User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-5918438-20160108095846

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-5918438-20160108095846 DWM did, not Russell T Davies. Also, the issue of DWM in question was published only a month or so before Planet of the Dead aired, likely quite a bit of time after it started filming as well.

I have taken the liberty of making an updated list of stories, with the new numbering. You can find it at User:SOTO/Doctor Who new count.

So it turns out Planet of the Dead was in fact story 201; 202 if we want to count Shada in the run.

Quoted above: CzechOut wrote:

Shada definitely is 109. Numbering is a production thing, and from a production standpoint, Shada exists. It has a production code which remains honored to this day, so therefore it is a "real" story in the order. That's why our "made next/made prev" navigation honors Shada. If this bothers people, well, it bothers people. So DWM has a different count to us. So what. Our system is precise and consistent. Besides, I cannot imagine any system which allows for Utopia and then does not also reasonably allow for Turn Left. And then a whole list of stories I've brought up over and over again in this thread. It would be a never-ending cycle.

The only alternative to a clear set of rules, starting with this discussion, is the abolishment (abolition?) of numbering altogether, except perhaps on an article like Numbering of Doctor Who episodes, where the matter can be discussed from all articles.

I do not think this is necessary, though. I do think we've finally found a set of precise and follow-able rules which account for all known and undisputed two-parters. All the disputed multi-parters don't pass. Funny that.

Let me list (not extensively) some things that are not sources, or at least not sufficient sources, for multiple episodes to constitute a multi-parter:
 * 1) A linked narrative
 * 2) A cliffhanger / end of one episode leading into the next
 * 3) The presence of a guest character in common when other rules (like director, production blocks, etc) are not also respected
 * 4) Any words displayed at the end of the broadcast of an episode. This includes "To Be Continued", "The Doctor Will Return", etc. We have shown above that if these necessarily meant a multi-parter, far too many episodes would be linked; quite a few of which, in fact, are not truly multi-parters.
 * 5) DWM polls or lists
 * 6) Statements by anyone at all, really, that isn't the head writer/executive producer of the series, or in some cases, the BBC.

Now if RTD had stated Utopia was part of a three-parter, but for some reason decided to have it directed by somebody else to the rest of the story, then we'd have a discussion. Since his only statements are to the contrary, though, Utopia is not really up for debate. It fails our rules. Discussion to expand those rules may only occur if an official statement by an executive producer explicitly labels something as a multi-parter when our current rules do not.

The only viable alternative to the three rules of the story presented at this point, by the way, is doing away with all of this, simply considering any BBC Wales episode with an individual name to be a story in its own right, and no longer featuring a story number in infoboxes and TV story lists. There have been objections to this option, above.