Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20121212231649/@comment-1209840-20121218162012

Minimitch wrote: ''Yes I do. One any wiki I go on and I see that there is discussion on the talk page, I usually go and see what is on the page. ''

Casual readers don't, and any wiki should be written in a way that is easy for casual readers to navigate. This wiki, in so many ways, is designed to be intimidatingly difficult for casual and even experienced users to use.

''You are still missing the point that myself, CzechOut, Shambala108, Tangerineduel and Imamadman have say. If the story is non DWU it cannot have continuity. It is impossible. ''

And you're missing the point that Imamadmad, OttselSpy25, and myself have stated again and again. Stop worrying about the word continuity. If a story builds directly on plot elements from a previous story, and that's something that's considered worth mentioning in most articles, it's something that deserves mentioning in all articles. You don't have to call it "continuity" if you don't want (although that is the proper term). Call it "references to other stories."

''Having links to the pages would encourages editors to add information from the story. For example, if Death Comes to Time has a linkMinimitch wrote: ''Yes I do. One any wiki I go on and I see that there is discussion on the talk page, I usually go and see what is on the page. ''

Casual readers don't, and any wiki should be written in a way that is easy for casual readers to navigate. This wiki, in so many ways, is designed to be intimidatingly difficult for casual and even experienced users to use.

''You are still missing the point that myself, CzechOut, Shambala108, Tangerineduel and Imamadman have say. If the story is non DWU it cannot have continuity. It is impossible. ''

And you're missing the point that Imamadmad, OttselSpy25, and myself have stated again and again. Stop worrying about the word continuity. If a story builds directly on plot elements from a previous story, and that's something that's considered worth mentioning in most articles, it's something that deserves mentioning in all articles. You don't have to call it "continuity" if you don't want (although that is the proper term). Call it "references to other stories."

''Having links to the pages would encourages editors to add information from the story. For example, if Death Comes to Time has a link to beer, then someone might edit the article to include what happened with beer in the story - which cannot happen.''

Exactly why, ignoring how silly the example is, would it break the wiki to have an article titled "Beer (Death Comes to Time)" or a section within the general Beer article titled "Beer in non-valid sources?" As long as the reader is advised that this beer doesn't exist in other, subsequent stories, how would it cause confusion?

CzechOut wrote:

 Our canon policy is, wait for it, there is no canon.

You say that, but you don't behave as if you believe it. You consistently (mis)use the word "continuity" in the exact same way that everyone else in the world uses the word "canon."

Continuity simply means a narrative connection between stories; it makes no judgment on whether or not a story "happened" within an imaginary universe bigger than the story in question. The latter is the domain of canon. If you're picking and choosing between stories, considering some of them to be valid and others not, then you're making a judgment about canon.

You either need to own that and admit that this wiki does have a canon policy, or embrace the fact that there is no canon and consider every source to be equally valid. You can't have it both ways. to beer, then someone might edit the article to include what happened with beer in the story - which cannot happen.''

Exactly why, ignoring how silly the example is, would it break the wiki to have an article titled "Beer (Death Comes to Time)" or a section within the general Beer article titled "Beer in non-valid sources?" As long as the reader is advised that this beer doesn't exist in other, subsequent stories, how would it cause confusion?

CzechOut wrote:

 Our canon policy is, wait for it, there is no canon.

You say that, but you don't behave as if you believe it. You consistently (mis)use the word "continuity" in the exact same way that everyone else in the world uses the word "canon."

Continuity simply means a narrative connection between stories; it makes no judgment on whether or not a story "happened" within an imaginary fictional universe bigger than the story in question. The latter is the domain of canon. If you're picking and choosing between stories, considering some of them to be valid and others not, then you're making a judgment about canon.

You either need to own that and admit that this wiki does have a canon policy, or embrace the fact that there is no canon and consider every source to be equally valid. You can't have it both ways.