FANDOM


  • CzechOut
    CzechOut closed this thread because:
    The consensus is that LKH and AGMGTW will be regarded as separate stories. Furthermore, we shall attempt to come up with rules to avoid 3 year debates on whether a single variable in an infobox shall be changed. See also Thread:183627.
    21:26, May 30, 2017

    Currently, TV: Let's Kill Hitler is listed as part of a two-part story alongside TV: A Good Man Goes to War. However, TV: Flatline has been widely acknowledged as the 250th Doctor Who story by many sources, including the Radio Times; our numbering places it 249th.

      Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Do your sources count Shada? Some do; this wiki doesn't. So that might be the cause of the discrepancy, not the two parter you mention.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Shada may be the reason, but that would also push Planet of the Dead to 201 and the Radio Times counts that as 200.

      Question: Why does the Radio Times count Let's Kill Hitler as a separate story?
      Conjecture: Let's Kill Hitler aired months after A Good Man Goes to War, which is unprecedented among two-part stories.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • There is already an inconsistency in numbering between list of Doctor Who television stories and some episode articles, such as The Power of Three and Flatline.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Occasionally an editor will change a story number without referring to the list of Doctor Who television stories, and it doesn't always get caught and corrected.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • List of Doctor Who television stories numbers AGMGTW/LKH as two stories, but also lists them as Part 1/Part 2 similar to other two-parters with separate titles. We may need to create a page such as Tardis:Story numbering to clarify what is and isn't a two-parter.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The question of story numbering comes up every so often, usually every time DWM or the Radio Times announces something like the Xth story.

      There are plenty of inconsistencies because of how we count/define stories. By pages we have, by story numbers given, by production codes. They all leave you with different numbers of stories.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I see no reason to think of "Good Man" and "Hitler" as a two-parter. Other two-parters are clearly one story cut in half, with the same setting, the same guest characters, the same villains, the same tone. Think "Impossible Planet"/"Satan Pit", "Human Nature"/"Family of Blood" or "Rebel Flesh"/"Almost People".

      By contrast, "Good Man" and "Hitler" are two completely separate stories with different settings, different guest characters etc, and only the loosest connection via the question of "Who is River?" They are not a two-parter.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • So are we reviving this discussion, or should we just close this?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Only admins can close a discussion.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • This may be a little late, but I agree that the two are separate. A Good Man Goes to War's story effectively finished by the end of the episode, while Let's Kill Hitler was its own separate story.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I've gotta agree; I think they're two separate stories. Calling them one two-parter would be akin to saying The End of Time and The Eleventh Hour are together a three-parter, or Parting of the Ways and The Christmas Invasion are one story. Actually, you have even less of a case with this one, because the plot of one doesn't even continue in the other.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I believe that for the new series unless a story actually contains the in-titles titling of "Part 1 / 2" as occurred with The End of Time then all should be treated as separate stories.

      As all the others are presented with separate titles and are covered separately.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • AGMGTW and LKH are not a two-parter.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Disagree. I consider Good Man and Kill Hitler to a be "loose" two-parter, as opposed to a "regular" two-parter. Reason: The stories are loosely connected via the thematic element of Amy's daughter = River. However, after considering the other opinions voiced above, I do wonder: why do we currently consider Good Man and Kill Hitler a two-parter? In other words, what is our original source for them being a two-parter? Radio Times? Moffat?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Using words like "loose" and "regular" to describe two parters does not help this discussion. What you're describing is a story arc.

      I agree in part, that we need sources in order to describe stories as a two parter, but maintain my above point that unless a story is actually titled Part 1/2 etc it should have its own page.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Hardly. My point is that if Moffat said that Good Man and Kill Hitler are a two-part story, then they are a two-part story, regardless of anyone else thinks or how loosely they are connected.

      And I'm assuming we listed Good Man and Kill Hitler as a two-part story because Moffat or an authoritative source described them as such.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I wouldn't assume that. Unless we can find such an authoritative source and cite it, I do not believe they should be listed as a two-parter.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • From the very beginning, we have assumed Good Man and Kill Hitler are a two-parter. Check the page's history if you don't believe me. Since the page's creation Kill Hitler has been listed as story 218b. Why? What was that first source? Unless we can find an authoritative source and cite it, I do not believe we should go against four years of history and break the stories apart just because "you don't think they should go together".

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Yes, assumed, when we should be basing it on facts. If there is credible evidence that says they are a two-parter, then we need a citation for it, not your assumption.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • So the question is: what is our citation for this being a two-parter? I don't see one anywhere on the wiki.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Mewiet wrote: Yes, assumed, when we should be basing it on facts. If there is credible evidence that says they are a two-parter, then we need a citation for it, not your assumption.

      My assumption? How about this wiki's assumption? I'm following the wiki's lead here, mind you.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Still, BC, we do need some citation. Can someone dig through old DWM issues to try and find some reference to the episode's number or something? As I recall it, everyone on the wikia presumed that the new episode would be a two-parter when before the second half of the series aired, and that just stuck around after it did air.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Does A Good Man have a "to be continued" at the end? And do our other two parters (Aliens of London & World War Three for example) have a "to be continued"?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • The first episode of all two-parters from Series 2 to Series 4 (including Utopia) had "to be continued" at the start of the end credits.

      Series 5 and 6, with the sole exception of The Pandorica Opens, did not have "to be continued", so we cannot use this to determine whether A Good Man Goes to War is part of a two-parter.

      Series 8 had only one two-parter, which used "to be continued", muddling this even further.

      It's also relevant to note that Turn Left did not have "to be continued", unambiguously placing it as standalone given the credits of the RTD/Tennant era if we use "to be continued" as proof.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote: The first episode of all two-parters from Series 2 to Series 4 (including Utopia) had "to be continued" at the start of the end credits.

      Series 5 and 6, with the sole exception of The Pandorica Opens, did not have "to be continued", so we cannot use this to determine whether A Good Man Goes to War is part of a two-parter.

      Series 8 had only one two-parter, which used "to be continued", muddling this even further.

      It's also relevant to note that Turn Left did not have "to be continued", unambiguously placing it as standalone given the credits of the RTD/Tennant era if we use "to be continued" as proof.

      The Name of the Doctor also has a "to be continued" at the end, though I have not seen that we count it and The Day of the Doctor as a two-parter.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Mewiet wrote:

      Bwburke94 wrote: The first episode of all two-parters from Series 2 to Series 4 (including Utopia) had "to be continued" at the start of the end credits.

      Series 5 and 6, with the sole exception of The Pandorica Opens, did not have "to be continued", so we cannot use this to determine whether A Good Man Goes to War is part of a two-parter.

      Series 8 had only one two-parter, which used "to be continued", muddling this even further.

      It's also relevant to note that Turn Left did not have "to be continued", unambiguously placing it as standalone given the credits of the RTD/Tennant era if we use "to be continued" as proof.

      The Name of the Doctor also has a "to be continued" at the end, though I have not seen that we count it and The Day of the Doctor as a two-parter.

      Every BBC Wales series finale, including AGMGTW but excluding Part 2 of The End of Time, has "The Doctor Will Return on [date]" or a variant thereof - it's worth noting, however, that AGMGTW was the only such message advertising a regular episode rather than a Christmas or anniversary special.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote:

      Mewiet wrote:

      The Name of the Doctor also has a "to be continued" at the end, though I have not seen that we count it and The Day of the Doctor as a two-parter.

      Every BBC Wales series finale, including AGMGTW but excluding Part 2 of The End of Time, has "The Doctor Will Return on [date]" or a variant thereof - it's worth noting, however, that AGMGTW was the only such message advertising a regular episode rather than a Christmas or anniversary special.

      I'm not talking about Name having a generic return card, I'm talking about specifically a "to be continued" card. File:The Name of the Doctor TBC.JPG It is the only series finale to end with a TBC (and with the exception of TEOT:P1, where the title itself clearly designates it as the first part of a two-parter, none of the specials ever had a TBC card either).

      As for the other finales, no, not all of them have return cards. Doomsday, The Big Bang, and Death in Heaven don't have them.

      Series (and mid-series) finales
      The Parting of the Ways: "Doctor Who will return in The Christmas Invasion"

      No return card for Doomsday.

      Last of the Time Lords: "Doctor Who will return at Christmas in Voyage of the Damned"

      Journey's End: "Coming Christmas 2008 the Return of the Cybermen"

      No return card for The Big Bang.

      (A Good Man Goes to War: "The Doctor will be back in Let's Kill Hitler Autumn 2011")

      The Wedding of River Song: "Doctor Who will return Christmas 2011"

      (No return card for The Angels Take Manhattan.)

      The Name of the Doctor: "To Be Continued November 23, 2013"

      No return card for Death in Heaven.

      Specials
      The Christmas Invasion: "Doctor Who Coming Soon..."

      The Runaway Bride: "Doctor Who Coming Soon..."

      Voyage of the Damned: "Coming Soon..."

      The Next Doctor: "Doctor Who will return in Planet of the Dead"

      Planet of the Dead: "Later this year The Waters of Mars"

      The Waters of Mars: "Doctor Who Coming Soon the biggest adventure yet The End of Time"

      The End of Time: Part 1: "To Be Continued..."

      No return card for The End of Time: Part 2.

      A Christmas Carol: "Coming Soon"

      No return card for The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe.

      No return card for The Snowmen.

      No return card for The Day of the Doctor.

      No return card for The Time of the Doctor.

      Last Christmas: "The Doctor and Clara will return next year in The Magician's Apprentice"

      There seems to be no rhyme or reason for applying them. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • As for the original Series 6 (Doctor Who) page:

      • This edit by User:MichaelDowney (October 2010) added the Pt.1/Pt.2 labels, but none of the provided sources stated that the two episodes are a two-parter.
      • This edit by User:GhastlyChaos (February 2011) added "Conclusion" to the episode 8 listing, but did not provide a source that this was a two-parter.
      • At no point during the period of time in which Series 6 actually aired was a source provided that stated this was a two-parter.

      I'm willing to say we jumped the gun here. There is no source, so I don't see how we can claim this is a two-parter, especially given that the Radio Times and similar sources count it as two stories.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Seems reasonable. However, are there any DWM issues someone could access which could help the matter one way or another?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I can get any DWM issue to look through, but I have no idea where to start. Any suggestions for issues that would have the answers?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • DWM 435, DWM 436, DWM 437, DWM 438, DWM 439, and DWMSE 30 all link to AGMGTW or LKH or both, so that's a good starting point.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Early on, DWM 30 references episode 8 of the 2011 season (then unnamed I guess) as the conclusion of the mid-series cliffhanger. Despite this, it does not go as far as to say that the pair are a two parter -- while it lists episodes 1 & 2 and 4 & 5 together, 8 is not listed with 7.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • DWM 38, dedicated to the episode, does not reference it being the second part of a two part story but instead considers it the first episode in the second part of the series. It also states that the episode concludes the cliffhanger from the previous episode, which seems to be the main confusion in my eyes. This pretty much seems to be that a reader of the magazine likely misinterpreted that statement and added it to the pages. But by the logic qualifying these stories as one, The Parting of the Ways and The Christmas Invasion are also a two parter.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Mewiet wrote: There seems to be no rhyme or reason for applying [TBCs]. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

      There's also a TBC on The Almost People, which I certainly don't count as part of a two-parter (or even more outrageously a three or four-parter considering TAP is already the second half of The Rebel Flesh) with A Good Man Goes to War and have never seen anyone else count them that way either.

      So at this point I'm still not seeing anything to prove AGMGTW and LKH are a two-parter and don't believe they should be listed as such.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I agree that AGMGTW and LKH should not be considered a two-parter, because there is no basis for that.

      Mightn't it be more sensible, though, to simply do the count based on the number of stories with separate titles? Even two-parters are composed of two individual stories. For classic Who, of course, a serial was collectively one story, and each episode was simply a part of that. The only example of one story spread out across two episodes in modern Who, though, by a certain logic, is The End of Time, which is explicitly one entity in two parts. If considering two-parters one story means us squabbling over what is a continuous story and what is a true two-parter, maybe that's not a good way of going about things. If the show runner decided in series 15 to make every episode continue on to the next directly, we would not be counting that entire series as one story, would we?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • SOTO wrote: Mightn't it be more sensible, though, to simply do the count based on the number of stories with separate titles? Even two-parters are composed of two individual stories. For classic Who, of course, a serial was collectively one story, and each episode was simply a part of that. The only example of one story spread out across two episodes in modern Who, though, by a certain logic, is The End of Time, which is explicitly one entity in two parts. If considering two-parters one story means us squabbling over what is a continuous story and what is a true two-parter, maybe that's not a good way of going about things. If the show runner decided in series 15 to make every episode continue on to the next directly, we would not be counting that entire series as one story, would we?

      The problem with that is the First Doctor's era, which used separate episode titles for a good period of time. We don't count An Unearthly Child as four stories, do we?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I should have specified. I meant separate titles as a rule for NuWho. Obviously within the classic seasons, even back when episode titles existed, the serial was the story unit, and episodes made up that unit. From the RTD era on, the episode is the unit, and considered an individual story in its own right. With TEOT, the episode unit is actually split up into two. We would not make separate articles for each part and link to them as separate episodes. We do, however, consider Utopia, The Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords separately.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • But however one considers "Utopia" and "Turn Left," how can it really be sensibly argued that at least "The Sound Of Drums"/"Last Of The Time Lords" and "The Stolen Earth"/"Journey's End" aren't single multi-part stories?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • It's been established since 2010 that a "to be continued" on BBC Wales DW does indeed automatically make it a two-parter as far as we're concerned. So LKH and AGMGTW are a two-parter. Also, as Tangerineduel has long pointed out, DWM make mistakes. We are definitely not in lockstep with them; else, K9 would be K-9, despite the clear wishes of the guy who owns K9.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Oh and we don't give a rat's ass about the Radio Times, either — else we'd probably give higher credence to their origin story about the Daleks than we do Genesis of the Daleks and, by extension, The Witch's Familiar.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: It's been established since 2010 that a "to be continued" on BBC Wales DW does indeed automatically make it a two-parter as far as we're concerned. So LKH and AGMGTW are a two-parter. Also, as Tangerineduel has long pointed out, DWM make mistakes. We are definitely not in lockstep with them; else, K9 would be K-9, despite the clear wishes of the guy who owns K9.

      Problem is, A Good Man Goes to War wasn't a "to be continued", it was a "the Doctor will return".

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote:

      CzechOut wrote: It's been established since 2010 that a "to be continued" on BBC Wales DW does indeed automatically make it a two-parter as far as we're concerned. So LKH and AGMGTW are a two-parter. Also, as Tangerineduel has long pointed out, DWM make mistakes. We are definitely not in lockstep with them; else, K9 would be K-9, despite the clear wishes of the guy who owns K9.

      Problem is, A Good Man Goes to War wasn't a "to be continued", it was a "the Doctor will return".

      So A Good Man Goes to War is the end of a three-parter due to The Almost People's "to be continued," but not a four-parter as it does not have a "to be continued" linking it to LKH. But if "the Doctor will return" and other variations count as TBCs, we'll have a lot more revisions to make than we thought.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Where is this "established policy" that CzechOut cites?

      And if it's established, why aren't "The Almost People"/"The Name of the Doctor"/etc. following the established rules?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I've never heard of that before, and it does make me raise an eye brow. I thought that this discussion alone proved that adding 'to be continued' qualified no story to be anything consistently.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I'm looking for it right now. I would like to know if it states "the Doctor will return"/"Doctor Who will return"/etc are to be counted the same as "to be continued." I don't think they should be. Those generally only occur when there's a long wait about to take place like at the end of a season/mid-season/Christmas special. We would be pairing all kinds of strange combinations like The Next Doctor and Planet of the Dead if that's the policy.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Is it a written down policy or just something that "we" agreed on in a forum?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: Is it a written down policy or just something that "we" agreed on in a forum?

      The 2006-2012 Panopticon Archives are here if you want to check through them as well. Since we know we're looking for something from 2010, that helps narrow things down quite a bit.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I skimmed the archives but did not find anything. May have overlooked it if the title had nothing to do with "To be continued" or similar.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Found it. Oddly enough, that debate was started by someone who noticed a DWM/Radio Times numbering discrepancy, but in the other direction from this thread.

      The big problem I see here is that a strict "TBC = two-parter" policy doesn't make sense with "The Almost People" and "The Name of the Doctor" using TBC for arc cliffhangers rather than story cliffhangers. Basically nothing connects "The Almost People" to "A Good Man Goes to War" other than the arc of Amy's pregnancy.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I would say that few people would argue that Name and Day are a part of a two-parter. I know that we apparently have a precedent here, but keep in mind that 2010 was a time when the site debated 'canon' and when the Eleventh Doctor was being introduced. I feel no issue with changing policies of a debate before my time.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote: Found it. Oddly enough, that debate was started by someone who noticed a DWM/Radio Times numbering discrepancy, but in the other direction from this thread.

      Are you sure that's the right one? It's labeled under "Discussions without clear resolution" which doesn't really sound like a definitive policy.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Mewiet wrote:

      Bwburke94 wrote: Found it. Oddly enough, that debate was started by someone who noticed a DWM/Radio Times numbering discrepancy, but in the other direction from this thread.

      Are you sure that's the right one? It's labeled under "Discussions without clear resolution" which doesn't really sound like a definitive policy.

      It's the closest we have to a policy.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • CzechOut wrote: It's been established since 2010 that a "to be continued" on BBC Wales DW does indeed automatically make it a two-parter as far as we're concerned.

      Uh, guys... We're gonna look like idiots for this, but Czech linked to the discussion in question in his post

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: I would say that few people would argue that Name and Day are a part of a two-parter. I know that we apparently have a precedent here, but keep in mind that 2010 was a time when the site debated 'canon' and when the Eleventh Doctor was being introduced. I feel no issue with changing policies of a debate before my time.

      I'm against the idea of AGMGTW or the 50th being anything other than a standalone, because the only thing linking them is a vaguely defined "to be continued" in the previous episode.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote:

      CzechOut wrote: It's been established since 2010 that a "to be continued" on BBC Wales DW does indeed automatically make it a two-parter as far as we're concerned.

      Uh, guys... We're gonna look like idiots for this, but Czech linked to the discussion in question in his post

      So it is the right "policy" then, which isn't actually a policy?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I don't know if he said it was a policy... I think he just said that we agreed on it... Which we didn't?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: Uh, guys... We're gonna look like idiots for this, but Czech linked to the discussion in question in his post

      Collective facepalms everyone. It's times like these I wish the links in here would show up with an underline or different color. I'm so used to that on a lot of sites I forget to check on sites that don't do that.

      But I guess that discussion answers my question: this only briefly discusses "to be continued" and not "the Doctor will return"/variations. Since AGMGTW does not end with a TBC, that still leaves the original question posed in this thread unanswered. I'm also surprised that we would use an unresolved discussion between two people over six posts (three if you consider that that "I just answered my own question), Utopia, The Sound of Drums and The Last of the Time Lords all end on to be continued don't they?" doesn't even come up until post #4) as a precedent for something like this.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: I don't know if he said it was a policy... I think he just said that we agreed on it... Which we didn't?

      He said it was established, which it appears to not be.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Mewiet wrote:

      OttselSpy25 wrote: Uh, guys... We're gonna look like idiots for this, but Czech linked to the discussion in question in his post

      Collective facepalms everyone. It's times like these I wish the links in here would show up with an underline or different color. I'm so used to that on a lot of sites I forget to check on sites that don't do that.

      But I guess that discussion answers my question: this only briefly discusses "to be continued" and not "the Doctor will return"/variations. Since AGMGTW does not end with a TBC, that still leaves the original question posed in this thread unanswered. I'm also surprised that we would use an unresolved discussion between two people over six posts (three if you consider that that "I just answered my own question), Utopia, The Sound of Drums and The Last of the Time Lords all end on to be continued don't they?" doesn't even come up until post #4) as a precedent for something like this.

      LOTTL is actually a "the Doctor will return" card, which doesn't appear to count.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • So, what I can tell so far is...

      1) If the discussion did set the precedent, it was for 'To Be Continued' and not for 'The Doctor will return in...'

      2) If the discussion did set the precedent, it is still open for change and discussion as it has not been talked about for five years

      3) The discussion did not any precedents.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • OttselSpy25 wrote: So, what I can tell so far is...

      1) If the discussion did set the precedent, it was for 'To Be Continued' and not for 'The Doctor will return in...'

      2) If the discussion did set the precedent, it is still open for change and discussion as it has not been talked about for five years

      3) The discussion did not any precedents.

      That's the big one here. The discussion did not set any precedents. It was an officially unresolved discussion based on a flawed standpoint, as the original discrepancy was probably the result of Shada or something.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote:

      OttselSpy25 wrote: 3) The discussion did not any precedents.

      That's the big one here. The discussion did not set any precedents. It was an officially unresolved discussion

      So if we're interested in establishing new policy regarding the TBCs and "the Doctor will return"/variations issues, which I think the posts in this thread indicate are needed, do we need to create a brand new Panopticon thread for it or can we change the title of this one since the topics are related and so much discussion has taken place here already?

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Rename the title.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Please do not change the title. The majority of this discussion is about AGMGTW and LKH, and really they're the only two things at issue. If you want to change policy, you need a new thread. You can't hijack this one after it's been open for a month.

      What's more, the central push to change this thread into a policy-changing thread is built on a false foundation. It's been alleged that somehow Forum:Numbering stories (Turn Left and Planet of the Dead problems) didn't write policy simply because it was put into Category:Discussions without clear resolution.

      A discussion can produce some agreement, even if it doesn't resolve everything. If the discussion had failed to achieve any agreement, it would have been placed in Category:Failed proposals.

      The topic of that discussion was page-specific in that it named Turn Left as relevant to Planet of the Dead. Essentially, it was asserting that if POTD was number 200, then Turn Left must therefore be part of Journey's End and The Stolen Earth. This question was never definitively resolved by the thread because there are other ways to get to 200. As we would later discuss and absolutely resolve in Forum:Story Numbering, Shada "counts" for numbering, something that had not been resolved at the time of the earlier discussion. Taken together, the two discussions actually do achieve resolution. It's very important when reading forum archives to understand relative time of discussions.

      What was not controversial at the time was this notion that a "to be continued" message indicated a multi-part story. That notion is never seriously rebutted in the thread, so it is deemed to have been agreed to. After all, that thread was open for 1.5 years — plenty of time for additional, contradictory discussion to have occurred. And decisions are made by those who participated, so long as a reasonable period of time is allowed for discussion.

      As for what "we agreed to" means, it's a truism of this, and really any other long-lived community, that you are bound by existing policy, even if you personally didn't vote on that policy. You can try to change the policy, of course, but you can't just ignore it until it's been changed.

      So, here's where we are in terms of the history of discussion on this matter:

      • Prior to 2005, the counting unit is the serial, not the episode, excepting the TVM and the so-called "one-part serials" of The Five Doctors and Mission to the Unknown.
      • Shada counts. (But it didn't really count here at Tardis until 2012, so you will still find some vestiges of counting where it appears not to count. These are wrong and should be changed, if encountered. It is, in fact, wrong that the List of Doctor Who television stories skips Shada, which is the true story 109.)
      • New series stories that end with "to be continued" are multi-part stories.

      So, as far as this thread is concerned, we are left with only one question: is "the Doctor will return" truly, materially different than "to be continued"? Personally, I think you'd be splitting truly fine semantic hairs to think so. After all, "to be continued" on Doctor Who necessarily means that "the Doctor will return".

      And remember another truism of proposals on wikis. If it's agreed to, someone has to make the change. This isn't something that can be done by bot. So if you argue in favour of splitting these two episodes, please think realistically about how much time you personally can commit to making the change.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Where exactly was it established that "to be continued" unambiguously meant it was joined to the next episode? As has been repeatedly pointed out, the 2010 thread is labelled as not having a clear resolution.

      Also, counting "the Doctor will return" as a clear indication of a two-parter would result in various series finales and Christmas specials being joined to the preceding and/or following episodes, with "Utopia" through "Voyage of the Damned" being a four-parter, "The Stolen Earth" through "The End of Time" being a seven-parter, and "The Rebel Flesh" through "Let's Kill Hitler" being a four-parter.

      So here's my personal opinion: anything that does not place "A Good Man Goes to War" as standalone is not an option. There is absolutely no source within production that states AGMGTW is anything other than standalone, and the only way to join it to another episode is to interpret an unresolved policy thread from 2010 in a manner it was never intended to be interpreted.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • Bwburke94 wrote: Also, counting "the Doctor will return" as a clear indication of a two-parter would result in various series finales and Christmas specials being joined to the preceding and/or following episodes, with "Utopia" through "Voyage of the Damned" being a four-parter, "The Stolen Earth" through "The End of Time" being a seven-parter, and "The Rebel Flesh" through "Let's Kill Hitler" being a four-parter.

      So here's my personal opinion: anything that does not place "A Good Man Goes to War" as standalone is not an option. There is absolutely no source within production that states AGMGTW is anything other than standalone, and the only way to join it to another episode is to interpret an unresolved policy thread from 2010 in a manner it was never intended to be interpreted.

      I absolutely agree with you and raised the same point about the havoc that would cause by making it a precedent in Thread:183627, which I created specifically to address the policy issues concerning the TBC and return cards.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • I'm shocked that we can't debate the issue here because it was made policy by another discussion just like this one where two people agreed on it and it was never fully completed. But if we have to let's all hope over there I guess.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • From what I've seen here and elsewhere, there doesn't seem to be a definitive litmus test for what makes a certain episode categorically part of a two-parter. The 'To be continued/the Doctor wll return' argument seems to have played out as far as I can tell - they're used way too inconsistently to be used as the basis for policy. As for production intent, that's been ignored in the past in this regard - i.e. Utopia being counted as part 1 of 3, despite RTD's opinions and intentions.

      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.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
    • To answer Kingorokos, this thread has been open for almost three years on the subject of whether AGMGTW and LKH are two parts of the same story. So, yes, it's ridiculously time-consuming to debate these on a case-by-case basis.

      Nevertheless, I'm going to rule against my own stated position and the previous 2010 debate, and say that LKH is not a part of a two parter -- largely because my sense of the consensus here is that most participants don't believe it is.

      But at the same time, this whole debate had only one practical outcome: changing a single variable in an infobox. This is way, way, way too much debate for such a small result. We must seek a way to avoid having such debates in future. See also Thread:183627.

        Establishing interface with the TARDIS
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+