User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-1293767-20151122203224

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-1293767-20151122203224 How does this wiki define "consensus"?

Tangerineduel wrote: But on the other hand Turn Left doesn't, end on a 'to be continued' I mean. I understand on a narrative level that Turn Left leads into The Stolen Earth (but the same can be said for a majority of Hartnell stories), but there's nothing I can see linking it to the others (in the same way that Utopia is linked via the 'to be continued' which signals it as a continuing story).

The Thirteenth Doctor wrote: Well, it's the same events it is based around, with the stars going out and Rose returning, and trying to stop the Daleks by sending Donna back.

Tangerineduel wrote: Well perhaps with the 200 bus, but then there's the Midnight bus, wasn't there something at issue about that? Are' Those three number like that?! (I say with some puzzlement)...oh they are. Err...why have we done that? I understand the stories of The Trial of a Time Lord being numbered in that manner, (actually I think I just answered my own question), Utopia, The Sound of Drums and The Last of the Time Lords all end on to be continued don't they? Yes, but, speaking that generally you can say the whole of Series 5 is one long story because most of the stories are linked to one another by which ever arc. The distinction I was making above is that those stories that end on a 'to be continued' are signalling they're part of an on-going story, much like The Trial of a Time Lord, whilst Turn Left doesn't make that distinction. Or to put it another way, those stories that end on a "to be continued" have something definable that we can point out and classify and reference back to other examples. Turn Left on the other hand is how you interpret the narrative of the story, it sets up / mirrors upcoming events but it's more part of the arc than a linked story.

We got the "TBC policy" based on one editor stating their belief in response to someone else and the small number of posts getting archived as having no resolution. Now multiple editors have taken issue with the flaws in that belief, challenged it, and discussed it. I'm a little puzzled how policy is created with hardly any discussion but the community cannot seem to change this with ample discussion at a later time. This topic has been returned to the community's attention and discussed seven times more than the original thread and with very different results.