Whatever has happened in other cases, I do think a revamped SJA would have changed its title based on whoever the lead was, possibly after a final and transitional SJA special.
Maybe, maybe not. One could argue the same thing Sindatur just said about Blake -- that even without Sarah Jane, the team would still be fulfilling her mission and her legacy. One could also argue that Torchwood was an "Artifact Title" by the time of Miracle Day, since Torchwood had ceased to exist as an organization by that time. So it's not unprecedented even within this franchise. The reason there are so many "Artifact Titles" is that titles aren't really about conveying accurate information about content, they're about promotion and name recognition. Keeping the same title is a way of saying that it's the same series, that even with a cast change, the viewer will still be getting basically the same experience. Changing the title would mean having to start over from scratch in the name-recognition game. So yeah, maybe they would've changed the show's title, depending on how they revamped it. But there would've been good arguments in favor of keeping the original title. Really, though, ending the series was probably the right thing to do under the circumstances. Especially if Daniel Anthony and Anjli Mohindra were planning to move on anyway at the end of series 5.
Taggart, the Scottish detective series lost the lead character Detective Jim Taggart when the actor playing him (Mark McManus) died in 1994. The most recent series aired in 2011...
The team was reduced to Clyde and Rani, Luke had already left and no doubt the others would've gone their seperate ways too once they finished their primary education. I think in the end the series ended pretty much where it should have, five seasons would have been enough.
No death, tho'. At least not right away. Sarah got some really great opportunity, either with UNIT, or even just in journalism (hey, she was a reporter) and she's "away for a while". Someone steps in and the show goes on. (I know...she'd likely not take some foreign journalism job with all the stuff she knows can go on, but who knows?) Of course, this is being nothing but fanciful, since it's doubtful at this point the show would be brought back. Like someone said, there'd more likely be a different spin-off.
And of course, they could've always changed the name very slightly, but, still be able to capitalize on the old name. Something like Sarah Jane's Adventurers
You don't think there's a slight difference in having a series named "Torchwood" where Torchwood the fictional organization no longer exists... and a series named "The Sarah Jane Adventures" when the actress playing Sarah Jane has passed away and everyone knows she's passed away? Just for name recognition?? One isn't in bad taste; the other is.
The could have changed it just barely and still capitalized on the name by going with The Sarah Jane Adventurers
Well, I was just musing in general about the reason for "Artifact Titles," not seriously advocating a given position re: the title of a hypothetical TSJA continuation. But I don't know if I'd agree that it's in bad taste to pay tribute to a beloved character played by a departed actress.
In that vein, Taggart justified the continued use of the title by occasionally having other detectives say things like "Oh, you're Jim Taggart's team," (often as a dig at the inexperience of the young detective who'd been promoted into his place), which was eventually formalised by having the Glasgow Murder Investigation Team officially named The Taggart Team. So you could have had UNIT and similar make references like: "Oh, you must be Sarah Jane's kids..." "We're NOT kids, mate." "Of course you aren't, Sir." BTW: as a coincidence, Lis Sladen and Mark McManus (who played Taggart) had the lead roles in a training film for people setting up their own businesses that they must have made sometime in the late 70s or early 80s.