Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-24894325-20160418091326

Maybe I can, actually, contribute to the discussion in a non-trivial way without making things worse. What I believe is missing so far is a comparison of the name-based approach of TangerineDuel and Shambala108 with the production-block-based (PB-based) approach of SOTO, as well as the discussion of the reasoning behind the name-based approach (at least missing in this forum).

First of all, I believe most of the proposals discussed all stem from the same ideology: two-parter designation should be based on the production of the episodes and should not depend on contingent factors, including marketing strategies and especially things that can change any moment like new interviews contradicting earlier ones. (I'm not talking about fine print now, but the general intent.)

Name-based approach is a historical and skeptical view. It is historical because the production team consciously decided back in the 60s to start grouping episodes into one story by imposing a common title, decided this after using individual titles for a couple years. It is skeptical because one refuses to trust any potentially contingent indicators, beginning with postfactum interviews and ending with having the same writer (strictly speaking, production blocks were not yet on the table when name-based approach was brought into this forum). And one has to agree that having the same/different writer might be reasonably arbitrary, especially with future-proofing in mind. Nothing prevents the showrunner from ordering two completely different episodes to the same writer. Also it is not unheard of that two writers work on different aspects of the same story. There are books with even chapters written by one person and odd chapters by another person.

The PB-based approach, on the other hand, says that there are still unmistakable indicators in the production process: production within the same block, common director, etc. This part was discussed at length, no need to repeat it.

I think the operational considerations can be safely ignored: both suggestions are clearly actionable, and there are plenty of policies on the books that are central to the functioning of this Wiki while being not that simple and not even natural for a novice editor (if you don't believe me, just read through T:DAB again, which by the way still doesn't cover the alternative-universe clause for characters)?

So why am I in favor of PB-based approach? Two reasons:
 * 1) It has neither false positives nor false negatives: it does not announce as two-parter something no one considers as such, and it does not announce as standalone episodes those that everyone considers a two-parter. (Special effort was required to achieve this for HS/HB, more on this later.) By contrast, the name-based approach divorces multiple couples that are uniformly considered as such.
 * 2) SOTO pointed out that (at least lately) names of two-parters have actually been connected, just not in the obvious way. To me this is an indication that the current production team is using a more complex naming scheme and is not using the one from the classical series (only specials used Part 1/Part 2, and only once). In other words, applying the proposed name-based approach would mean going against the naming scheme actually used by the producers.

One final comment on HS/HB. Does it reflect poorly on the PB-based approach that these two require special treatment? I would argue that it doesn't because HS is commonly agreed to be a unique episode. Unique things warrant exceptions.