User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-1432718-20161209154830

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-1432718-20161209154830 I feel like I need to clarify a few points.

I am not against a "simple" or "clearly set out" rule. I just haven't seen that on this thread. Too many qualifiers, too many disagreements about definition. You know what would be a simple rule? If an episode ends with "to be continued", then it's a two-parter. If it doesn't, it isn't. That's how this whole discussion started — what to do with supposed two-parters without the TBC. And that's where all the disagreements come from — what are the supposed two-parters. There are too many disagreements about which stories are two-parters and how we should define a two-parter.

"My" idea is not my idea. It was suggested by User:Tangerineduel (our senior bureaucrat) and supported by User:Skittles the hog (an admin since 2011) and myself (admin since 2013). Does it really matter to the day-to-day functioning of this wiki to be able to call something a two-parter? Why can't we just put a comment in the lead of each story like "This story continues in the next episode" or "This story continues from the previous episode".