Forum:References into Worldbuilding

Opening post
Just a short one, this, but a good 'un.

On this Wiki, we have a section for references on source pages (not the academic kind, but a collection of in-universe elements with their own pages that are "referenced" in a given source). I dunno where this practise started, but today, you can see it on pages from Rose (TV story) to The North West Historical Society (feature) to The Lonely Assassins (video game). It is quite a good section, although, as evidenced inadvertently in Forum:Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes, perhaps not the most intuitively named.

In said Forum, after @Najawin highlighted the fact that he didn't understand the difference between the References and Continuity sections of articles, given that "references" generally is more akin to a list of citations outside of this Wiki; @Scrooge MacDuck stated that, to be more precise when he was building the Jenny Everywhere Wiki, he renamed the "References" section to "Worldbuilding".

So yeah, that's the proposal. Follow the Jenny Everywhere Wiki's suit and rename "References" into "Worldbuilding". It is more concise and illuminates the subsection's purpose effortlessly. This change wouldn't even be difficult to accomplish, it'd take just a bot sweep. Thoughts?

Discussion
Well, I wrote a section for this for my forthcoming R4bp post. (It's coming, it's coming, I promise. Almost done.) But briefly I don't believe this solves the issue in any way. See the comment I made at Forum:Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes just for the most obvious example of the problem.
 * Continuity is similar to the "references" section, really, except that it usually includes things of narrative significance.
 * I swear to God, I could not tell you what this means concretely. Quite frankly, I have no idea if I'm for or against this proposal because I don't understand what a continuity section is as opposed to a reference section.

If we just rename "references" this doesn't solve the problem - it just changes the words used to express the fundamental underlying issue. The issue is that "continuity" is poorly defined in terms of the wiki, not that "references" has a confusing name. See Thread:117229 in User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon I for more. Czech's criticisms in this thread are about the epistemic differences between continuity and references - how no user can ever be confident at placing any fact in either section, as well as the fact that based on how our wiki defines the DWU the definition seems perhaps slightly incoherent. I really do encourage everyone to read that thread. Najawin ☎  22:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Even if it doesn't fix the underlying problem, as you say, there isn't any harm in renaming the section regardless. 22:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure, but I do want to note that I don't think it's related to my concerns in the thread in the OP. If people wish to do it they may. Najawin ☎  23:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * So firstly, I don't think this proposal, in order to be worth implementing, needs to single-handedly resolve the confusion on precisely what these sections are. It's enough that it makes it significantly easier to have a discussion on that confusion. Because as it stands, any attempt to explain what the "continuity" section does tends to start talking about "continuity references" in the plain-English sense of the phrase, and pretty soon it devolves into gibberish. If we give "references" a less ambiguous name, we can at least be free to talk about the items in ==Continuity== as "references to past stories" without needlessly confusing the debate! I think that's reason enough to make the change even if we don't thereby believe ourselves to have solved the broader issue.


 * But with that being said, I agree “Continuity is similar to the "references" section, really, except that it usually includes things of narrative significance” is gobbledegook. It's just that I think this thread is completely confused about what the sections even are; it wholeheartedly fails at capturing the underlying rules which I think editors have intuitively converged on, even without a pithy summary to guide them. And perhaps those were not the purposes that the originators of these sections had in mind, but, you know, new-T:BOUND. The way editors now do things across the Wiki is what matters, even if it should turn out that the whole thing started as something of a misunderstanding 90,000 pages ago.


 * By my reckoning, in terms of current practice:


 * "Worldbuilding" (hitherto "References") is for summarising in-universe tidbits that are present in the source, but are not plot-rlevant and thus not included in the plot summary. It basically ensures that every in-universe page that uses a given story as a source, will be linked to from the source-page, as well as linking back to it.


 * Examples: "The Doctor mentions the Urgulbons of Planet 15, who are stated to have five legs." " Albert Einstein makes a cameo among the guests at at Santa Claus's Halloween bash."


 * "Continuity" is for discussing the ways in which the present source makes references to, or was later referenced by, other covered sources.


 * Examples: "The Doctor summarises the events of TV: Classic Story to Amy Pond", "A panel from this story was later shown as a flashback in COMIC: Anniversary Continuity-Fest when the Doctor's memories were extracted by the Muddlon Brain Machine".


 * I just don't think there's that much overlap when you put it that way. There are, I think, two main sources of confusion besides the current names. 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 Zygons ". 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. Indeed, the same factoid might belong in boths sections, cast in dfiferent lights.


 * The second is that we used to word Continuity points as in-universe statements, i.e. very much like "References". In both cases the line would have read "The Doctor mentions the Zygons.", it's just that the Continuity version would have appended "( TV: Terror of the Zygons (TV story) )". But, you know, that's been deprecated as of Forum:Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes. Now, in terms of best practices, Continuity sections should wear their out-of-universe perspective on their sleeve, and that makes it abundantly clear that they deal with ways in which a given story connects with other stories, which I don't think anyone in their right mind would confuse with the "Worldbuilding" points which explicitly should not bring knowledge from other sources into their wording. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I mean, I strongly disagree that there's little to no overlap, we can easily just apply the argument Czech gave from the thread I referenced to your hypothetical examples. Suppose there's a story where the Doctor decides to travel with scientists in the 31st century across the deserts of planet 15 and they've heard competing stories about how many legs the Urgulbons have but no editor has read the story because it's in some obscure short story collection from the 70s. Any piece of "worldbuilding" can be part of continuity and we just might not know it.


 * But I also am not convinced that this is how we consistently use the continuity section. See, for instance, Dalek. It's just the fact that the super phone appears that places it in the continuity section, not that it was upgraded in a past episode. Or just a joke being repeated. Hell.
 * The Doctor has previously had a group of soldiers aim their guns at him. (TV: Aliens of London, World War Three)
 * C'mon. If we're invoking T:BOUND as to what these things mean I'm really skeptical that your suggestion is at all accurate. Lest you think I'm cherry picking, I encourage everyone to click through, say, the Dalek stories from the new series. There's quite a few stretches. Najawin ☎  02:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * To be honest that example from Dalek is a broad statement and should just be removed. Even without this discussion, it should be removed. 02:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Examples like that are relatively common. From Journey's End (TV story):
 * The Doctor's TARDIS has been captured before. (TV: The Poison Sky)
 * This is not me tilting at windmills or cherrypicking examples. (I literally chose Dalek because it was rewritten as a test case from one of those "continuity v references" threads.) These sections are a mess. Najawin ☎  02:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Najawin, after having the differencs explained to me by Scrooge MacDuck once, I think I fully understand and struggle to see your difficulty understanding. The current "references" section, terribly named and should be named "worldbuilding" (as I support, let the thread note) is for, basically, "new bits of lore this source introduced which may be referenced in another source's ==continuity== section". That's it. You should never see any citations in the Worldbuilding section, because it's all information from this source.
 * Also, I think that we should have two subsections for "continuity" - "references from other sources" and "references to other sources". But that's less vital than what this thread aims to do. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  06:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with renaming References to Worldbuilding, it's a lot more intuitive and makes more sense. (Although the line between Continuity and References/Worldbuilding is still somewhat thin.) Aquanafrahudy  📢  07:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I would welcome more clarity on the references/continuity divide, and renaming it in this way seems like it might help. SherlockTheII ☎  09:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I grant that you're not cherrypicking, Najawin, but I maintain that such items are overreach and should be rewritten or deleted. People holding the Doctor at gunpoint is not a continuity reference to an earlier story. We probably needn't get bogged down in T:BOUND technicalities because the present thread will just be able to rule on whether such notes should be deleted or not, whatever the past state of affairs.


 * 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. 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!) Najawin ☎  14:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I support the proposal, not least for how it frees up the word "References" to be used for. Currently, editorial footnotes are messily interspersed with external references, such as in Faction Paradox (series); Wikipedia separates these into "Footnotes" (using ) and "References" (using ), and so should we. I move that this be explicitly allowed in the eventual closing statement. The word "Worldbuilding" is a bit editorial for my tastes – it doesn't feel like a section header for a serious encyclopedia, does it? – but I haven't thought of a better alternative.

Regarding #Continuity, I understand neither the confusion nor the relevance. The practical difference is that bullet points in #Continuity include links to one or more other stories, whereas bullet points in #References don't. Relatedly, #References is where Shambala108 puts links to orphaned pages. We could spend thousands of words arguing about what bullet points fall under one or another definition of #Continuity, but this thread's proposal isn't about changing the title of #Continuity! A more relevant question might be, are there any bullet point in #References which can't be described as "Worldbuilding"? I've looked at many, and I'm coming up blank. – n8 (☎) 15:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Najawin: I do mean "not plot-relevant for the specific episode", yes. That is, not plot-relevant enough to already be linked to within the plot summary. That is the sole reason "plot" enters into it, it has nothing to do with continuity or other DWU plots being referenced!


 * Again, I think the sane way to divide them, and the one on which editors have largely converged, is that the difference is not in content but in focus, and it is absolutely normal and expected if a lot of the same elements of the story are documented in both sections, from different lenses. "Worldbuilding/References" just collates in-universe information from the story, with no external background given; "Continuity" discusses the ways in which this story relates to other stories (and some of those ways might involve some of the tidbits of in-universe information also listed in "Worldbuilding").


 * To what extent current practice matches this model is just the sort of T:BOUND debate I didn't want to get dragged into. I agree there are things like "the Doctor was previously shot at in [XYZ stories]" across the Wiki; but I can't help but think that their continued existence goes against the spirit of my ruling on how to format 'Continuity' sections at Forum:Non-valid Continuity sections, categories, and prefixes, and falls under the umbrella of practices which that ruling encourages the gradual abandonment of. But, you know, this falls into the same sort of "probing admins' mind-states when they made adjacent rulings that relied on certain assumptions without formally clarifying them" issues as our discussion on Rule 2 and DiT.


 * Note that, given the OOU focus of the new-and-improved Continuity sections, actual thematic motifs are not necessarily out of bounds — it's just that the inference needs to be that it's actually a reference to a specific past story, as opposed to happenstance. If an Iris story is an extended riff on the storyline of a particular Classic episode, for example, I think that should go in the "Continuity" section even if there's no actual diegetic connection because everything is a goofy spoof-version of its equivalent in the Classic story. Or if a shot in a new TV story pays conspicuous homage to a famous one from an earlier story. Things like that.


 * @Nate, I think the Footnotes/References model has merit, but it probably bears discussing at greater length. I would be okay with a closing post to this thread declaring that a "References" section for is now hypothetically fair game if a future thread rules in favour of that split, but I'd want to see more discussion of the practicalities of the split before agreeing to the split itself, and I feel like such discussion would be a off-topic for this thread. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 16:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)