Trusted
8,473
edits
More actions
→Discussion
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
:: 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. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 10:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC) | :: 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. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk: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!) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC) | |||