User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-24894325-20161208235412

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-24894325-20161208235412 Pluto2 wrote: I would add a rule that would state that if episodes are narratively linked... With all due respect, the preceding 275 posts were devoted to defining what it means to be narratively linked, or, to be more precise, to be "sufficiently narratively linked" because otherwise, we would have to consider most of Moffat's era one gigantic multi-parter.

Since it's been a long time, I repeat my position. I understand the reasoning behind the simplified proposal of Bwburke94 and Shambala108: if we cannot agree on what "narratively linked" means, let's not use it at all and go by the name (nominalistic proposal). And I would agree to that as the second best option.

I do, however, believe that two-parters existed in the new series, so it would be preferable to acknowledge that. The question is whether SOTO's simplified suggestion of four unadjusted rules is being considered by the proponents of nominalistic approach. If not, there would be little point discussing whether the writer should be the same or not. However, it feels to me that this step towards simplification is worth 1) fleshing out as a list of all two-parters under it and 2) re-evaluation by those who opposed the more involved rules.