User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-5918438-20161209051453

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-5918438-20161209051453 I just lost my entire response, so I'll do my best to paraphrase. If it's felt that production blocks are not information easily accessible to editors (which I might not agree with, necessarily), I doubt it would make much of a difference, if any, if we set that aside and required only that the stories share the same director, and be broadcast consecutively (still with a linking character, of course.)

But I do feel it's still an important distinction to make. We judge stories' two-parteriness by hard real world evidence, with no room left at all for speculation or conflicting sources. No official statements made will get us to go against the rules set forth.

And it's quite simple, basic stuff, too. Were they directed together, by the same person? Did they have supporting cast in common? Were they broadcast side-by-side? If yes to these very simple questions, it counts.

And they were not drawn out arbitrarily; historically, these are the constant traits of a multi-partner in BBC Wales Doctor Who and related spin-offs. Again, really really simple stuff. I could even make a table with Xs for rules passed, so readers can see why certain combinations pass and others don't.

I just really, really don't want this to continue to be open territory, decided every time on a whim. I don't want us to need to have more long discussions. We are never going to find any other system which allows us to classify multi-parters without allowing for copious amounts of blurry subjectivity. Yes, it requires three qualifications for each story to pass, but there is no arguing to be had. My suggested rules deal with hard data, and nothing more.

To respond to some quotes above:
 * Even though it wouldn't fit with the rules, I think...

And this is why we need clear rules. Solid, no-exception guidelines to follow.
 * I would add a rule that would state that if episodes are narratively linked, they are a multi-parter. This would make Utopia, Drums, Time Lords, Time Crash, and Damned a multi-parter.

Again, precisely what we're trying to avoid. Narrative should play no role in such a decision, because there is nothing objective to go by. No yes or no; only opinions and grey areas. We can't consider episodes aired in totally separate runs part of the same one story just because some editors feel they're continuous, so they must be. Pretty much all of series 5 is continuous; we've been over this.
 * ...the preceding 275 posts were devoted to defining what it means to be narratively linked...

Again, something I feel we cannot hope to define
 * However, it feels to me that this step towards simplification is worth 1) fleshing out as a list of all two-parters under it...

I made such a list the last time, and quoted it above. That list remains unchanged, except for the removal of Heaven Sent/Hell Bent, which have no linking character between them.

And really, we were only fooled into wanting those to be together because of the naming. Production-wise, they have little in common except for a shared director, but the first three episodes of Class share a director, and are pretty continuous, yet are three separate stories.