Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-1317169-20121202170842/@comment-4028641-20130122125819

Tangerineduel wrote: OttselSpy25 wrote: Tangerineduel wrote: Maybe it's something we shouldn't have, or make a rule that Continuity can only reflect on the past and not on the future (which I know as I write it would be hard to enforce).

That's the worst idea I have ever heard. No offence to you, just this idea.

Once more, this would be removing things that should be there for no reason other than "it's hard to look over pages"

I'm kinda leaning more towards Czech's points right now. Looking at most Hartnell pages (Which are not very well kept, btw) I agree that at least 98.99% of references could be put into continuity sections.

That is a huge assumption. Practically everything in the Hartnell era can go in Continuity because practically everything from the Hartnell era has been linked to in a later work.

It doesn't work so well when you look at later works.

Fair enough.

Still, I can see Czech's points here.