Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,018
edits
Forum:References into Worldbuilding: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:References into Worldbuilding (view source)
Revision as of 00:55, 1 August 2023
, 1 August 2023no edit summary
Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
:::::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 <nowiki>[[Zygon]]</nowiki>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''. | :::::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 <nowiki>[[Zygon]]</nowiki>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. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC) | ::::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. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 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 (TV story)|The Daleks]]''" on ''[[Return to Skaro (audio story)|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 (comic story)|Voyager]]''" is obviously a shoe-in for the #Continuity section of his second appearance, [[COMIC]]: ''[[Polly the Glot (comic story)|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 (TV 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 (comic story)|Polly the Glot]]'' page, for different reasons. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 00:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
