User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20121212231649/@comment-1209840-20121218030512

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20121212231649/@comment-1209840-20121218030512 No, Czechout, the definition of continuity is not "narrative connections between the story you're looking at and all other narratives." The definition of continuity is narrative connections between at least two stories. That's all you need for there to be a continuity: just two. Are you saying there's no continuity between Dr. Who and the Daleks and Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D.? We have articles on those movies, and those two movies comprise a continuity. Not the continuity in the sense that we accept for in-universe sections, but certainly a continuity.

As Imamadmad said, a section discussing continuity links between two sources deemed to be not part of this wiki's continuity does not have to actually be labeled "continuity": you're getting too hung up on your definition of that word.

If we start allowing the latter sort of pseudo-narrative connections garbage, before you know it the National Television Awards Sketch 2011 article will be trying to assert that Dot Cotton is Lady Eleanor's distant relative.

As I said, this would only be for continuity intended by the creators. And the Slippery Slope argument is a fallacy; acknowleging the plain truth that invalid stories sometimes share an explicit, officially licensed, creator-approved continuity with other invalid stories does not require us to allow editors to invent connections out of whole cloth unsupported by the actual sources.

You are ascribing some serious ulterior motives to me, aren't ya?

Not at all; nothing I said requires me to know your motives. When text is moved from the front page of an article to its talk page, it becomes hidden from casual users, regardless of what you intended. If the text is useful and relevant, it should be on the main page. "I had the power to make things even more hidden than that" is not an actual rebuttal.