Tech, Bureaucrats, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, threadmoderator
115,931
edits
Line 278: | Line 278: | ||
:: 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.{{User:SOTO/sig}} 09:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC) | :: 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.{{User:SOTO/sig}} 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 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.{{User:SOTO/sig}} 09:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
== What does everybody think of it? == | == What does everybody think of it? == |
edits