User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-5918438-20160108013920

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-5918438-20160108013920 Ah, here it is.

I don't think that would be wise, but I'll think it through further. Also, if you're hesitant to disqualify Utopia because he "has never stated it is not", when it comes down to it, that's a personal opinion. Considering Utopia to be part one of three — even if it's general consensus among Doctor Who fans and DWM staff — when would simply be ludicrous gymnastics on our part.
 * 1) RTD does not consider it as such, as we've pointed out
 * 2) It very clearly fails our three rules, and if we're going to be making exceptions, rules mean nothing
 * 3) If we include Utopia for some reason, then people will ask, "Well what about Turn Left? What about Boom Town? It is very, very important for me to stress that the two-parter designation is not strictly a narrative one. It's not in the hands of the fans to decide what seems like it should, and what seems like it shouldn't, be considered a two-parter. It might be academically notable to bring up, but we need to be clearer when defining it ourselves.

Please remember that we have no duty to copy and/or mimic numbering used by others. There is absolutely nothing wrong with us not having Planet of the Dead numbered as 200. It'll still be noteworthy that some sources consider it as such, but any system which considers that story 200 has been shown to be flawed.

Please, I implore everyone here and who might come by not to make this discussion "how I can make Tardis policy reflect my personal headcanon on what is and isn't a two-parter". I will expand further once I've gathered my thoughts, because it was 2 hours ago when I started writing this, and I clearly got distracted.