Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators
12,366
edits
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
Bongolium500 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(14 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{archive}}[[Category:Policy changers]] | ||
== Opening post == | == Opening post == | ||
[[File:The Time of the Toymaker (novel) Worldbuilding section.png|350px|right|The "Worldbuilding" section over on the ''JE'' Wiki's page on ''{{iw|jennyeverywhere|The Time of the Toymaker (novel)|The Time of the Toymaker}}''.]] | [[File:The Time of the Toymaker (novel) Worldbuilding section.png|350px|right|The "Worldbuilding" section over on the ''JE'' Wiki's page on ''{{iw|jennyeverywhere|The Time of the Toymaker (novel)|The Time of the Toymaker}}''.]] | ||
Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
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''. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 02:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC) | 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''. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk: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. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 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…) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk: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) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::Do you mind the potential hijacking of your thread Epsilon? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 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 (TV story)|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. [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] [[User talk:Danochy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 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. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk: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 <s>proven guilty</s> 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. [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] [[User talk:Danochy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 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. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk: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. [[User:Starkidsoph|Starkidsoph]] [[User talk:Starkidsoph|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 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! [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Conclusion == | |||
<div class="tech"> | |||
'''There is a broad consensus here to rename our "References" sections to "Worldbuilding"'''. I will complete this via [[User:Botgo50|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 [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] did not receive wider support and [[User:Starkidsoph|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. | |||
[[User:NateBumber|NateBumber]] suggested using a "Footnotes" section for {{tlx|notelist}} and repurposing "References" for {{tlx|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 [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|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. | |||
[[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|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. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 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. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: Should now be all done. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
</div> |
edits