Forum:References and continuity: what exactly is the difference?

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → References and continuity: what exactly is the difference?

This thread has been archived.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.

Whilst editing Immortal Sins I started having trouble distinguishing between some references and continuity. Now, I can easily understand the basics of each, but there are some which rather overlap.

For example, take Immortal Sins. "Jack mentions the Doctor". This not continuing something, and Jack is referring to the Doctor, so it would be a reference. "Jack wears his classic RAF coat" (although it isn't there) would be continuity because it continues a fact from a previous episode.

However, then you get things such as:

• Jack has very similar dialogue with Angelo that the Ninth Doctor had with Rose. (TV: Rose)
• Jack refers to time making him a fixed point (TV: The Parting of the Ways)
• The creature Jack and Angelo find was intended to infect President Franklin D. Roosevelt and disrupt history for the Trickster's Brigade. (TV: Turn Left)

Although these are all technically continuity, they're also references. The first one is the reference to the phrase "run", the second is Jack referring to the Bad Wolf, and the third is referencing the Trickster's Brigade. So even though they're technically continuity, they're also references.

So my question is, how do we draw the line between the two? To me it seems very temporal and depending on the particular user. Could we look at the possibility of, instead of having a section for them individually, have a section for them both? --The Thirteenth Doctor 15:05, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the fixed point stuff referred to in Utopia not in The Parting of the Ways?

Which is kinda the point.

References frame stuff within the in-universe structure of the wiki, while Continuity allows us to frame stuff in how it all fits together.

So in the continuity section it'd read:

• Jack was made immortal in The Parting of the Ways and in Utopia was told by the Doctor that he is a fixed point in time.

The Trickster's Brigade is a reference to an in-universe element, but there isn't any need to reference Turn Left, as the Trickster and his brigade is also mentioned in a handful of SJAs, DW and an NA.

The dialogue observation would be in Continuity or maybe in story notes, suggesting RTD as executive producer or maybe Espenson is including similar dialogue into TW as DW to echo the similar scenes. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:37, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

All part, I fear of the sloppy way words are used here. I have just blogged a long rant on the misuse of the word "plot" here. I don't expect any change, but I needed to get some of my bile out.

Anyway, to address your question, I would say that a reference is a statement that does not bear any more relationship to the plot (or perhaps 'storyline' if you prefer that word), while contuity serves to point out an earlier occurrence of a plot point.

To use your examples, Jack has very similar dialogue with Angelo that the Ninth Doctor had with Rose does not really affect the course of the story. It is a shout-out to constant Reader who can use this as a point to demonstrate his moral superiority to someone who does not recognize it. On the other hand, Jack was made immortal in The Parting of the Ways and in Utopia was told by the Doctor that he is a fixed point in time is a continuing plot point. It tells us much about Jack and his personal story arc, while the former statement does not.

These are fairly simple and obvious cases in which references and continuity differ. There will be many cases which some people will put in one category and others in the other. Border cases will remain and reasonable men may differ -- but if they're reasonable they'll agree with me, of course.

I think they can be summed up as "If it helps to know this to understand the story, it's continuity. If not, it's a reference." Boblipton ^{talk to me} 23:57, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm in sympathy with user:The Thirteenth Doctor. I don't get it. I never have. This is one of the first questions I had about this place, so I've heard Tangerineduel say time and time again:

"References frame stuff within the in-universe structure of the wiki, while Continuity allows us to frame stuff in how it all fits together."

But that's never made any sense to me. "How it all fits together" is describing a characteristic of the narrative. So continuity is in-universe and references are also in-universe. Therefore there's no difference between the two.

I think we make the mistake of trying to contextualise both sections. Take a look at most story pages and the difference is really unclear, because both sections try to give context for the reference/continuity point.

There's a better solution for this waiting in the wings with Semantic Media Wiki, but for the time being, the references section should just be a list of words that are name-checked in the episode, much like MemoryAlpha do it. Having a list of linked words allows us to run "WhatLinksHere" reports and so the list becomes useful. If you want to know the stories Tegan is mentioned in but doesn't appear, you can generate a report of that. Otherwise, it's unobtrusively there. You can even put the whole section in a "hide/show" structure so that it doesn't even show by default. The links just get tucked away. We make no attempt to contextualise the references at all.

Continuity then becomes the only one of the two sections we use for analysis and comparison with other stories. With the references section now tamed as a list of words, Continuity has a much clearer purpose. It's what's used to contextualise the contents of the episodes.

If you take a random survey of story pages now, you'll find that contextualisation is going on in both sections. This confuses the purpose of the two sections, and creates the need for the question of this thread to be asked about once a year, as with forum:Story notes, references, continuity, for instance.

Thing is, it's really not obvious what to do with those sections. I'll be honest with ya and tell you that I was confused about this just yesterday when doing COMIC stories. And I know I've asked this question at the forums years ago.

If you say, "References are those words which are name-checked in the episode, but Continuity is how this story relates to other stories", people get that. It's simple in a way that the current system isn't.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 07:02: Fri 11 Nov 2011 

No. I absolutely and whole heartedly object to going down MemoryAlpha's route, it is one of the things I totally hate about MemoryAlpha and that is the lack of context those reference have in the story, I find their lists are something they've decided to tack onto the article.

I think the references section held you understand a story in a way the plot and other sections don't.

References aren't just the words that are name checked in the stories, they're also the concepts, ideas and other stuff that we cover that are covered.

I don't think it's a mistake to contextualise the references, I think it broadens the understanding of the stories. This might be seem less important on the TV stories where everything is there to be seen, but on the other less visual mediums of audio, prose and even comic there is more understanding to be brought to the article. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:23, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Fine, fair enough. We won't do that. :)

[The tech guy in me, though, feels compelled to point out that it's not just "a list they've tacked on". It has a vital function which they can use to generate DPL lists that do provide a human-readable context. Using these sections, you can instantly generate a list of all the pages in the main namespace which reference a particular type of phaser, for instance. The section is an efficient way to place raw data on a page, which you can then manipulate later.]

I was just trying to find a unique role for the "References" section. Explain to me then, using different language than you usually do, how a "reference" differs from a "continuity point". How can we simply convey the difference to someone who's never been here before? The most cursory tour of our story pages reveals that we definitely have a communication gap with our editorial base that we need to close somehow.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 17:49: Fri 11 Nov 2011 

And I would say I somewhat understand your tech side, but it's not a very nice user interaction element to the page.

I'll try, again to redefine Reference and Continuity;

Everything notable that exists in the Doctor Who universe that is mentioned in a story is a Reference. It's in-universe information, specific to that story.

I think you've defined Continuity enough for me, Continuity frames and links off to other stories that have firm links to the current story. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:05, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Reviving

I still don't have a firm way to answer the initial question of the thread. I've archived enough other iterations of this question that I just can't do that again. Let's talk this one over again. What is the difference between the "continuity" and "references" sections on story pages?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 20:09: Wed 02 May 2012 

References = References to "stuff" of the DW universe mentioned/featured/seen in the story be it; an apple, Mao Tse-Tung or the Blinovitch Limitation Effect.

Continuity = Direct connections the story has to other stories. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:14, May 3, 2012 (UTC)