User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-27501528-20160108185601

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-27501528-20160108185601 Crikey, there's been a lot going on here. I've been thinking about this.

Ultimately, the problem is that a two-parter is a narrative construct. The difference between Utopia being a stand-alone episode, or being part 1/3, is the question "is Utopia a story, or a part of a larger story?' Same goes for every other disputed episode of Who. And of course, we can't quantify narrative structure into an objectively correct system.

So whatever classification policy we decide on isn't necessarily going to be able to reflect the narrative structure of the stories completely accurately, simply because it would be impossible to create a set of cast-iron rules for something as slippery as storytelling. So there's no point in trying to do that; instead we need to, as SOTO's saying, focus on things like production intent.

As an aside, I do think an article which tackles the numbering dispute in some capacity would be useful, either on the main wiki or as a T: page. Simply because there are going to be plenty of people who disagree with the system, whatever it is, and having a page we can link to which explains in detail why we use the system we use, and how it affects story numbering, would save a lot of time. (And might make for an interesting read, actually.)