about this some more and regroup. As it stands it's taking too much bandwidth from my R4bp writing and some other stuff, so I need to at least postpone until that OP is actually finished! But I really do think we're experiencing similar frustrations. Najawin ☎ 03:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment — and given our adversarial positions on R4BP I hesitate to advise something which might be construed as stalling! — but given certain parts of your draft-OP/the general topic, if there's any hope at all of us finding some common ground or clarity on this thread, I really do question the wisdom of trying to get the R4BP one off the ground before we push this one as far as it will go. That seems like it would just trend towards transplanting the present debate to that thread. (Or towards an awkward avoidance of the same that would mean a key part of the OP can't be discussed usefully for a while even after the thread goes live.)

(…Or do you just mean you want to finish a first draft of the OP, without necessarilly posting it yet? Still seems slightly self-defeating to me, but less objectionable…) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 03:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I actually explicitly intend to at least partially off load that part of the discussion onto this thread, if Epsilon has no objection. There will be some interplay, but it allows us to focus on different areas in different places. (He deserves it, for making this thread while I was working on that OP anyhow. :P) Najawin ☎ 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you mind the potential hijacking of your thread Epsilon? Najawin ☎ 18:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem with continuity sections is how they are implemented, not how they are defined. The ideal definitions are simple enough: References contain information original to the story in question; Continuity contains information which originated elsewhere. I emphasise that the following is based on what continuity should represent, not what it currently represents, which is certainly a mess.

The problems with continuity is twofold. Firstly, entries are often written in a such way which obfuscates the origin of the information. For example you get things like "The Doctor recalls meeting Kublai Khan in Shang-Tu in 1289. (TV: Marco Polo)", where in reality the story only mentions the Doctor meeting Kublai Khan, with the rest of the information coming from Marco Polo. This should be solved by forcing continuity references to be written from an out-of-universe perspective (it's somewhat baffling to see them written from in-universe on a story page) and with something like the following structure: "The Doctor mentions having met Kublai Khan. This occurred in Shang-Tu in 1989 as depicted in TV: Marco Polo".

Secondly, often there are entries along the lines of "here's something which is somewhat similar to something which happened in another story" or "the Doctor would meet creatures made of gas or at least seven other occasions" followed by seven citations. The former is often full of speculation and at best would be best confined to the notes section, while the latter could be easily covered on a page like Gas. A similar problem has emerged on List of references to other DWU media in live-action BBC stories which was originally created (by me) to house actual, concrete, you-can-draw-a-line-from-A-to-B type references but now any time a TV story references something vaguely similar to an EU story idea, it gets added.

Finally, on the main and original purpose of this thread, I'm not totally sold on the term "worldbuilding". It seems somewhat of a gimmicky term and less broad than the section is intended to be. The "references" section also includes notions such as "[Person] believes in [Idea]", which could broadly be considered worldbuilding, but there must be a better term. Really the term "references" is accurate in the sense that it is for references the story makes to concepts, both real world and fictional. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, it can easily be misconstrued to mean the out-of universe idea of referencing another story, so I agree that that term is also unsuitable. I'll put forward here another suggestion of "Elements" or "Story elements", which may more accurate represent what the section is meant to encapsulate. Danochy ☎ 01:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I will slightly amend the wording to say that references describe information that is contained within the story — I think Najawin's fears about irresolvable uncertainty of placement come true if you posit that just because something is relevant to "Continuity", means we can't put it in the other one also. But yes, while wording remains difficult, it's pretty intuitive that "References" (or whatever) describes the contents of the story in themselves, while "Continuity" is defined by bringing in connections to other works.

"Elements" is interesting, but I think the name would only work if we bite the bullet that we can relist stuff that's already mentioned in the "Plot" summary. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 12:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the wording I used is important in having a distinct definition of the two sections. The bulk of Najawin's concern there is the contradictory drives to place an item in one section or another. This isn't as trivial as you've suggested it to be, and I can think of various cases it could be appropriate versus inappropriate to place it in both. I do believe, however, that almost all of these cases are made clear by a simple interpretation of my original wording.

Case I. A user places the exact same item in both sections. E.g. The Doctor recalls meeting the Zygons. These entries are identical, save for the continuity section referencing Terror of the Zygons. Under my original wording, this should not be placed in references, as it contains no new information. But what if the user isn't familiar with Terror? That's where the second case comes in.

Case II. A user places that same item in references, because to the best of their knowledge, the item is original to this piece. This is where some clarification is needed. In this case, I'd argue that we enshrine into policy the assumption that every entry is a reference until proven guilty known to be continuity. That's to say, an editor should just place the item as a reference if they don't know, and then one day a more knowledgeable editor might come along and move it into continuity. This is effectively what happens already, but avoids unnecessary duplication of information. I don't think allowing the duplication even solves Najawin's qualms, because in either case the entry would be wrongly omitted from continuity by an ignorant editor. One can only ever do as much as their ignorance/knowledge allows, in any case.

Case III. This is where a source contains a mixture of novel and derivative information. E.g. "A met B in the grand old nation of C in the year Z", where A,B,C are derivative and Z is novel. In this case I think it would be sensible to include two entries, one in references focused on Z, and one in continuity focused on A,B,C. The key here being that sentences should be structured to emphasise what is reference/continuity, excluding superfluous information contained in the other section. This is similar to Scrooge's idea of "different lights", but I feel is more distinct and acknowledges that there aren't always different lights.

Case IV. The dreaded subjectivity of identifying an item of continuity. This is always a difficult one, but also unavoidable. There are clear cases where an item is continuity without debate, and there are clear cases where the item is not continuity and should be removed. What about the in-between cases, where a writer might be referencing elements from another work? This is where it becomes tricky; the eternal debate of wikis. But if a case is maybe continuity, why not make that clear in the language of the entry? Emphasise that this seems to be a connection between elements from two works, but we can't be 100% sure. As the line from undeniable continuity to undeniably-not-continuity is, well, continuous, and can never be completely divided. This is a problem for all continuity-based assertions on the wiki.

Case V. Najawin's "time reversal symmetry". An editor places an item as a reference, however later it is moved to continuity when another work references it. This should not occur - it should remain as a reference, as it originated in this work. The issue then becomes, should it also be placed in continuity as well? This is probably the most controversial case, from a logical standpoint, and the one I'm most uncertain about, because my definition above doesn't actually allow forward references. I think this should be placed somewhere on the page, but I also think it should be kept decidedly separate from the section outlining the previously-existing elements this work is based upon. I am partial to User:Cousin Ettolrhc's idea of two continuity (sub)sections, "references from other sources" and "references to other sources". More discussion is needed here.

I don't think any of this is particularly complicated when actually implementing it. It's pretty much what happens already, but having this in policy allows editors to utilise these sections without logical inconsistencies waiting to bite us in the future. I think the issues with these sections is, as Najawin has repeatedly described and I outlined in my previous reply, the inconsistencies with which the sections are currently utilised.

On the topic of placing plot elements in references, I see no reason not to. The references section is far more accessible anyway. Danochy ☎ 02:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I disagree with your Case 1. Repetition is not a problem. I think the Zygon thing should always be in both sections. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. Scrooge, your interpretation of these sections' functions fits with how I've interpreted them as a reader, and I really feel that References/Worldbuilding should aim to be as comprehensive as possible. If we view it from the perspective of a page like Zygon linking to a story in which they appear or are mentioned, a concise and discrete list of species/technology/concepts/whatever with any new information given by the story (including "The Doctor mentioned them at x point") is of enormous value – separate from the equally valuable, but distinct, web of story interlinkings provided by Continuity. Deliberately shrinking References in an effort to reduce redundancy would erode its usefulness, IMO.

Najawin, I want to note on a general level that I think technical logical fallacies are not always synonymous with incoherence or unusability in the context of something like a wiki. There's a difference between "the precise wording of this policy technically constitutes an inconsistency which, if followed to a particular extreme on purpose, could be argued to not fit everything perfectly" and "this policy, in practice, is unclear and hard to usefully follow due to its ambiguity". At least I think there is.

And I agree with several people above about the renaming dilemma. "References" makes more sense for the section once you know what it is, but it's certainly vulnerable to misunderstandings because the word has so many possible meanings; I don't love "Worldbuilding" aesthetically (it slightly implies a level of intentionality which is a bit of a reach), but it would be less ambiguous. Starkidsoph ☎ 14:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm? Who mentioned anything about logical fallacies? I don't think I did - I just went back and checked. I try to avoid referencing them unless I think it will help others, I don't find them particularly helpful myself - they're often just shorthand for deeper systemic flaws in someone's thinking, and that's what we should address, not just quoting a stock phrase at them.

As for the distinction you're trying to draw, I'm still waiting for Scrooge's large response to Forum:Rule 4 by Proxy and its ramifications: considered in the light of the forum archives, which I'm sure will touch on it - I understand how in depth in that thread is, so I fully understand the time taken and don't intend on rushing him. But it just seems to me that the latter clearly is happening. Both historically, in that admins and prominent editors have consistently and repeatedly said that they don't understand the distinction (and I don't think the distinction people have argued for in the past is that different from what Scrooge is arguing for), and presently, in that pages clearly aren't adhering to it.

But let's take this a little further. I'm not sure I'd agree that the situation is quite so nice to say that the issue only emerges in very extreme cases, but let's cede that bit for sake of argument. (note, I am not ceding that this must happen intentionally. I don't think anyone can believe this if they actually think about the situation for a little bit.) This wiki has a tendency to move towards the extreme cases. And I love that about it. I really, really do. Sometimes it may seem like I don't, but the precise opposite is true. Because Doctor Who is such a weird franchise, with so many nuances and fringe pieces of media, a lot of this anarchism has rubbed off on the editors, and just recently we've found ourselves trailblazing policies and procedures that other large wikis simply don't have to deal with the crazy franchise we have to document in the way we've decided to document it. But because the DWU is so weird, and because our editors can tend towards extremes (in a good way! - and I'm not the only person to have expressed similar sentiments, Memes did so not too long ago in the speed round thread, perhaps less positively), I think we have to be very careful about these corner cases. But that's just me, others may disagree! Najawin ☎ 14:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

There is a broad consensus here to rename our "References" sections to "Worldbuilding". I will complete this via bot after positing this conclusion. There was some contention that "Worldbuilding" may not be the best term. However, the alternate proposals of "Elements" and "Story elements" from Danochy did not receive wider support and Starkidsoph, despite not loving the term, agreed that it would "be less ambiguous". If someone does come up with a better name, they may propose it in a new thread.

NateBumber suggested using a "Footnotes" section for {{notelist}} and repurposing "References" for {{reflist}}. While I feel that this would make a lot of sense, it did not gain broader consensus so will not be implemented in this thread but may, of course, be discussed in a further thread.

I will now move on to what became the major topic of this thread: the difference between "Worldbuilding" and "Continuity". I am going to re-affirm/make policy Scrooge MacDuck's idea that the sections may potentially overlap in content but with different focusses. "Worldbuilding" should document things that are mentioned in the source at hand. It doesn't matter if they are original to the source, or if they are things that originated in an earlier source: they may be documented there regardless. I would also like to affirm that there may be some minor crossover with "Plot" and even "Characters" sections. However, each "Worldbuilding" bullet point should be focussed on a noun or a small group of related nouns and, as such, major plot beats should not enter into this section and should instead remain in "Plot". "Continuity" serves to document the source's relations to other sources. This will require including details mentioned in "Plot", "Characters" and "Worldbuilding", but each bullet point should mention 1 or more other sources that a connection is being drawn towards. These sources should not be mentioned in "Plot", "Characters" or "Worldbuilding", even if discussing the same underlying piece of information. "Continuity" may be thought of as a summary of the rest of the page from the specific angle of looking at how the source in question connects to other sources, like how someone might analyse a literary text with a focus on a specific theme: the analysis will likely contain information from the original text but this does not make it redundant or worthless because it connects these bits of information together in a different way. I'd also like to make clear that "Continuity" sections may never be complete but that that is ok. Many pages on this wiki will never be entirely complete (whether we like it or not), but it does not make their existance worthless.

Cousin Ettolrhc brought up the idea of separate "References to other sources" and "References from other sources" subsections for the "Continuity" section. Personally, I think that this is a great idea. However, it did not receive wide consensus so will not be implemented in this thread. It may, of course, be discussed in a further thread.

As always, thanks to all those who participated and offered thoughts and ideas. Bongo50 ☎ 20:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have to pause the automated bot run for tonight. I'll continue it tomorrow afternoon. Bongo50 ☎ 20:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Should now be all done. Bongo50 ☎ 18:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)