Doctor Who Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Doctor Who was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 27 August 2012.

Shortcut

• WT:WHO

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Simply put, pay close attention to the "Reason" field of that diff and in and ideal universe, implement the change in infobox of main Doctor Who article and all foreseeable sub-articles from so-called "Series 14" onwards accordingly. I'm doing this because I know better that it won't result in what's bona fide sensible, consider it's like appealing upto the Final Court of Appeals in a banana anocracy, just so I have the self-satisfaction of being borne out in general, as should be anticipated (if not expected [from this 2½+ decades old site], somehow). No pressure for imparting social-media wisdom here. (I have gotten even more citation/evidence to prove that the YT comments &/or reddit-level keyboard-war hand-waiving that "it's just nEtFlIx dOiNg hApPy! & rIvErDalE" (in very few territories, and certainly even there uncredited in a way Disney Branded Television is being credited in this case) adaptations, but as a self-anointed 'voracious researcher', I'm well-aware of the intricacies of this project/website and quite a lot of hilarious WP:PETTIFOG in say, anything with remotely [any kind of] political implications, that it's better to do the service of munching popcorns and read from the sidelines. You know? Instead of jumping in the mud oneself.) —2409:40E3:1038:8EBA:74E6:27FF:FEAB:711 (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I can't make head nor tail of this comment... Yes, Disney+ should be listed as an original network from 2023 onwards. It's very clear that they are actively co-producing the show now. U-Mos (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the |network= parameter—in both ((Infobox television)) and ((Infobox television season))—is meant to contain the original network in the country of origin only. For Doctor Who, that is BBC One. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just off the top of my head, His Dark Materials (TV series), Anne with an E, I May Destroy You, Neighbours, all list their co-commisioning co-prod networks in infoboxes. Because they are original networks. That's what Disney+ is for Doctor Who now. U-Mos (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His Dark Materials and I May Destroy You have two countries of origin, hence two original networks. Unless Doctor Who is considered a co-production between the UK and US, Disney+ remains inappropriate in the infobox. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the production (like with HDM and IMDY) is based in the UK, but yes, it is a co-production with a US-based network now. What's the distinction? U-Mos (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HDM and IMDY's infoboxes both name the UK and US as countries of origin, so two networks is logical. Doctor Who only lists the UK, so only the UK network (BBC One) should be named. Unless the US is added to |country= (and Disney to |company=), listing Disney+ in |network= is inappropriate per template documentation. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should all be added. U-Mos (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; I don't think Disney should be listed as a production company. Compare the production logos from 2022 (pre-Disney) and 2023 (post-Disney):

• The former says "BBC Studios for BBC" (Studios being the production company, BBC the distributor)
• The latter says "Bad Wolf with BBC Studios Productions for Disney [and] BBC" (Bad Wolf and Studios Productions being production companies, Disney and BBC distributors)

Disney would have been appropriate for the |distributor= parameter (before it was deprecated in March) but I don't think it's appropriate in |company= now. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I replied in a rush yesterday. Looking again at the documentation and the production logos above, I agree that the production company parameter shouldn't include Disney. That doesn't preclude the US from being a country of origin and Disney+ being an original network per the template documentation and their co-commissioning role. Commissioning networks do impact countries of origin listed; see The Crown (TV series), for instance, which I believe has been discussed at length. I'm not sure how helpful the country of origin field is in the multinational streaming services era, especially as the documentation treats it as self-evident, but that's a broader question. U-Mos (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain:, now-Alex_21 and all like-minded folks: This is meant personally at you was gonna bring-up the fallacy of "production company" but it there are gazillions is examples in not just binational/multinational TV co-commissions, but even single straightforward commissions which don't have their anchor 'station' as one of the production companies/houses listed so since you evidently have done the hardwork of citing the copyrighted material which I referenced the most (in addition to that URL in diff "reason") which I possibly couldn't sustain here owing to WikiCommons and my solemn gratitude to you for that, I must point-out that it was WP:SYNTH on your part to begin with. For starters, the infobox doc is not even MoS and unlike actual MoS for WP:TV, it doesn't even remotely consider how to deal with binational/multinational co-commissions in TV, something which didn't preclude innumerable TV co-commissions' articles to have that infobox, anyways. And no, it's not WP:OTHERSTUFF simply because as I've indicated already, it's the norm. Not that essays (or in other words, blog-posts) should hold that much value, when even WP:IAR exists. On the other hand, WP:FILM articles are where "country of origin" is decided by prodco[s] involved, so I can see where you were coming from. But that would mean none of UK's maverick Channel 4's co-commissions could ever be listed as one, nevermind the fact that number of examples cited in regards to HBO are already example of the very same. Moving on.. There are still quite a number of articles where it's not exactly cut-&-dry on "home country", either. Normal People adaptation doesn't list all of the countries where co-commissioners are [globally] HQed out of, so do OG The Night Manager adaptation, 'The Pope' TV franchise, non-NGC's-but-sister-concern's Taboo, and.. You get the gist? While it may certainly not be as numerous as the seemingly now-settled "production companies" conundrum, I still can't exhaustively cite even a quarter of them, just to be reasonable about my very human limitations. (Also why I won't cite other articles in similar shapes.) And yes, there's a reason why I didn't bring-up any European TV doc-miniseries [somehow] covered on this site, either, given how many partners across countries and even continents chip into those 'crowdcommissions'. I don't hope for anything sensible, as I already indicated. Since that's all on the whimsy of senior Wikipedians who would hog all the credit to themselves, even if they would have simply come around to the very same points being raised here sooner or later. It is already a bad-thing that others haven't been attributed over some bizzare fealty/romanticism towards British State media for the batch-of-episodes they were credited.

While there must be new to adapt as "New Year's Resolution" towards editorial practices on this site, but Happy New Year from my end, nevertheless. —2409:40E3:3B:C726:2C5C:51FF:FEEA:BC39 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This may be TRIVIA.. But the order of closing logo (not gonna also contribute to the mistake of linking what's already linked once) credits in Disney+'s final-cut is differing from the UK&"RO"I final-cut till the Holiday Special, "Church on Ruby Road". It reads "BBC Studios Productions with Bad Wolf for Disney [and] BBC". In other words, the order of credited prodcos is reversed. But since the latest episode i.e. the Holiday Special, the order is now aligned: In that alphabetical-order. Whereas "For" (commissioners) credits have remained perfectly aligned, in reverse-alphabetical order. —2409:40E3:34:E772:D8B7:E7FF:FEBC:3D4F (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If one were to add Disney+ as originating "network" then one should also add CBC as the originating network for the seasons when it was a co-producer, and in the end credit. Nfitz (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that was a different situation. CBC added some money but it wasn't a commissioning partnership. U-Mos (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have the details of the Disney deal either. All we see are the end credits. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: original network/country of origin in infoboxes

Should infoboxes describe Disney+ as an original network for Doctor Who, in addition to the BBC (and thus also add the United States as a country of origin) from 2023 onwards? U-Mos (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No Just as Star Trek: Discovery is marketed as a "Netflix Original" outside of the United States despite only being a CBS All Access production, then Doctor Who is only marketed as a "Disney Original" outside of the United Kingdom despite only being a BBC production. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of contention whether this is a direct equivalence. Netflix routinely brands programming they do not commission or produce, but buy the exclusive broadcast rights to outside countries of origin, as Netflix Originals. I'm not massively familiar with Star Trek: Discovery, but it sounds like that's what's happened there. With Doctor Who, Disney have bought the rights and invested money in the production prior to the show being made. This makes them more equivalent to the co-production examples I raised above (noting that the term co-production as it's generally used would more accurately be co-commission, as it concerns commissioning networks rather than production companies). U-Mos (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the aid of any commenters coming in cold, a couple of quick sources on the level of Disney's involvement in the series' production: [1][2] U-Mos (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with the edits being made before the RFC was closed, I can see that there is a clear consensus, and I have no issues with conforming to it, so I'm changing my !vote to show my support. I do, however, expect anonymous editor pushback by those not aware of this discussion, such as this. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes per U-Mos. Disney participates in the production, not just the distribution. JM (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes I've gone back and forth on this for a while, but I've just taken the time to re-evaluate some sources (bold emphasis is my own):
  • The Independent states "In October, it was announced that season 14 would be a co-production with Disney Plus."
  • The Huffington Post states "The 14th season of the beloved BBC sci-fi drama will be a co-production with Disney+."
  • Radio Times "Russell T Davies has reassured fans that Doctor Who is the "same show" it always has been, amid fears of changes as the show is now a co-production with Disney Plus."
  • The Telegraph states "The American corporation will have a say in creative decisions for Doctor Who, under the terms of a co-production deal made with the BBC over its long-running sci-fi series." and "Doctor Who is now a £100 million co-production with Disney."
  • Deadline Hollywood states "[...] Davies’ arrival preceded that of Disney+ and His Dark Materials indie Bad Wolf as co-production partners [...]" and "The vast majority of Bad Wolf’s shows in recent years have had hefty U.S. co-production investment, such as Industry and the new Doctor Who [...]"
  • NBC News states "The show is now a BBC co-production with Disney [...]"

We may not know what the actual terms of the deal are, but there becomes a point where we can't ignore the sources. The Cultbox source listed by U-Mos also gives direct quotes from Davies that Disney has actively been involved in the production process by asking for changes in the script. This also isn't unprecedented in the Doctor Who universe, the fourth series of the spin-off series Torchwood was a co-production between the BBC and the U.S. network Starz. Both networks are listed in the season and overall series infoboxes as well as both countries as a country of origin. This seems to be a similar situation going beyond just a distribution deal which makes this incomparable to Star Trek: Discovery (BBC America calling it an "original production" would be, but the sources definitely prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Disney deal is different). TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the evidence here seems incontrovertible. JM (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes Disney+ should now be listed as an original network, per the evidence that U-Mos and TheDoctorWho have provided above. It just seems odd that the country of origin should now be changed to "the United Kingdom and the United States", when as far as I know, the show is still solely made in the UK. Lotsw73 (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe it's because money and creative input are coming from the United States, not that filming is physically taking place there. I don't think filming even matters for country of origin considering GoT isn't listed as having Iceland, Ireland, and Croatia as countries of origin; I don't think any of it was filmed in the US, yet that's listed as its country of origin. JM (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point. Thanks for explaining. :) Lotsw73 (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Country of Origin and production location aren't synonymous for the purposes of Template:Infobox television, there's actually even a separate parameter for that. Supergirl, Psych, 21 Jump Street, Arrow, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, Fire Country, and MacGyver are all prime examples which film in Vancouver but are considered American television series. The infoboxes on these series convey this message. And although not on a permanent basis, Doctor Who has filmed portions of its sixth series in the United States and portions of the eleventh series in South Africa. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Aha, very interesting... thanks for the clarification. Lotsw73 (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am unsure but leaning towards Yes. The arguments above have as near as sold it for me, as has this as linked by @U-Mos (eg. "It’s a proper working relationship" and "co-producing partner"). However, if we are including it on grounds of co-production, shouldn't series 6 have BBC America included as they were co-producers for at least part of the series (production logo). And, as Davies says in the article linked above, "you haven’t watched a drama on British television in 20 years that hasn’t had American notes on it. Everything is a co-production. Watch the credits. All your favourite dramas have American co-producers." Is this the distinction between co-production and co-commission that U-Mos was making? I'm unclear whether this is a matter of production or commission; there seems to be differing opinions. Irltoad (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It leans into more murky territory when we potentially don't know the level of involvement a co-funding network has/had on a show, yes. I think in this case the information we have clarifies matters enough to state that Disney are co-commisioners and an original network from now. The BBC America in series 6 example is an interesting test of where the line is. In that case, BBC America contributed to the US filming for the opening story, and may well have had an active role in that story being crafted in the first place, but they didn't commission the whole series so it would be a big swing to say they were an original network for that brief period. U-Mos (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, where does this leave the 1996 film? It was co-produced by both the BBC and the American Fox Broadcasting Company and produced by Universal Pictures, and even the article for it describes it as an "American-produced version" of the show and being "intended for an American audience". Surely the infobox could read "United States (1996, 2023–present)" to show this? Also, the infobox in the film's article can't list companies, hence they are listed in the infobox for the whole show. Similarly, it can't list countries of origin. Inpops (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: just realised that @Gonnym removed information for the 1996 film from the infobox. To me that doesn't really make sense since it is part of the show. It should stay there. Inpops (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an oversight from my perspective, and I've added it back in. I'm not aware of any precedent of removing the movie from consideration of the TV series as a whole. U-Mos (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for initially forgetting to remove the RfC tag when editing the pages, but there's a clear consensus here. I have added notes to the country fields of the relevant infoboxes to hopefully avoid further edits against it. Also, following this I have made a proposal to remove the "country" parameter from television infoboxes that all are welcome to respond to. U-Mos (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I was just wondering whether it would be worth updating the to-do list currently seen at the top of this talk page. It was last updated in 2007. As I am new to this WikiProject, I can't update the list myself, because I don't know what the current aims for this WikiProject are. Your thoughts would be very much appreciated. Lotsw73 (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, if it is worth updating the list, a new goal could be to "Create articles for new Doctor Who episodes" or to "Get the main Doctor Who article to featured status". Could any of the current items in the to-do list be replaced with more up-to-date goals? I feel that if the list was updated, it would make it more easier for new members to know which articles to work on and the ways in which they can help with this WikiProject. Lotsw73 (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain, @OlifanofmrTennant, @Alex_21, @Redrose64, @U-Mos... Any thoughts? Lotsw73 (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definatly in need of an update. Im working to find a citation for all of the citation needed tags on the then I think a bit of expansion. I'm trying to get it to GA for the WP:WikiCup. Here are some reasonable goals: Get all New Who series to GA (only 2 and 13 are not GA). If we could get the main page to GA and the remaing two series we could score a GT. Get atleast one doctor to GA. Maybe work on the SJA episodes most of those arent in a great state. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These goals sound good to me, @OlifanofmrTennant; I will add them to the to-do list soon. Does anyone else have any goals they would like to add? Any out-of-date goals we can get rid of? Lotsw73 (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To do 4 is maintain FAs we have a few FFAs mabye we could work to restore those? 1 could go probably. Lotsw73 which Doctor should be the priority? Rhain Alex_21, Redrose64, U-Mos Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough choice, but I'd say the Fourth Doctor, since he is probably the most recognisable Doctor in the show's history. It's already a B-class article. A good resource is Doctor Who: The Handbook: The Fourth Doctor (1992), though unfortunately I don't have a copy of this. If someone does, then that would be a must-have resource to use in that article. Lotsw73 (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant (and everyone else): On second thoughts, the Fourteenth Doctor and some of the new series Doctors would be easier to promote to good article status. Lotsw73 (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to nominate The Star Beast (Doctor Who) for GA Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, Do we need to split the History of Doctor Who article? Is the current article too long? Or does it make more sense to leave the article as it is? I'm leaving this open to all members of this WikiProject, so please participate. Kind regards, Lotsw73 (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its readable prose size is currently 72 kB and 12,000 words, so it could be split, but personally I think it's fine for now. At the very least, it should probably be copy-edited (per the maintenance templates) before any split attempts are made. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could be split History of Doctor Who (1963-1989), History of Doctor Who (1990-2004), History of Doctor Who (2005-) But I do agree that it should be cleaned up Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what was [announced] in the Doctor Who subreddit, the community which ran tardis.fandom.com fell out with the hosting company and decided to move everything to tardis.wiki instead. This may require some URLs to be updated. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

((TardisDataCore)) has already been updated, so any articles using that template should be safe. Any links not using the template should probably be converted. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the search for if anyone wants to keep an eye on it (I only had to convert two to templates). I also had to revert the update at ((TardisDataCore)), as the change of parameters broke linkage, but I endeavour to link further into it. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed that Doctor Who: The Curse of Fatal Death be moved to The Curse of Fatal Death, for hopefully apparent reasons. Not requested as a technical move due to the potential alternative of Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death (where the page resided until 2015). See Talk:Doctor Who: The Curse of Fatal Death#Requested move 16 March 2024. U-Mos (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an RfC on beak Two-parter vs Serial at the page Talk:Timelash. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is not a valid RFC. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit | discuss

Actors who played the Doctor

15 articles

William Hartnell

Patrick Troughton

Jon Pertwee

Tom Baker

Peter Davison

Colin Baker

Sylvester McCoy

Paul McGann

Christopher Eccleston

David Tennant

Matt Smith

Peter Capaldi

Jodie Whittaker

Ncuti Gatwa

This is one of my ideas I'll have the next few up soon. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]