User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-188432-20170531214755

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-188432-20170531214755 I'm gonna wade back in here with another suggestion. Infoboxes should really be about non-controversial information. After two threads lasting about three years, with posts numbering in the hundreds, I think it's fair to say that story numbering is controversial.

Indeed, as SOTO pointed out to me yesterday, even lead creatives at the Doctor Who production offices can't agree. In DWM 406, during the transition between RTD and Moffat, RTD issued this, I think, instructive statement. I'm gonna quote as much of it as is relevant to our conversation for full context:


 * All the same, the filming for this very special episode is not without its contentious issues. And there's a serious matter with which we must engage, so I must now use this page to discuss the vital and difficult arguments raging. Namely...


 * Is this the 200th Doctor Who story or not? Oh, it's a minefield. To be honest, I'm not very good with programme numbers, I don't really follow them -- in fact, the whole industry pays them little attention; the aforementiuoned [Coronation] Street recently passed its 7000th episode, with barely a blip. And am I the only one who thinks 200 seems a bit small? 200 stories? In 46 years? Is that all? I demand a recount, did they skip the 70s?


 * The number was first brought ot my attention by Benjamin Cook of this very magazine. Now, he loves his numbers! He can rattle 'em off! A number fiend. But if I've got this right, you reach a total of 200 by following certain rules -- I think The Trial of a Time Lord (1986) has to be counted as one story, the unifinished Shada (1980) discounted, and Utopia, The Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords (2007) have to be considered as one story, not two. I agree with bits of that. Sort of. But I'm uneasy!  I'm not sure about Trial, it feels like four stories to me!  And I certainly feel the Series Three climax was two stories, no matter what the DWM season poll says. I'm sorry! I just do! I could rattle off the reasons, but we're in to the mystical land of canon here, where the baseline of argument simply comes down to "because I think so!"


 * And that's my point. There is no offficial BBC policy on this. There never will be. The fact that I'm sitting here in my Excecutive Producer's robes of ermine and nylon means nothing -- my opinion has no more weight than yours. I know that Gareth Roberts likes the 200 designation, because he's put a reference into the story, which is lovely. Or maybe he's like me -- maybe he just thought it sounds nice! Cos I'll do anything for a hook -- the other day, I sent an email to our Publicity team, telling them that 4.15 is Story 200, cos frankly, if it helps us get an article or two in the week of transmission, then that's a job well done.  But believe me, even if the BBC announcer on the day prefixes Planet of the Dead with, "And now for the 200th Doctor Who adventure..." that doesn't make it official. It's just because I sent a memo, with which I'm not certain I agree. Who knows, Steven Moffat might come in and decree that The Underwater Menace should be struck from the record, and the whole numbering argument will start again. Go on, Steven, do it!  Nothing in the world can stop you now!


 * It's an argument that will never end. No one can ever claim an absolute victory, or an absolute defeat. Only their own opinion. And isn't that brilliant? THat's fandom, that is, and it's lovely. We're all claiming ownership; we'll all never win. And that's one of those tiny, wonderful things that will keep Doctor Who alive forever.


 * And the numbers keep on going. That's the best thing of all! New numbers, new episodes, stretching all the way into 2010 and beyong. May the numbers never end. I've just written the 18th episode of the never-ending Series Four, which is my 31st Doctor Who episode, and my 25th story (or 26th, depending on the Utopia controversy). Unless ... No, wait a minute, hold on!  Maybe the ones I've co-written with Phil Ford and Gareth Roberts only count as half ... Oh, this could run and run...


 * -- RTD, 2009

On the basis of this fulsome admission from RTD that there is no answer to the question posed by this thread, why don't we stop trying? What do you guys think about simply removing the variable from the infobox and having no story number display at all?