Forum:Should Doctor Who (1996) be Doctor Who (TV story)?

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Should Doctor Who (1996) be Doctor Who (TV story)?

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

OttselSpy25 has put forward the notion that Doctor Who (1996) be re-disambigged to Doctor Who (TV story). It's certainly technically possible, and on the face of things, it seems consistent with our own internal structures. Are there objections?

Note that this is not a general thread looking for a better name. Doctor Who (1996) was agreed by fairly lengthy consensus, so we're not generally looking for a better name. The question is only being brought forward because we've changed the way the rest of the story titles work since we agreed the (1996) thing. It certainly would be easier for template creation and bot operation without the (1996) exception. So is there any reason why (TV story) would be a bad idea?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  22:42: Sat 29 Sep 2012

I think Doctor Who (1984) should be redisambigged too. There's a page for another comic series at Doctor Who (IDW), so the 1984 page should be listed as Doctor Who (Marvel) to be consistent.  Digifiend  Talk  PR/SS  KR  MH  Toku  JD  Garo  TH  CG  UM  Logos  CLG  DW  00:43,9/30/2012 

I think we should leave it as is as the 1996 label makes it very clear what we are referring to. Mostly just because the title is also the name of the base series, to minimise confusion i think it's best to not have it sited like the rest of the episodes. This is about maximising clarity for new readers rather than sticking to formats if sticking to formats will diminish clarity. However, if it must have a dab name change, i think "TV Movie" will be best. Imamadmad ☎ 10:44, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

My immediate inclination was to agree with Imamadmad, that the 1996 label is a good differentiator.

But on further consideration and looking at dab pages like Doctor Who (disambiguation) the TVM is listed under "story names", and as it's a story that was on TV, then the TV story dab term is reasonable and in-keeping with our policies and with the other dabbed stories.

As long as we, as we've done with the others maintain the redirect, then I see no reason to oppose it. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:45, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

@Digifiend: This thread is only about the TVM. (To respond to your question, thoguh, Doctor Who (IDW) is a disambiguation page, because there are so many different IDW comics which have the name Doctor Who. In fact, Doctor Who (1984) is perfectly consistent with Doctor Who (2008), Doctor Who (2009) and Doctor Who (2011).)
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  16:50: Mon 01 Oct 2012

It would be helpful to use a format that would readily differentiate the comics from the TV movie. If a casual user doesn't remember off-hand which year the TV movie came out, they're stuck searching in other browser tabs until they can figure out which of those dates is the correct one. If (TV story) comes up on the list of suggestions, though, the correct choice is obvious. From an ease of use perspective, I recommend that (TV story) be used. -- Rowan Earthwood ☎ 13:48, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

if we can't use the date, i think it still needs to be given a disambig other than tv story. could it get it's own dab term, such as movie or film? that would then make it very clear to the reader what we're talking about and would also future proof for future films like that one that was proposed several months ago by the maker of the last few harry potter films. Imamadmad ☎ 01:01, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

Well, TV story is a name which specifically suggests "A story which was aired on TV". Not "an episode which was aired on TV," thus there is no need for any alternate dismag phrase as the current one fits. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 10:37, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

Don't want this to be forgotten and then archived, so can we get back to the discussion? OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 01:02, November 14, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your 23 October point, OS25. The dab "(TV story)" means different things in different eras of the program. In the original run, it effectively means the same thing as serial. For everything from the TVM to the most recent episode, it absolutely means "the contents of a single episode broadcast on TV" — with the exception of The End of Time and Dreamland, both of which were actually serials.

@Imamadmad: There's not much point to inventing another unique dab. From a coding standpoint, it would be much easier just to get rid of this one anomaly and have all TV stories with the same nomenclature. And I'm saying that as the guy who actually brought you "(1996)" in the first place. I think Rowan Earthwood is right in this instance — the year dab should now be reserved for comics, especially given the fact that IDW simply love their issue #1s, and have now given us Doctor Who (2012).

I don't understand how Doctor Who (TV story) is at all ambiguous, nor how it's not forward thinking. If there is a feature film, I agree that it would most likely be called Doctor Who, but then we'd dab with Doctor Who (film). There's only one TV story called Doctor Who in the history of the franchise, and there's not likely to be another one. Even if some American company grabbed the US rights and made a separate TV series, we'd call it Doctor Who (US TV series), or maybe just Doctor Who (US).
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  02:32: Wed 14 Nov 2012

I was saying basically what you just said. Basically, "TV story" represents any story aired on tv, wheather serial, episode, or movie. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 17:21, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think that it should be left as it is for the same reasons as Imamadmad. --GusF ☎ 20:17, November 16, 2012 (UTC)