Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-27501528-20160105151529

Mewiet wrote: KingOrokos wrote: When it comes down to it, the only way to establish a definitive stance on ambiguous stories like AGMGTW/LKH might be to discuss them on a case by case basis. I'm fairly certain that the first story to be similarly uncertain in terms of classification since LKH is Face the Raven - that's a four year gap, so this is hardly a regular occurence. It wouldn't be ridiculously time-consuming to have problems like this solved by group debate, rather than with a standard policy of classification, would it? Posting this in two seperate threads since I'm not sure which one is 'correct' for this discussion.

This thread was spun off from the other because we weren't allowed to continue talking about the additional problems that arose in the initial thread over there. But as you can see, they're tied into one another. According to posts up-thread, currently a TBC card automatically means we have to consider the following episode a continuation of the episode with the TBC. But AGMGTW has no TBC card, so it is not a two-parter with LKH under current policy. Although under the same policy it is considered the next part of "The Almost People" because that one does end with a TBC card. It was suggested that we should count AGMGTW as linked to LKH anyway because it has a "the Doctor will return" card and that was contested, so one of the questions this thread was created to answer is should "the Doctor will return"/related cards count the same as TBC cards. No proof has been provided that they are considered a two-parter by production. The only thing that's been held up to argue they are is "the Doctor will return" card and since that isn't covered by existing policy, we have no valid reason to count them as a two-parter. So if there's no valid reason to consider them a two-parter, should we start altering the wiki to reflect that? Or is anybody still contesting the point?