Forum:Series 1 (Season 27) in list of appearances etc

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Series 1 (Season 27) in list of appearances etc

This thread has been archived.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.

I don't think we should list Series 1 (Doctor Who 2005) in the list of appearances (and other places) as Series 1 (Season 27).

I know it's stated on the various Series 1-6 articles that "Series 1 also known as Season 27" but I don't think it needs to be in the titling on the list of appearances articles, or anywhere else that is being linked. I think it starts a precedent.

I'm not even sure where it's "also known as Season 27-" there's no citations for this statement and with Series 3 the language shifts from "also known as" to "sometimes called Season 28", with Series 4 (Doctor Who 2005) abandoning it all together, though with Series 5 we're back to the (uncited) "also known as Season 31". --Tangerineduel / talk 14:03, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

While I have some issues with the confusion engendered by the BBC renumbering series when the fancy strikes, I am largelyt in agreement. Boblipton ^{talk to me} 14:11, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Changing the title would also help to differentiate it from the Lost Season 27 with Sylvester McCoy. (AUDIO: The Lost Stories#Seventh Doctor Stories) -- Gousha ^{talk to me} 02:40, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Archivist's notes

No clear resolution to this proposal, as far as I can tell. There is support in DWM for the season thingie. See DWM 411, where Steven Moffat introduces us to the term "Series Fnarg". There, he further suggests that a perfectly valid designation would be "season 31". So, yanno, if the show runner is acknowledging the validity of the term, I'm not sure what more proof we really need. This designation would naturally imply that all BBC Wales series before it can be given another series number in relation to season 26.

So, it's a real and citable "thing".

We don't have to obey it, of course. We could sweep it under the carpet in a li'l footnote. But it's definitely there and attributable to the highest authority in the DWU.

I'm in favor of consistency, whatever that consistency might be. But I think this thread went down a rabbit hole when it tried to suggest the terms "season 27", et al, weren't valid. We should probably try again with another thread sometime.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 20:56: Tue 01 May 2012