Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators
12,366
edits
Starkidsoph (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
Bongolium500 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 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 204: | Line 204: | ||
::: 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) | ::: 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