Forum:2023 Naming Scheme Reset: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary
Tags: Undo Reverted
Line 539: Line 539:
|Season 5 (Doctor Who 1963-89)
|Season 5 (Doctor Who 1963-89)
|Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005-23)
|Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005-23)
|Season 5 (Doctor Who 2023-)
|Season 5 (Doctor Who 2023-present)
|{{PS
|{{PS
|[[User:WarDocFan12|WarDocFan12]] [[User talk:WarDocFan12|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]]
|[[User:WarDocFan12|WarDocFan12]] [[User talk:WarDocFan12|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]]
Line 552: Line 552:
|Season 5 (Doctor Who 1963-1989)
|Season 5 (Doctor Who 1963-1989)
|Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005-2023)
|Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005-2023)
|Season 5 (Doctor Who 2023-)
|Season 5 (Doctor Who 2023-present)
|{{PS
|{{PS
|[[User:WarDocFan12|WarDocFan12]] [[User talk:WarDocFan12|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]]
|[[User:WarDocFan12|WarDocFan12]] [[User talk:WarDocFan12|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]]

Revision as of 10:09, 3 April 2024

Index → The Panopticon → 2023 Naming Scheme Reset
Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
Careful . . . spoilers!

This page absolutely does contain spoilers either about the behind-the-scenes or narrative elements of stories which have not yet been published or broadcast. Please see our spoiler policy for our rules governing articles about such subjects.

Opening post

Okay, so now we’re at it again. As some of you may have noticed, Russell T Davies has taken over as showrunner once more. You even might have noticed that they’ve made a deal with Disney Branded Television for the 60th Anniversary specials and beyond to be available for streaming on Disney+.

So now we come to the, perhaps inevitable, rebranding of the naming scheme going forward, as the powers that be at the BBC has come to the conclusion that going forward with the naming scheme that has been held for the past 18 years should be no longer. The bosses at the House of Mouse went with the decision that the past 60 years of Doctor Who does not, at this time at least, merit a place on their streaming platform, and they’re beginning their era of Doctor Who partners, with the David Tennant 2023 specials going forward to the era of Fifteenth Doctor Ncuti Gatwa, branding the forthcoming batch of episodes post-specials as "Season One", then "Season Two" and so on… this naming scheme has been announced in the 1 November 2023 issue of SFX magazine by Russell T Davies himself as being the naming scheme that they at the BBC and the Doctor Who production at Bad Wolf are rolling with, therefore putting a halt to the "Series" scheme put forth since 2005 since Series 1, that itself replacing the naming scheme used by the now-"Classic Who" era of the franchise, itself being names "Seasons" since 1963 with Season 1 all the way up to 1989's Season 26.

Now here comes the juggernaut of the problem… with the naming scheme going back to being called "Seasons", how do we tackle the situation as we won’t be able to have two identical named pages on the wiki. How do you distinguish William Hartnell's Season 1 from Ncuti Gatwa's Season 1? As well as seasons/series going forward for that matter. How do we go ahead with this, practically, identical naming scheme. Do we use dab terms as with the "Series" naming scheme? Do we use words, such as I presented them above instead of numbers? Do we re-name the Classic Who naming scheme to use dabs? Or do we do nothing at all and ignore the bosses of our beloved show?

What would you propose is the best solution to do this going forward? Please discuss. Danniesen ☎ 20:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Personally, I think that I'd like to have both year and series added to the dabs for all series. For example:

etc. This would make the new series Season 1 (2024 Doctor Who). While, yes, some of these dabs are unecessary, I like the consistency and clarity. Bongo50 ☎ 20:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

[Wrote this before Bongo's comment] Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but I think we should keep things the way they are for the time being. Let's see how iPlayer, Disney+ and TV guides call it publicly and go from there. If they're really going to push for "Season One" to be used everywhere, instead of RTD just calling it that, then that means digital libraries (e.g. iTunes or on-demand cable) will likely consider it a separate show, which I'm not sure if they'd do. Also maybe a DVD release will be announced, though that's farther off. That said, it's probably worth including in the beginning of the article pages. Chubby Potato ☎ 20:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: I realize the comment on digital libraries is for the time being an oversight, as the new episodes are exclusive depending on the region- I of course was thinking about the past. Though there's still things like Apple TV or Google which connect shows from different apps. Anyways, my point is that this one magazine interview isn't enough yet and we ought to see how it's actually handled. Chubby Potato ☎ 21:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I like Bongo's suggestion, but there may be something to be gained in waiting and seeing what other outlets do. (Of course, we could just rename series 1 (2005) to series 27...) Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 20:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Series 2 (2006 Doctor Who) looks very weird to me. That seems to imply that it's Series 2 "of 2006 Doctor Who", i.e. the second season of a version of Doctor Who that started in 2006, and so onwards. I would prefer Season 1 (1963 Doctor Who) through to Season 26 (1963 Doctor Who) if we go down the years route.
Alternatively we might divide by production company. Season 1 (BBC), Series 1 (BBC Wales), Series 1 (Bad Wolf Studios)?
Yet another option would be to somehow use "Classic" and "NuWho" terminology, plus, I guess, Bad Wolf Who for 2023 onwards. It's fan terminology to be sure, but it's seen officially acknowledgement, notably in the Official Doctor Who Tumblr's watching guide. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
So I note that the lack of prior Who on Disney+ isn't because of The Mouse not deigning to include it, it's because there are prior contracts at play. Max still has the rights for another, uh, year or three, not sure exactly. And Britbox has Classic Who for a while as well. I suspect that in time this will be rectified. But this is all speculation.
I also note that this entire discussion may be pointless, as S5 was also called S1 during production, so we just need to wait and see, and I would hold off on actually making a change until we see the actual changes on the official BBC end. But discussing it to get ahead of the rush is a good idea.
My suggestion, fwiw, is Season 1 (British Broadcasting Company) / Series 1 (British Broadcasting Company), Season 1 (BBC Wales) / Series 1 (BBC Wales), Season 1 (Bad Wolf) / Series 1 (Bad Wolf). Distinguish by production company and make season and series interchangeable as redirects, perhaps defaulting to the official term that the BBC uses with an explanatory note for the nuance in the BTS. Najawin ☎ 21:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Remember that these are OOU pages so there's no BTS section. The idea of noting down nuance is still valid, though, just in a different section. Bongo50 ☎ 21:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a notes section, which is functionally the same thing. It's used for whatever minutiae people want to put on the page that they think is relevant. Najawin ☎ 21:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

To your second point Najawin… yes, they referred to S5 as S1 during production, that is true… and up until today’s SFX Magazine statement I would have agreed with you that this was just them referring to Series 14 as season 1 for the sake of making it easier, but this issue of SFX states exactly this: '"Next year, season one. Yes, we’re calling it season one." We’ll let you catch your breath - we imagine there’s a collective gasp, a clutching of anoraks, a seizing of sonics. Not series 14, not season 40 - controversial! Davies chuckles at our geekery. "What fun that is, to be controversial."' Danniesen ☎ 21:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware of the comment. I stand behind my statement that this still might be moot and we shouldn't actually make changes until anything official happens. But it's enough to actually discuss this. Najawin ☎ 22:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it would make sense to take a leaf out of iPlayer/Whoniverse’s book, which has named the classic series "Doctor Who (1963-1996)". To do this, you could shift to using subpages of "era" pages. This would eliminate the need to put "Doctor Who" and the time range within the same brackets. So maybe like this:

Or brackets could be removed entirely:

( and links to seasons could be written as "Doctor Who 1963-1989 (Season 1)" )

Then, DISPLAYTITLE could be used to change how the article name displays within the page, if needed. Plus, at this stage, it would probably make sense to make dedicated pages for the three eras, to better communicate what these three eras actually are.

Adding the full time range makes the titles longer than ideal, but ultimately it would provide more clarity than confusion, imo. TheGreatGabester ☎ 22:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the subpages, but of everything, I prefer marking the different 'segments' of the show by the years they ran then any other way presented here so far. Doctor Who (1963 - 1989), Doctor Who (2005 - 2022) and such are more immediately understandable than Doctor Who (BBC) and Doctor (BBC Wales) for example, as the latter ask the reader to have at least some knowledge about the production of the show, whereas the years clearly distinguish which segment it is without the reader needing to actually know anything about those segments. Time God Eon ☎ 18:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
We could also dab the pages by what their eras are known as… for example "Season 1 (Classic Who)", "Series 1 (New Who)" (or whatever new term fandom comes up with) and "Season One ('new term')". Danniesen ☎ 19:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Strongly against that. When possible we should use official terminology. Najawin ☎ 21:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier, "Classic Who" and "New Who" have seen some use by BBC sources. Certainly they started as fan terminology, but, well, so did "the Whoniverse", and look at us now… It's not my favourite option, but I do think it's very much on the table. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Calling what is a now-bygone era "new" is confusing. If the 2005-2022 series is "New Who", then what is Ncuti's series - "Even Newer Who"?? TheGreatGabester ☎ 22:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Isn't "Revival Who" also used? 22:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Reply to Gabester… which is why I said there might be a change in terminology.
Reply to Epsilon… yes "Revival" is also a term used. Good call there Epsilon.
Danniesen ☎ 23:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
People sometimes say "the Revival", but I've never heard the phrase "Revival Who", and I don't think it has any grounding in BBC sources. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
That's another reason to advocate for using the years instead. "New Who" can become outdated or obsolete, "Doctor Who (2005 - 2022)" will not. Time God Eon ☎ 03:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not a reason to use the years per se. That's simply a reason to avoid using fan terms or informal terms. Referring to production companies will work as well. Najawin ☎ 04:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that we should use the years; it looks better aesthetically, is what iPlayer is doing, and is the most intuitive. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 07:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I do think that could be an option. However, I don’t want us to consistently use the year it was established. For example, I don’t want to see Season 1 (1963), Season 2 (1963), Season 3 (1963) etc., Series 1 (2005), Series 2 (2005), Series 3 (2005) etc. In my opinion that would be terrible. Danniesen ☎ 19:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I doubt anyone will like this suggestion (I'm not even convinced of it myself) but we could do what some stubborn Classic Who fans have been doing since 2005 and rename Series 1 (Doctor Who) to Season 27, Series 14 (Doctor Who) to Season 40, and so on. 13:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I like it, but I don't think it's a very sensible idea. And besides, I would insist on "series" instead of "season". Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 14:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Most people aren't suggesting Season 1 (1963), it would be Season 1 (1963-1989), Series 1 (2005-2022), Season 1 (2023-). Also, I didn't quite clock that the title "Doctor Who" isn't included in the page titles, that makes things a little easier.
I dislike the production company idea. Hardcore fans are familiar with these names but many casual fans won't be, it's likely to be confusing and/or alienating. TheGreatGabester ☎ 15:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Opposed to Bongo's proposal for the simple reason that users should be able to follow standard nomenclature to link to these pages, without having to check the year for each season each time.
My preference would be Season One (Doctor Who) for Disney Who, with the hope that things will reset again before "Season Twenty-Seven (Doctor Who)]]".
I will also say that T:MAGS does rather set the precedent for naming by year based on the first release. "Series 12 (2005 Doctor Who)" makes perfect sense to me. (This is almost definitely the most sensible option.)
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 05:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Honestly not opposed to (BBC), (BBC Wales), (Bad Wolf Studios), either, with the small caveat that those studios also produced spin-offs. (Then again, the "removing the Doctor Who prefix" precedent...)
Series 3 (SJA) should also remain unaffected, since there's no need for further disambiguation there.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 05:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Having both Season 1 for Classic Who and Season 1 (Doctor Who) for Bad Wolf Who seems incredibly confusing to me. This is why I think we need some form of year disambiguation. If people would rather just use the year of the start of the "era", fine, but I think we need something. Bongo50 ☎ 06:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I must reiterate that I would be strongly opposed to naming later releases after the first release. Having "Series 8 (2005)" or "Series 11 (2005)" when those aired in 2014 and 2018 would be entirely ridiculous imo. It would be wrong. But we should also not go "Series 8 (2014)" and "Series 11 (2018)" either. Danniesen ☎ 09:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Series 1 (2005 Doctor Who), series 2 (2005 Doctor Who) etc. could work, imo. But I think Series 1 (2005-2022 Doctor Who), Series 2 (2005-2022 Doctor Who) etc. is probably our best bet. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 09:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I’m not entirely opposed to that. However, it would be a chunky title. Danniesen ☎ 09:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm optimistic that BBC and/or Disney+ will solve this problem for us by introducing official titles to disambiguate the 2005 and 2023 series. – n8 (☎) 15:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

That would be 1963 and 2023 though. :P But I get your point. Danniesen ☎ 16:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The idea is "Season One" versus "Season 1" and "Series 1". Bit of a BBC/British Broadcasting Corporation solution, I suppose, but it does the best job of continuing the current naming scheme without overhauling everything. Too much of a reach?
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 04:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
See that’s what I was thinking we could do. Danniesen ☎ 09:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
That's just confusing. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 11:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that's confusing and, in my opion, even less clear to the uninitiated than dabbing with "BBC", "BBC Wales" and "Bad Wolf". I even think that the distinction between Season 1 and Series 1 (Doctor Who) may be quite confusing for newer fans, hence why I'd like all series/season pages to be dabbed with a year and series/range, even if it's not strictly required to disambiguate. Bongo50 ☎ 13:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I too agree it's confusing, especially as I often write links like this: [[[Series 14 (Doctor Who)|series fourteen]]. 13:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
That, in my own opinion, is a bad way to write the links. Danniesen ☎ 13:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Nah, there are times when writing out the number stylistically looks better, and the BBC officially use them interchangeably, so it's a valid alternative. 13:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
@Danniesen No, it wouldn’t be that. iPlayer/the Whoniverse have already provided an official title: Doctor Who (1963-1996). Sure, you have to tweak it to get Doctor Who (1963-1989), but I’m baffled that people can’t see that Season 1 (1963-1989) is not the same thing as Season 1 (1963).
If it wasn’t already clear, that "(1963-1989)" suffix would be applied to every season page. e.g. Season 10 (1963-1989), Season 26 (1963-1989), etc. TheGreatGabester ☎ 14:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I would like Season 1 (1963 Doctor Who), Series 1 (2005 Doctor Who), and Season 1 (2023 Doctor Who). With redirects from series/season. This is because many more people know the begining year of each run than each year of each series, and it is clearer IMO. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎ 08:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Surely either year option will just cause headaches because of the fact that the upcoming S1 will be in 2024 but the Christmas special will be in 2023. That seems to have some weird nuances. (A lot of people will think of it as 2024 if we place it as 2023, or the special will be listed as from 2024 Doctor Who while being released in 2023, or if we do start + end we might have 2023 show up as each. Nothing disqualifying, just a bit weird throughout.) Najawin ☎ 19:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh yeah. And iPlayer will just say "Doctor Who", so that's no help. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 19:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Seeming as I don't think there's been any proposal to create pages like Doctor Who (1963) but rather just to use the years as dab terms for series pages, I don't see why this would cause an issue as the specials do not have a traditional series page that requires a dab. Bongo50 ☎ 21:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean currently we're considering the Christmas Special to be part of the new S1. So I think those dab terms will be a bit weird and counterintuitive to people. Najawin ☎ 22:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yea, the special is seemingy being treated as the first episode in the series as far as I can tell. Could've got the wrong end of the stick though. Worst case, these things can be changed later. 14:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
It is being treated as such, yeah. Danniesen ☎ 10:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Season 1
Well… the Christmas Special has now been added to the list on the Doctor Who website, treating said episode as Episode 0 of what they now officially call "Season 1". So it’s officially Season 1. No getting around that now. How do we proceed from here? Danniesen ☎ 09:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I have been thinking of solutions but mostly coming up short. There just isn't a satisfactory way to maintain the official numbering and have a disambiguation term that is concise. We dab by series, but there are two season ones in Doctor Who; we could further disambiguate by year, but that becomes complicated by the time you get to season two, as you'd have Season 2 (1964 Doctor Who) and Season 2 (2024 Doctor Who), and so on. Disambiguating by showrunner era is hard to maintain on many pages. I don't know what to do. I genuinely think we may have been placed in a corner we simply cannot get out of with our current system.
However, there may be a way to fudge it. Keep RTD's Season 1 at Series 14 (Doctor Who) or move it to Season 40, whichever works... and use {{retitle}} to place the text 
Season 1 (Doctor Who)
to change the way the page's title is displayed. This would not be elegant, and I expect lots of redirects would have to be created to guide users to the correct page (so pretty much everybodies suggestions for dab terms for "Season 1" could be used as redirects). This may be one of the only "neat" solutions, as it would allow us to have the page at a uncomplicated dab term whilst still appearing to be titled by its true name.
One immediate flaw in this plan though is in categories, where {{retitle}} doesn't do anything. 14:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The solution is so simple, but it probably breaks some rule. I've always thought brackets with Doctor Who inside them were untidy anyway. We named them like this:
  • Doctor Who: Season 1 (1963-64)
  • Doctor Who: Season 12 (1974-75)
  • Doctor Who: Season 26 (1989)
  • Doctor Who: Series 1 (2005)
  • Doctor Who: Season 1 (2023-24)

You could list 100 reasons why this shouldn't happen and, with respect, I wouldn't agree. It's clear and obvious. 81.108.82.15talk to me 21:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

As it so happens, it does break a rule. Forum:Doctor Who prefix in titles. Najawin ☎ 23:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
(Glad to see you back 81.108, even if we disagree here.) Najawin ☎ 23:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The IP editor is onto something actually. We could have "Doctor Who" in the non-parentheses part of the page name. Either we use "Doctor Who:" as a prefix, or do something along the lines of Doctor Who Series 12 (in-universe). As for the former option, we are in a forum thread so we can change the ruling of Forum:Doctor Who prefix in titles if we so wish. This is the right place and time to do so. 23:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Sure! This is a forum thread, we can change the rules here. But I think the reason given in that old thread is pretty sound. If we have all seasons start with "Doctor Who" it means that the search feature becomes damn near impossible to use when we start off with "Doctor Who". Najawin ☎ 00:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Redirects will surely mitigate this issue, and, it may be the lesser of two evils. It may be harder to find the pages, but at least we may be able to call them something clearly. 00:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

How would they mitigate the issue? The issue is that if we do this anything that starts with "Doctor Who" becomes harder to find. Such as Doctor Who and the Silurians (TV story), or Doctor Who Wiki, or Doctor Who Magazine. And redirects don't solve alphabetization within categories, or the inability to use titlesort on them, which are also mentioned in the thread. Najawin ☎ 00:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I maintain that the best way to do it would be something like Season 1 (Doctor Who 1963), Series 1 (Doctor Who 2005), and Season 1 (Doctor Who 2023), and keeping that starting year for later seasons. I think this is something that readers can be trusted to either understand or figure out quickly. Given that using the starting year to distinguish shows and ongoing media with the same title is pretty common, particularly on the internet. If we want or need to be more specific, we can make the years a range instead, though that would require going back and retitling all of the new era seasons again if/when the count is reset again. I think this would also avoid the search issue Najawin noted, I think this would also let us keep them properly ordered in the category, though I don't know enough to say that with certainty. Time God Eon ☎ 19:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It is the same thing I suggested, but sadly messier. Searching won’t be an issue because these messier names can be redirects. I still think having “Doctor Who: Season 23 (1986)” is the best way. 81.108.82.15talk to me 10:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I know Tardis Wiki goes by different rules than Wikipedia, but it might be valuable to cross-reference with their corresponding talk page for the same season: Talk:Doctor Who (series 14)

One discussed idea is to do "Doctor Who (season 1, 2023)" (this might have been discussed already in this thread, can't remember). TheGreatGabester ☎ 15:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, redirects do not establish that searching isn't an issue. By making this change we'll have added a glut of new pages that start with "Doctor Who". This means that whenever we search for pages that we would normally use the string "Doctor Who" for, or any substring, it becomes harder to find them - the pages that should be what these strings return, and what people are more likely to look for using them, as we're more likely to find the series pages instead. And once more, in categories having "Doctor Who" at the start futzes with alphabetization compared to every other TV season if we were to ever place them in categories other than "Doctor Who seasons", and it renders them immune to titlesort as it currently operates. These are not trivial problems, except perhaps the middle, because it just may never come up. Najawin ☎ 19:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
As for {{TitleSort}}, we can alternately do {{DEFAULTSORT:Season 1, Doctor Who (dab term)}}, which is basically a manual version of TS which we can customise. That part, at least, is not a hard problem to overcome. 19:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, fair enough on that. Still a headache. Najawin ☎ 21:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that several people have included Series 1 to 13 in this discussion but I don't think any disambig decision needs to impact Series 1 to 13, since they don't need any further disambiguation.

However I think just simply going off by original broadcast year would be the simply way. i.e. Season 1 > Season 1 (Doctor Who 1963) and Season 1 (Doctor Who 2023) but it goes by original broadcast year. So Season 2, 3, 4, etc all use 1963 and 2023.

Going by Wikipedia; tv shows that have been remade use a similar format for example: MacGyver (1985 TV series, season 1) and MacGyver (2016 TV series, season 1) and so on and so forth for both of their subsequent seasons.

Obviously for Doctor Who it's a tad different since it isn't a remake or reboot of the actual show but still the same principle applies. The Light6 ☎ 04:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that Series 1 to Series 13 shouldn't be affected. I am of the opinion that any decision made here should be robust enough to apply to all series/season pages on this wiki, regardless of whether it's strictly necessary. Moreover, the difference between Series 1 and Season 1 may be clear to us but, to a not we, I really don't think a bit of extra disambiguation would hurt. Bongo50 ☎ 17:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, not only should Series 1 - 13 be dabbed for the not we, but also to future proof in case that they restart the numbering again, using series. I think we should make sure we don't need to have this discussion again in another thirteen years. Any decision we come to should also be able to accommodate any other shows that wind up doing something similar. Time God Eon ☎ 23:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I just don’t want our chosen dab to be overly long and unnecessarily complicated. Danniesen ☎ 01:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Bongo50 that whatever the decision it needs to be robust enough to apply to any/all pages moving forward.
I'm not keen on the suggestion by 81.108.82.15, of having years of the seasons as the method of dab for them. Simply because those Season pages cover things like novelisations which have often been published outside of the years cited. It doesn't quite fit accuracy wise, and again I ponder on vectors of discussion / argument on that front.
Classic Who / New Who is…it's awkward as it really only applies to the TV stuff as it leaves the 'Wilderness Years' both the 1989-1996 and the 1996-2005 eras sort of in, well the wilderness when applying those terms. And again I come back to not wanting further discussions around these terms or have things fall outside these terms.
SOTO's suggestion of going with Season One for the Disney era to differentiate from Season1 and Series 1 is a neat, if odd solution. I'd prefer if we can find a source to cite where Disney or the BBC actually use this nomenclature to define the current grouping of stories
I'm not sure if citing iPlayer is the best direction, simply because unless you're in the UK, then there's little interaction global viewers even have with that platform.
I agree with Najawin that adding "Doctor Who" to the season names will just make search useless. We need to remember that (one of) our goals here is to make pages discoverable to the average user, and should keep "Doctor Who" use on the pages to those that have it in the title.
I think we need to keep use of punctuation in the parenthesis to a minimum. That introduces complexity and the probably for mistakes in linking etc.
As much as I dislike the option presented by Najawin and Scrooge MacDuck I feel like it's the least worst, we dab by main production house, although we'll need to come up with some rules for things like Miracle Day and the BBC/Starz co-production situation.
--Tangerineduel / talk 13:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This does actually seem the most reasonable. So does SOTO’s Season One. Danniesen ☎ 15:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I had thought that series 11-13 of Doctor Who (2005-2022) were also produced by the BBC? And BBC Wales is, at any rate, a division of the BBC, so this idea does not seem to me to be very intuitive. I think the only solution that is neither convoluted or confusing is:
Though this solution may be mildly unwieldy, it is the most clear and concise and accurate, with the added benefit of being the official terms used by BBC iPlayer, and the arduous business of typing out long links may be countered by the existence of a great many redirects. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 15:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Aquanafrahudy I can see your thinking with this suggestion, my concern is adding too much punctuation into the parenthesis, it makes it awkward in day-to-day usage and makes for a very busy page title. And for the latter/current seasons means we'll need to move the pages and update links when this season / iteration wraps up. --Tangerineduel / talk 05:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Chiming in as a bit of an outsider to observe that, because this is the Doctor Who wiki, you probably don't need to include "Doctor Who" anywhere in the page title because that bit's already kinda implied. My preferred solution is for "Season x (year)" and, while we're on it, actually get rid of series as a term. I've always found that confusing, and I can never remember whether "series" is meant to refer to the 1963 or 2005 version, so consequently I end up on the wrong page pretty much every time. Adding in a third variation where you spell out the number is just another step of confusion that I'm not confident I'm ever going to remember properly - let alone a casual uninformed user! guyus24 (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
If we were to standardise them all , then as per T:BRENG we ought to use "series" instead of "season". Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 13:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Are we anywhere near a resolution to this dilemma? Danniesen ☎ 15:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

What does everybody think of it?

If it's appropriate to ask here, what does everybody think of the decision? Does this mean everything before has been erased? Or what? My apologies if this isn't part of what normally happens on these pages.

Kevin 'Chalky' Kaiba ☎ 11:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Forums are for discussions that impact editing, this should be in Discussions. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 11:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I did apologise beforehand. Kevin 'Chalky' Kaiba ☎ 13:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I know, I was just explaining. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 19:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is everyone here such a dick, for just a general question? Aw21212121 ☎ 07:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Nobody was. Aquanafrahudy was just explaining something. And please don’t make personal attacks. Danniesen ☎ 07:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Tardis has a strict policy against personal attacks, T:NPA. As such, I'm going to issue you a short block. Bongo50 ☎ 16:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

My two cents

Uh, if anybody wants my two cents' worth as to renaming the eras, how's this? 1) Classic eras stay the same 2) The movie keeps its name ("the movie") 3) Stuff from wider universes (books, audio plays, webcasts, etc.) gets marked as "expansions" 4) Each TV era from Who itself since it came back gets named according to who was leading at the time (RTDI, Moffat, CC, RTDII), and numbering like for regnal and papal names if and when past leaders come back. Thoughts? Kevin 'Chalky' Kaiba ☎ 10:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

How would you number the individual series, though? Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 10:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Keep referring to the classic series as they were. And refer to the revival series in ordinal value, no resetting the counter. Unless something happens and it cancels everything that came before. Kevin 'Chalky' Kaiba ☎ 13:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
This is completely unviable. Not least of which because it blatantly violates T:NPOV. Najawin ☎ 16:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey hey, bit of a quiet discussion here. Let's actually get some consensus going, because there ain't no Series 14 happening - can't wait for Season 1 in four months! Aw21212121 ☎ 03:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Can't wait for Season 40 aka Series 14 aka Season One this year. — Fractal Doctor @ 12:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I personally can't wait for the next showrunner after RTD2 who returns it to the Series numbering, and we go Series 13, Season 1, Season 2 ... Series 18, Series 19... Aw21212121 ☎ 23:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Post fork

Alright, we should really get to this sooner rather than later. I'm still a fan of the production company approach, it seems the most elegant to me. All the fiddling with years just adds ambiguity as to when precisely we draw the line. Najawin ☎ 05:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It feels like there's no clean way to get around this. I've been reading suggestions and thinking myself. The only other alternative I could come up with, to avoid years in the titles was:
  • Season 25 (Seventh Doctor)
  • Season 26 (Seventh Doctor)
  • Series 1 (Ninth Doctor)
  • Series 2 (Tenth Doctor) etc.
  • Series 13 (Thirteenth Doctor)
  • Season 1 (Fifteenth Doctor)
  • Season 2 (Fifteenth Doctor)
Also, what if Bad Wolf loses Doctor Who later down the line? I guess we'd just cross that bridge if and when we ever came to it? — Fractal Doctor • 19:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
My prefered method is still to dab all series/season pages (regardless of whether they actually need dabbing) for all series/ranges with a year (either the year that run started, or the year for the specific series/season in question, or a range of years) and their series/range. Bongo50 ☎ 19:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the comic book series volume-style proposal mentioned up-page is the most workable. Eg. Season 1 (Doctor Who 1963), Season 2 (Doctor Who 1963); Series 1 (Doctor Who 2005), Series 2 (Doctor Who 2005); Season 1 (Doctor Who 2023), etc. (And yes, the S14-onward pages should have "2023" as their disambiguating year. That's when this new era began.) SilverSunbird ☎ 07:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I’m still very much against dabbing a series/season with a year that it wasn’t broadcast in just because the run it is part of started that specific year. I’d hate “Season 27 (1963)” or “Series 13 (2005)” etc. Danniesen ☎ 08:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I also stress that for many people it might be counter intuitive that Modern!S1 is 2023 rather than 2024. Najawin ☎ 09:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
YES! Thank you! I keep saying that. The season is not broadcast in 2023, so why should we call it 2023 just because the Christmas special, for convenience considered part of the series itself, aired in 2023? It should be 2024 because that’s when the season itself is broadcast. Danniesen ☎ 09:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm also against dabbing series/seasons with years. If we're looking for a way to delineate, I think using "(Xth Doctor)" is neater and more efficient; I think "Season 26 (Seventh Doctor)" is much more accessible and clearer than "Season 26 (1963)", for example. — Fractal Doctor • 11:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with The Light6 and SilverSunbird above. Calling them Season 1 (Doctor Who 1963), Season 2 (Doctor Who 1963); Series 1 (Doctor Who 2005), Series 2 (Doctor Who 2005); Season 1 (Doctor Who 2023), etc. makes the most sense to me. Google "Doctor Who (2005)" and you'll get information relating to all 13 series. It's how most sites differentiate between reboots, including Wikipedia, so I think it's the best option. If we start going our own way then it all gets a bit confusing, especially if users then have to know the difference between the BBC and BBC Wales. 66 Seconds ☎ 17:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

But how do these sites handle the reboot? Do they consistently use 2023 or 2024? Najawin ☎ 19:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
FractalDoctor, what about Season 4? That season started with the First Doctor and ended with the Second.
The year in the dab could be the year (or the range of years) the season/series was broadcast. That would seem to eliminate the disatisfaction with dabbing sesons/series with a year that they weren't broadcast in, and using a range of years would also seem to satisfy Najawin's concern. I still think that a year in some consistent form is the clearest option. Bongo50 ☎ 21:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
To which Series does The Return of Doctor Mysterio belong? Depending on which release/distribution we use, the answer is S9, S10, or neither. And this is ignoring that a range of years is less than ideal dab term, imo. A bit unwieldy. Najawin ☎ 21:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
"using a range of years would also seem to satisfy Najawin's concern" - in response to Bongo asking me how my idea would work with Season 4, you could use the notion of a range in the same way you suggest with years - you'd simply make it "Season 4 (First/Second Doctor)". You'd also have "Season 21 (Fifth/Sixth Doctor)". I'd find this way easier to process than "Season 21 (1963)" or whatever. — Fractal Doctor • 21:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I feel I should clarify that the "2023" is because "The Church on Ruby Road", considered part of the upcoming season, is technically part of it as "episode 0". Ultimately, I think disambiguating by year is unavoidable, and the tidiest choice for how to go about doing this. SilverSunbird ☎ 01:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

But it clearly is avoidable. We can do production company. Whether or not this is, you know, what we want to do is a different issue. But we can do it. There are no edge cases, no "well where do you put this", "what do you call this". Everything has a clear, obvious place to go. The only cause for concern would be the (Tennant) 2023 specials, but we call them the 2023 specials, they're not part of a Series/Season, so they can't muck up our sorting. Again, I recognize that this isn't necessarily the most intuitive for the average user. But it's completely unambiguous in the way the others aren't. Najawin ☎ 01:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

"But it's completely unambiguous in the way the others aren't." I would argue that dabbing with respective Doctor/s is quite clear. There are only 2 cases where a dab would need two incarnations instead of one. (Also, I'm just playing devil's advocate here but does having "Bad Wolf" as a dab/in brackets lead to any confusion given that Series 1 had a 'Bad Wolf' arc and used it as a title in its own right?) — Fractal Doctor • 18:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Only if we're dabbing by Doctors, so that people would think that "Bad Wolf" could refer to an entity IU that had a specific title. But since, in the hypothetical, we wouldn't be doing that, there's just no issue. Najawin ☎ 22:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
There are no edge cases, no "well where do you put this", "what do you call this". Everything has a clear, obvious place to go.
Surely dabbing as iPlayer does, with Season 1 (1963-1989 Doctor Who) etc., would also be as obvious? There are no edge cases here I can think of, and it seems a much more intuitive way to go about it than production company, especially as we would be dabbing BBC Wales and BBC Studios differently, which, to the average individual, would not be very intuitive at all. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 08:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
A few issues here. Now, I'm an American, so I'm looking at the site from the US. But it doesn't say "1963-1989". It says "1963-1996". It also doesn't have a year range for the BBC Wales production, it just lists it as "Doctor Who". And it starts the new era in 2023, which, for a range of dates, is probably a bit counterintuitive to most people. Ultimately it ran into two different edge cases here - treating the 2023 specials/TCoRR as the start of the new era and thus choosing a side on the 2023/2024 issue, and saying the TV movie was part of the classic era rather than its own thing, as well as simply not disambiguating the BBC Wales production. Now, not all of this is disqualifying, I want to stress. But it's definitely hitting edge cases. And I certainly wouldn't say that leaving the BBC Wales era undabbed is intuitive. (Obviously the caveat here is that I can only comment on what I see, and this is what I see from the US.) Najawin ☎ 08:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I must say, I agree with SilverSunbird and 66 Seconds here. And though I sympathise, I personally strongly disagree with dabbing seasons by year of release, rather than standard disambiguation.
This is for a couple of big reasons. 1. For the same reasonscwe instated consistent dabbing for all stories: we should never expect users or readers to have encyclopaedic knowledge just to be able to link to a page correctly.
2: This goes against standard dabbing protocol, which no one has raised as confusing before: characters are dabbed by first story, not by their most popular one, and T:MAGS prescribes abbreviations like DW05 for a series called "Doctor Who" that began in 2005. Changing the abbreviation for each year of a magazine's run would be ridiculous, and there is no difference here.
And constructions like (Doctor Who 1963-89)/(Doctor Who 1963-95), even if abbreviated this way, are A) overly cumbersome, B) clearly already highly contentious because of the Wilderness Years, which the appeal to authority argument would have included in the classic series, and C) — self-evidently — aren't future-proof in the case of the ongoing series.
On the other hand, "Season 3 (Doctor Who 1963)" follows from all the dabbing conventions we've been following for years, being an abbreviated form of "Season 3 (Doctor Who (1963 series))".
In terms of the confusion it's said this would cause, I can personally say, anecdotally, that I've seen "Doctor Who (1963)" and "Doctor Who (2005)" crop up everywhere online, including popular resources like IMDb. (And if we covered those two eras of the programme separately, Doctor Who (2005) (and thus Doctor Who (2005)#50th Anniversary Specials) would necessarily be language we'd all be used to by now.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 09:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
And I should note that, while the above is, in my view, the only sensible way forward, I do not endorse Season 23 (1963). That's quite simply not the same disambiguation: 1963 is disambiguating Doctor Who, not the season.
I suppose technically "Season 23 (1986 season)" could work, setting aside the accessibility problem I laid out, -and the repetition... However, this falls apart with BBC Wales. For a casual reader, the early seasons of all three RTD1 programmes came out close enough together that dabbing without series would spell pandemonium.
Leaving us with "Series 3 (2006 Doctor Who series). Or we could avoid that mess: "Series 3 (Doctor Who 2005)". Much better.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 09:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I can't say I'm a huge fan of "Series 3 (Doctor Who 2005)" even though it's similar on other sites. I've ever been a fan of it, but maybe that's just simply a personal preference thing. (What would happen to Doctor Who? Would it stay as is, or would it be renamed "Doctor Who (1996 TV Story)"? — Fractal • 19:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
It should be noted that just because several other sites does something, it doesn't mean it's in any way pretty. In fact, I think it's very ugly that these sites label them by the year the era began. Also, as a further note, do we really want to copy everyone else. Danniesen ☎ 21:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion we absolutely should follow what other sites do for the sake of more casual site users. If the majority of the internet does it this way, it just makes it easier all round if we follow convention. I'm quite used to naming series in this way, so I don't personally see it as ugly - but I get that it could take some getting used to. As SOTO says above, 1963 is disambiguating Doctor Who, not the season. It's my understanding that Doctor Who would stay exactly as it is because it is a standalone TV movie and isn't connected to any specific era of the show. 66 Seconds ☎ 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Jakob's Law: Users spend most of their time on other sites. This means that users prefer your site to work the same way as all the other sites they already know. Guyus24 ☎ 22:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Have we considered (Doctor Who '63) and (Doctor Who '05)? That could be how we lay out T:MAGS applies in the case of television, if folks find that more visually appealing. Series 3 (Doctor Who '05).
Either that or Series 3 (DWTV05)? Series 3 (DW05)? Series 3 (Doctor Who, BBC Wales)? I do think Series 3 (Doctor Who 2005) is the best available option.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 01:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
There is always season 23 (Doctor Who: 1963), I suppose...
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 01:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Quite frankly I don't know why everyone keeps talking about the "starting year option" without also addressing the newest iteration of it. Because nobody here is saying that '63 and '05 are the confusing bits. There's consensus that those two would work fine. The issue is that the third one would be a headache, since TCoRR is in 2023 and modernS1 is in 2024. Najawin ☎ 03:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't the BBC website list the 60th Anniversary Specials under Doctor Who (2023–), anyway? Not that I agree from a narrative standard, personally.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 04:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It does. It also doesn't disambiguate the 05 era. Najawin ☎ 04:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't find the matter particularly concerning. Would "Series 1 (Doctor Who 2005)" be confusing if the brunt of it had aired in 2006, but Rose had been aired as a sort of 'pilot' in late 2005? I wouldn't think so. Ultimately "Season 1 (Doctor Who 2023)" is going to be faintly confusing for a couple of years, but by the time we're on 2027's "Season 3 (Doctor Who 2023)", and beyond, it will have become a complete non-issue. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 04:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
This presupposes that people will adopt the 2023 standard rather than the 2024 standard, which isn't a given. Especially since we're, uniquely, going to lack a series made in the relevant year, which I think will be counterintuitive to many readers. Najawin ☎ 04:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
This rule, whatever we go for has to be able to be applied to everything TV, because if it isn't we'll be down this discussion again when an exception to the rule comes along.
Fractal's suggestion of dabbing by Doctor kinda imposes the in-universe on a real world page. I think we need to keep the dab terms for real world pages real world.
I, like SOTO think SilverSunBird and 66 Seconds' suggestions are the best for the wiki.
I don't really like it personally, but I think it'll work for the wiki.
SOTO I don't think adding contractions of years really helps. Especially for big season pages, the saving of one character isn't that much. —Tangerineduel / talk 06:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I find that I like the use of production companies as dabs. Danniesen ☎ 08:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Najawin iPlayer does disambiguate the 2005 series, just not in the search bar or the page itself. (And I would imagine that the only reason they do this is because they can't change it due to software limitations or whatever, or possibly because it would be very hard to; the 2005 series was already on iPlayer when they added the other ones.) Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 09:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Heeeey! I've just been letting this discussion simmer on out of my radar, and I've only just now given it a skim, and I've got a loose idea of what has been suggested so far. So this is just my two cents; I say let's label them the same way that BBC iPlayer currently do, with the years.

I suggest changing the dab for the 2005-2022 series' purely to cover all bases and make things consistent. I'd also potentially suggest abbreviating the dabs for simplicity (i.e. Season 1 (DW 1963-89))

I know this is probably nothing new and looks an awful lot like other suggestions above, but whatever. WaltK ☎ 22:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I quite like it, though not the abbreviation. Let it be "Doctor Who", IMO. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 13:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
My only issue is the "(2023-)". I’m not a fan of the dab ending on a hyphen. Danniesen ☎ 13:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Danniesen, the hyphen is problematic as it means all of those pages that include that dab will need to be moved at some point in the future.
Having an open ended sort of "2023-" sort of naming convention also leaves open for queries of speculation in other arenas. Something we should try to avoid and minimise, especially in our dab terms. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Suggestion, what if we use WaltK's suggestion for the first two eras, but leave the 2023-onwards era to just be dabbed "(Doctor Who)" for the foreseeable until there's another reboot in the naming convention? Danniesen ☎ 13:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
It's a nice idea in theory, but I look at that and just think of it as a headache answering why it's dabbed like that.
As I think has been said above these dab terms need to be consistent, and they need to make sense. And they should be able to stand up to future pages without requiring to move multiple pages / have redirects. Having an open ended dab term, or just "(Doctor Who)" isn't consistent and it's still an awkward compromise. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
"(Doctor Who 2023-present)"? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This, eventually, will also have to be moved. Danniesen ☎ 14:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there is a clean solution to this, tbh. I'd like to think this new era (2023-) will last a long time before we ever get to yet another reset, but who knows. × Fractal • 17:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think having to maybe rename, what, fifteen pages tops, in twenty years, sounds like too much of an imposition. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I still think 2023 is counterintuitive for many of the NotWe. But we're getting to crunch time, so if we need to do it this way, let's. Najawin ☎ 19:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This method remains my preferred of all the options, but I still think we should wait and see whether iPlayer calls it "series 1" or "season 1". Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 19:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I've no doubt it'll be Season One (already is on the official website, and likely will be on Disney+ too). Instead of an open ended hyphen, the other option could be "2023+" to signify "onwards"/"and beyond"? × Fractal • 22:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I personally still think we could differentiate between Hartnell and Ncuti era by having Ncuti’s season numbers written with letters, making it Season 1, Series 1 and Season One. Yes, I know it will be difficult in the terms of speaking, but it’s gonna be difficult no matter what we do. This is something we can do in the context of writing. Danniesen ☎ 22:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The distinction is less than obvious, bad idea imo. Najawin ☎ 22:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I get the "Season 1/Series 1/Season One" thing but I don't think it's the best course of action. I do think we need some form of dab to clearly explain to Not We, and to save confusion. × Fractal • 22:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I've said it before, so I might as well repeat myself: I think disambiguating with just the start year of the era in question is the best (1963, 2005, 2023). I compared it to comic books because this is how different runs with the same title are disambiguated. It's elegant and minimizes the potential need for future page moves. SilverSunbird ☎ 04:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. "(Doctor Who 2005-2022)" is beyond clunky. Outside story dabs, I don't think dab terms should be that much longer than the actual topic they're disambiguating.
Also, remember, people are going to need to remember the final names in order to link to them in the editor. 1963, 2005 and 2023 are easy to remember. Expecting people to instantly recall the full date range every time goes against the whole spirit of Tardis:Disambiguating story titles.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 04:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

For years, we at the Russian Wiki use Сезон 1 (1963-1964) / Сезон 1 (2005), Сезон 2 (1964-1965) / Сезон 2 (2006), Сезон 9 (1972) / Сезон 9 (2015) etc. The words season and series are all сезон in Russian, so there's no distinction, but I just wanted to bring forward this idea of using the year of actual season/series release, which will be much more logical and useful and understandable to new readers. So in English it'll be Season 1 (1963-1964) / Series 1 (2005) / Season 1 (2024) etc. --Dmitriy Volfson ☎ 07:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we’ve been over that before and came to the conclusion that using the year of transmission for each series would present people with the impression that there are multiple seasons in each year; i.e using "Series 2 (2006)" gives off the impression that there’s a "Series 1 (2006)" in addition to "Series 1 (2005)", and that is not the route we want to take. Danniesen ☎ 08:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I want to further add that I think once again it’s a really bad idea to also just use the beginning year of transmission for each era… I am strongly against "Season 24 (1963)", Series 5 (2005)" etc. not to mention the abomination of calling Ncuti's first season "Season 1 (2023)" as it did not air in 2023. Danniesen ☎ 08:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Danniesen. As clunky as it looks, I'd rather dab the whole date span. Titles like "Season 21 (1963)", "Season 26 (1963)", "Series 4 (2005)", "Series 7 (2005)", "Series 11 (2005)", "Season 1 (2023)", etc is just confusing and potentially unhelpful imo. (And what might work for something like a comic book run might not always work for something like this, imo.) × Fractal • 10:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree that just using the start date doesn't look great, but I think also including "Doctor Who" makes it much better: "Season 21 (Doctor Who 1963)", "Season 26 (Doctor Who 1963)", "Series 4 (Doctor Who 2005)", "Series 7 (Doctor Who 2005)", "Series 11 (Doctor Who 2005)", "Season 1 (Doctor Who 2023)", etc. Bongo50 ☎ 11:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I admit that this does look better, but I’m still not a fan of using the start date for all seasons. Danniesen ☎ 12:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

In all our experience at the Russian Wiki, the Series 1 (2005) / Series 2 (2006) / Series 3 (2007) system has never led to any such confusion. Frankly, the idea that Series 2 (2006) leds somebody to believe there's Series 1 (2006) seems a bit ridiculous, like too much overthinking it. I want to give another example of such system - just look at how Wikipedia puts the season names at their lists of episodes classic and new, it clearly works. Same goes for other internet sources - one example. I believe it's traditionally agreed upon that when a year is noted in parentheses, it means the release year of this particular thing. --Dmitriy Volfson ☎ 07:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You do make a good point. What does everyone else think? Danniesen ☎ 08:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I'd still like the overarching range (e.g. "Doctor Who", "Torchwood", "Sarah Jane Adventures"/"SJA", etc.) to be noted in the dab as well as the year so that whatever system we agree on can be applied uniformly to all series/season pages on the wiki. Bongo50 ☎ 09:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
My criticism with this system is that not-wes won't necessarily know which year a series was broadcast, but then I suppose that applies to the other system, as well. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 10:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
So is that how we’ll do it? Season 1 (Doctor Who 1963), Series 1 (Doctor Who 2005), Season 1 (Doctor Who 2024), Season 2 (Doctor Who 1964), Series 2 (Doctor Who 2006), Season 2 (Doctor Who 2025) etc.? Danniesen ☎ 10:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I like this idea and I agree with Dmitriy Volfson. I think it's the best option. How Danniesen has said above - gets my vote. • Fractal • 17:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Strongly against. I'm not sure there's a way around the fact that this seems to be a case where people's instinctive readings conflict — to me it is obvious that "Series 2 (Doctor Who 2006)" would refer to Series 2 of a show called Doctor Who which began in 2006. Clearly others have the opposite intuition. I don't know if we'll get anywhere just shouting back and forth "A is obvious! No, B is obvious! No, A!".
(Also, Gatwa's Season 1 did air in 2023 insofar as The Church on Ruby Road seems to have been written, and ultimately reclassified as, "episode 0" of Season 1, rather than "Special #4". But that's neither here nor there.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
That is a more general reason against the "Doctor Who YYYY" term format. Any case of "Series X (Doctor Who YYYY)" can be read as "the Xth series of the Doctor Who run which started in YYYY" or "series X of Doctor Who which aired in YYYY". So it is a nonstarter. We need to think of alternatives to this format.
What about Season 1 (Doctor Who 1963-89) Series 1 (Doctor Who 2005-23) and Season 1 (Doctor Who 2023-)? That's how BBC labels them on iPlayer. The problems are that it's a mouthful and all the 2023- pages would need to be renamed one day. But it's certainly unambiguous.
Another option is leaving Series 1 (Doctor Who) as it is but creating Season 1 (Classic Doctor Who) and using Season 1 for the new one. This would give priority to RTD branding and help findability vs Fandom wiki. Many links would have to be moved but this has to happen anyway.
Time is running short. It would be nice to have a table of all proposals from this thread with pros and cons. WarDocFan12 ☎ 20:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm against years in general, but willing to accept them as necessary since we're down to the wire. I'm strongly against the S2 (2006) approach. For the classic series especially I think it's unhelpful to the NotWe. Najawin ☎ 20:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, as WarDocFan12 suggests, someone better at me with the editor could create a table listing all the variations and options in this discussion so we can vote? It would also let us all see, at a glance, what the options are without scrolling back through the walls of text. • Fractal • 20:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I honestly thought Dmitriy's suggestion made a lot of sense. Also the full year suggestion already got shot down. Also also, I don’t care about the technicality of the Xmas special being linked to the coming the season. It looks ugly, and it is confusing to list it as 2023. You’d have to list all the series with a year in which they did not air, all because of a Christmas special. It makes absolutely no sense. The two upcoming seasons are already known as “the 2024 season” and “the 2025 season”, not “the 2023 season” and “the 2024 season”. As for Najawin's new suggestion, using (Classic Doctor Who) could work, but I’m less certain about (Doctor Who) and for the newest era to just straight up abandon dabs. Danniesen ☎ 21:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Please do not libel me by calling that my suggestion. :P Najawin ☎ 21:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, what would you call it? xD Danniesen ☎ 21:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Najawin please do not libel me by calling that libel. I am just not pretending that normal people have or should have any idea what production companies are. There is no Bad Wolf logo in the trailers. We would be better off calling it Disney Who. Now there's an idea.
Daniesen if we are using years we must use the same years as the BBC which is that the new season 1 and the new show starts "2023". Nothing else would make any sense despite what you write about Christmas specials. On top of this I just read the whole thread and I have no idea why you think "the full year suggestion already got shot down". Please reread the thread if you are confusing me and Najawin.
Dmitry is comparing our titles with other sites that use "Doctor Who Series 5 (2010)". But we are talking about "Series 5 (Doctor Who 2010)". As User:Scrooge MacDuck has said the year "2010" has completely different meanings in "Doctor Who 2010" vs "Season 5 (2010)". WarDocFan12 ☎ 21:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Oops, I didn’t see your name in that comment. I thought it was Najawin who said it. Apologies. But I’m right in that it got down further up in the thread. Danniesen ☎ 21:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Also, there is nothing “we must”. We don’t have to use the BBC's naming scheme. As I said, it has been called “the 2024 season”. Officially, even. So to use 2023 makes no sense. Danniesen ☎ 21:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh. In that case we should simply not use season release year to dab. I believe I already showed that to do such a thing would be ambiguous and confusing.
Could someone elaborate on the reasons why (Doctor Who YYYY-) is bad or wrong. It would only appear in the names of series pages which are not too many. I do not see how it could be misunderstood except if the numbering restarted again and then someone thought a future season belonged to it. But in that case all we need to do is add an end date. As it stands nobody has put forward any other unambiguous proposal which is also understandable to regular fans. In the face of that there is no room for complaints like "it's not pretty". WarDocFan12 ☎ 22:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that we have necessarily reached a sufficient point in the discussions to jump to a vote on the matter, personally, and actually think we are just running around a bigger problem... but to try and run down initial thoughts on all of these options:

  • 2 Airing year Season 5 (Doctor Who 1967) Series 5 (Doctor Who 2010) Season 5 (Doctor Who 2030) - this is just unduly confusing, really. Aside the cross-year release of some of these making them not necessarily intuitive to the average person (Season 10 starting in 1972, for instance...), this logic rather conveys the idea that they're all part of different iterations of show that began in those years.
  • 5 Production company Season 5 (BBC Doctor Who) Series 5 (BBC Wales Doctor Who) Season 5 (Bad Wolf Doctor Who) - Completely untenable. Series 11-13 would become a major sticking point, as they are not BBC Wales Doctor Who, after all.
  • 6 Nicknames 1 Season 5 (Classic Doctor Who) Series 5 (New Doctor Who) Season 5 (Disney Doctor Who) - I do not think this is particularly intuitive either. Aside the debates to be had on New v. Nu v. Modern; I think mixing fanclub-originated nomenclature with a distributor note is a bad choice.

Nicknames 2 Season 5 (Classic Doctor Who) Series 5 (Doctor Who) Season 5

  • Count them up Season 5 (Doctor Who) Season 31 (Doctor Who) Season 44 (Doctor Who) - This seems untenable, for the sole fact that despite the continuing nature of the show; the vast majority of sources, fans and mainstream viewers do not approach the counting of the show in this manner.
  • SOTO Season 5 (Doctor Who) Series 5 (Doctor Who) Season Five (Doctor Who) - I do not think this is workable, because of the tendency of both the things we can call Season having been variably referred to by both the number and the word. And I do not imagine the average user would intuitively know which to click on if confronted with those two options in the search bar or on Google results.

With those obvious points out of the way, you get onto:

  • 1 Run year Season 5 (Doctor Who 1963) Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005) Season 5 (Doctor Who 2023)
  • 3 Run span abbreviated Season 5 (Doctor Who 1963-89) Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005-23) Season 5 (Doctor Who 2023-)
  • 4 Run span full Season 5 (Doctor Who 1963-1989) Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005-2023) Season 5 (Doctor Who 2023-)

All of which get us closer to a workable answer, but share the common problem in my view that our approach to Series dabbing has always been rather clunky being done in the form that we do; deferring the show name to a dab ie. Series 1 (Doctor Who) over something like Doctor Who Series 1 (2005-2023). This was much more presentable a logic back in the early 2000s, but in the decades since, there are far too many Series 1s for this to be a great fit. We have had a few quirks over the years; including that typing "Series 1" into the searchbar presents a user with the disamb. page, followed by suggestions of mostly BF spinoffs and Class. And those spinoff names are acronym-ed into the dabs in a manner that is honestly not user-friendly. The only way the average user on-site would get a clear picture of what they refer to is to actually go to the disamb. page and get the clarifying notes.

3 Run span abbreviated Season 5 (Doctor Who 1963-89) Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005-23) Season 5 (Doctor Who 2023-)... seems to be the most promising thought on the table, providing 2023-present was the actual choice... but I don't think we should be laying down a precedent that takes us further into this way of dabbing in a time where it is getting increasingly less fit for purpose. All you'd need is a spinoff with a long name to crop on TV - say The Vengeful War of the Blargian Snarglebeasts, to make something hypothetical up - and then we'd end up with... "Series 1 (TVWotBS)".

In that sense, I think we actually name reform on Series and Season dabbing approaches overall; to put the Series title first and in full, followed by series number... and then followed by some form of dab - where necessary. For instance, "Class Series 1" wouldn't then need a dab. But on the other hand, Series 2 (Class) could more accurately become "Class Series 2 (unproduced series)".

To that end, I'd perhaps suggest a reform of this kind across the board, ultimately to result in us having:

  • Doctor Who Season 1 (1963-89)
  • Doctor Who Season 1 (202x-present) [dependant on how they ultimately end up counting Church, because we've got a bit of confusion and conflict there at present...]
  • Doctor Who Series 1

With Series 1 remaining a comprehensive disamb. page. That's where my present thoughts lie.
JDPManjoume Regular Editor ☎ ✍ 00:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This feels like the best solution proposed yet. This is like surgically reattaching a limb rather than trying to fix it with a plaster. All the ideas for dabs terms have nnot bddn satisfactory and underline a problem across the pages that use such dab terms.
And the point about a "spinoff with a long name"... yeah we gotta keep this in mind considering, uhm, the rumours.
Furthermore, this proposal matches how I named the in-universe counterpart pages names such as Doctor Who Series 10 (in-universe) and so on. 01:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Once more, "Doctor Who" at the front is not a tenable solution, for the reasons listed above. It breaks a few different things. Najawin ☎ 01:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
It's the lesser of two evils. 01:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
It completely destroys search functionality for anything else that starts out in remotely the same way. That's very much so the greater of two evils. Najawin ☎ 01:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Would there be a technical issue in having the TV show be the one exemption made to the prepend decision made by CzechOut all that time ago?
JDPManjoume Regular Editor ☎ ✍ 01:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

But the issue isn't "well there's a ruling that says we can't do this". We're in the forums. We can change policy. It's that the reasoning presented in that thread is actually pretty damn good and would apply to this situation. Obviously we could, as a community, agree to make an exception. But the issues would still exist and still impact users even if we decided to have this exception in spite of their existence. Najawin ☎ 01:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Najawin the argument you against having "Doctor Who" at the front can just as essily be made for the current solution! If you go through Series 1, as just one example, there are nearly thirty different series ones.
If you type in "Series 1", right now, into the search bar, these are the listed results:
Doctor Who isn’t even among these results!
Meanwhile, if we were to use "Doctor Who Series X", and you searched for "Doctor Who Series 1", you'd likely get:
How is this worse? Yes, if you type in just "Doctor Who Series" you'll get a lot of results, but, like, type in two-three more characters to specify the number.
And, furthermore, renaming the pages like this probably would benefit SEO too. 01:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
You're focusing on the wrong term here. The thread forbids starts of "Doctor Who" because it interferes with discoverability. Putting in "Doctor Who Series" is obscuring the concern we should have here. (Though I note that any test currently is probably not super helpful as it's returning a bunch of comic runs, which isn't the case on Fandom. When we change search this will likely be fixed, I assume, but the changes you want to make will not.) Najawin ☎ 02:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Not to mention that typing in "Series 1" is quick and easy and you get your result much quicker. If you type "Doctor Who" first, you’re not very likely to get you the results you need, with 100s of other results showing up first. Then you hypothetically add "S", which will also give your 100s of results you’re not looking for. Going further than that you either type "Series", which is a smaller portion of results but still a lot, probably not even the one you’re looking for, or Season, which is a whole lot more results and chances of the one you’re looking for are slim. In short, you will have to type in the full thing you’re looking for in order to have it show up in search, whereas just "Series 1" is still more likely to get you the result you need fast. Danniesen ☎ 09:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Minor only-tangentially-related sidenote: Epsilon's post yesterday got me thinking how we put the show/series in the dab, yet for TV stories we never make clear in the dab which show or series it stems from. For example, "The Metaphysical Engine, or What Quill Did (TV story)" and "End of Days (TV story)". Is there any specific reason for this? eg. why don't we have "End of Days (Torchwood TV story)" Just thought I'd ask, as a little sidenote. • Fractal • 10:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Vote table

Here goes nothing. I copied the Temporary Forums table so I do not know why the vote counts are off by one. (Edit by Danochy ☎: Please add each vote on a new line using three tildes ~~~ preceded by a vertical bar '|')

# Name Proposal Vote
0 Current Season 5 Series 5 (Doctor Who) Season 20 (Doctor Who)
0 supporters
1 Run year Season 5 (Doctor Who 1963) Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005) Season 5 (Doctor Who 2023)
6 supporters
2 Airing year Season 5 (Doctor Who 1967) Series 5 (Doctor Who 2010) Season 5 (Doctor Who 2030)
0 supporters
3 Run span abbreviated Season 5 (Doctor Who 1963-89) Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005-23) Season 5 (Doctor Who 2023-present)
4 Run span full Season 5 (Doctor Who 1963-1989) Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005-2023) Season 5 (Doctor Who 2023-present)
4' Run span present Season 5 (Doctor Who 1963-1989) Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005-2023) Season 5 (Doctor Who 2023-present)
5 Production company Season 5 (BBC Doctor Who) Series 5 (BBC Wales Doctor Who) Season 5 (Bad Wolf Doctor Who)
1 supporter
7 Nicknames 2 Season 5 (Classic Doctor Who) Series 5 (Doctor Who) Season 5
1 supporter
8 Count them up Season 5 (Doctor Who) Season 31 (Doctor Who) Season 44 (Doctor Who)
0 supporters
9 SOTO(?) Season 5 (Doctor Who) Series 5 (Doctor Who) Season Five (Doctor Who)
2 supporters
10 Run span abbreviated 2 Season 5 (Doctor Who 1963-89) Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005-23) Season 5 (Doctor Who 2023)
2 supporters
10' Run span abbreviated 3 Season 5 (Doctor Who 1963-89) Series 5 (Doctor Who 2005-23) Season 5 (Doctor Who 2023-present)
2 supporters
11 Nicknames 4 Season 5 (Classic Doctor Who) Series 5 (New Doctor Who) Season 5 (Modern Doctor Who)
1 supporter

Please vote with your signature or add your own proposals if you have new ones or if I missed any. For sanity's sake please just do not change the numbering. WarDocFan12 ☎ 21:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand the table, could you explain? Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 21:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Happy to explain. Sorry for any confusion. Each row is a different proposal. The first column is a season from Classic Who. I didn't want to use season 1 since it's the first season of the run of the show it belonged to aka Classic Who. There would be no difference with the year it aired. So instead I picked season 5 which came out in 1967. Then to make the contrast as clear as possible I did the other columns for the same number. So series 5 from New Who. And a future season 5 from Disney Who. Hopefully this helps. Let me know if you have questions about the specific proposals WarDocFan12 ☎ 21:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That table still doesn’t make much sense to me. Some of the suggestions are even listed twice. One is given the year 2030. Danniesen ☎ 22:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not see how my explanation to User:Aquanafrahudy failed to answer either of your objections. If it still doesn't make much sense then in that case I give up. Make your own chart. WarDocFan12 ☎ 22:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, that makes sense. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 22:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
(Please note my ":P" when I called it libel. I strongly dislike the idea, is all. And see Forum:Relaxing T:HONOUR - "We strive to use the name that is diegetically the most proper and most commonly-used name". Not strictly applicable to this instance, but I think helpful for the idea that "Disney Doctor Who" is at all acceptable.) Najawin ☎ 22:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this, it makes perfect sense and is well-formatted. Just adding my vote here, but in my next edit I'll fix the table so that it counts properly. I'll also add a note above it informing users on how to vote using the three tildes, if that's ok. Danochy ☎ 22:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Alright, I understand the table now. I just needed it explained bit by bit. Sometimes, very rarely, I need that. Danniesen ☎ 23:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
If we do end up running with the full run span, can we at least add "present" after the hyphen like Scrooge suggested earlier in the Forum thread? Ending on a hypen is bad. Danniesen ☎ 23:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that ending on a hyphen is bad. I've added my votes. • Fractal • 01:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added a new option (#10) as a compromise between my position and what's clearly turning out to be the most popular option so far.

(2013-) is bad dabbing. Also, I feel I should probably veto (Disney Doctor Who) right off the bat, because that's simply inaccurate. It could be (Bad Wolf Doctor Who) or (Modern Doctor Who), but Disney's not the main company behind production in any sense.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 02:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(New Doctor Who) is also bad on that front. Because which one does that refer to? Yes, in the table it’s obviously listed for the 2005-2022 era, but outside of that, who is gonna know that? There is already a squabble in the fandom on whether we can still call that era New Who or if we’re gonna have to give it a new name. Danniesen ☎ 08:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay I have just added "prime" versions which say (Doctor Who 2023-present) instead of just dash. Thank you everyone for voting. WarDocFan12 ☎ 13:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=Forum:2023_Naming_Scheme_Reset&oldid=3759205"