User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20150828141837/@comment-5918438-20151023150635

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-4028641-20150828141837/@comment-5918438-20151023150635 I think the very fact that we can debate whether different stories are multi-Doctor is proof that the concept is not actually defined, and thus the category is in clear violation of T:CAT NAME. As Czech said above, it'd be fine to have a page on the concept, detailing the different ways that the term can be interpreted, and examples of them—

But to have a category purporting to be all "multi-Doctor" stories when such a concept is not really defined, and then say "well, maybe not Listen or Time Slip, and no regeneration stories, but let's squeeze Deep Breath in there. . .This is not a category we should have if we have to debate on every story, and come to no conclusion at all in the end. "Multi-Doctor" has no clear definition and seems just as subjective as category:Sad Doctor Who television stories. Where did people get this idea that Doctors have to meet in a story for it to be multi-Doctor, anyway? Why aren't regeneration stories where two Doctors appear multi-Doctor? It does not seem like we have any unified rule, and creating one to fit what we want to be multi-Doctor is simply not the way to go, and would require constant monitoring too. I say, from the point of view of policy, off with its head!