User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1317169-20121202170842/@comment-188432-20121218173814

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1317169-20121202170842/@comment-188432-20121218173814 Rowan Earthwood wrote: To give a concrete example, Death Comes to Time has a short references section. If the section was relabeled continuity, would that section have to be deleted (perhaps hidden in the talk page)? Dirty pool, me ol' son. Don't derail this thread by bringing over your gripes from another thread. Or, put another way, please read T:POINT. Or to put it a third way, the format seen on thousands of stories will not be determined by the 20-odd stories that are like Death Comes to Time.

This proposal actually has nothing to do with those stories flying the flag. So let's not discuss those any further in this thread. There is another discussion ongoing about the continuity section on those type of story pages; please keep that conversation there, and there alone. Thanks :)

This discussion is not solely about a simple name change of the section head. Despite the simplistic thread title, it's about a total refactoring of these sections such that they strike a balance between readable and overly verbose, and such that the section head actually describes the material beneath in a way that's not confusing to the first-time visitor.

For this reason, I do not support Rowan's proposal that the section be called "references and continuity", because — as is evidenced by the fact that our newest editors are constantly confused about what to put into "continuity" and what to put into "references" — people simply don't connect with those words. We need something else entirely.