Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34

Lead images in infobox for serial articles

I notice that An Unearthly Child and many subsequent serial articles have a non-free TV screengrab as the lead image. I has previously started to add lead images to story articles, such as The Android Invasion, and these were summarily removed on the grounds that "image does not conform with WP:NFCC#8 policy". So why one rule for some articles but not others? Is a non-free lead image (with appropriate fair use rationale of course) permitted or not? Cnbrb (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

NFCC#8 concerns "Contextual significance": Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Most of the episode/serial articles used an image in its infobox solely for the existance of an image and no other reason. The image at An Unearthly Child is contextually significant, as well as the fact that it includes a sourced caption. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Also, a lot of these were added before the image rules became stricter and no one has gotten around to removing them yet (see also the recent culling of non-notable articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Article alerts‎). DonQuixote (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Per what Alex_21 said, the image needs to actually aid in the viewer's understanding of the article. For instance, with An Unearthly Child, it is used to show what reviewers meant. In this instance, the TARDIS interior is described as "breathtaking," and this description makes more sense when an image is supplied showing the TARDIS interior in the episode. This aids in readers' understanding of the topic.
If you wish to add infobox images, I'd suggest adding a caption to describe the significance of the image, as well as actually having the image be relevant to the readers' understanding. In the context of The Android Invasion, a lot of what is notably covered in reviews is already described in images (For instance, the reviews praising the robots technically have an image in the form The Bionic Woman comparison image, and a depiction of the main antagonist is shown with the DW Experience photo.) I suppose the only thing I could think of would be a screencap of the episode depicting some of the android duplicates in action, but even then I feel that might be stretching. However, I will say that the case may be different depending on the article. For instance, off the top of my head, "The Timeless Children" discusses a lot about the Timeless Child twist. An image could potentially be useful in identification of the subject there, as currently the article uses no images. This is obviously an example, and I'm not saying "Go do that," but it should hopefully help give a clear idea of when an infobox image may be needed. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, in the specific case of The Android Invasion, I added a lead image of Sarah-Jane Smith's robot face falling off (I think it was a cliffhanger shot at the end of episode 2 or 3). This bore direct relation to the discussion in the article of android duplicates and reviewers' Bionic Woman comparisons. To my mind, this "increases readers' understanding of the article topic", but somehow this was not enough. It got deleted. This all seems very subjective - how is it "stretching"? Why does this not apply to The Daleks (free images of Daleks are readily available) The Edge of Destruction - both feature copyrighted TV screenshots? Surely by this measure, the article text is all I need to have an understanding of the episode. And yet, the jacket art of Target novelisations are always permitted without textual discussion of the artwork - surely this does not increase my understanding that a book exists? You can see how bewildering this is. Cnbrb (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Android duplicates are so ubiquitous in popular media that readers probably don't need another example. Also, the Edge of Destruction image probably isn't necessary and could be removed and the the Dalek image could probably be replaced with a free image. Jacket art for books are generally acceptable in the same way theatrical posters for films are. DonQuixote (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
To be fair to the Dalek image, that one is described in reviews, so it's not exactly there for no reason. Edge of Destruction is a bit more iffy though, as I'm not sure the broken clock is necessary for understanding beyond showing off the set. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
It's part of the story, the TARDIS is attempting to inform the Doctor - via a series of initially-inexplicable occurrences (such as clocks with melted faces) - that there is something amiss with the control settings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the Edge of Destruction image meets NFCC#8; it doesn't increase the reader's understanding of any production information, or even the plot of the episode, merely illustrates it. The clock isn't even mentioned elsewhere in the article. It's hard to see how that was retained while others were removed. U-Mos (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The clocks are indeed not mentioned in the present version of the article, but two of the refs (Doctor Who: The Beginning and The Edge of Destruction) certainly do mention them. I can add sourced text (from e.g Howe, Stammers & Walker) if you like. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I was told some years ago that the Dalek flying up the stairs used on Remembrance of the Daleks failed this guideline but the file itself was not deleted from Commons, suggesting the opposite. I want to improve Remembrance when I get the time so I fully intend to restore said image. Spa-Franks (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
That file was not uploaded to Commons; it is used on Dalek and its fair use rationale, though perhaps a little outdated, is for that article only. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
And as I maintained at the time, one can easily create a fair use rationale for using it on the Remembrance article, on similar grounds indicting the first time a Dalek was explicitly shown conquering stairs, which was achieved with part practical FX and part CG (or "video effects" as it was known then). Spa-Franks (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Sure, and you are welcome to do so. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Doctor Who for FA

I think it would be a good idea to get the article for Doctor Who itself to FA in honour of the 60th. If there is any intrest then I think it is feasible, if not then theres always the 70th. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Series 15

Given Davie's absolute dedication to usher in a golden new era of Who, I've already started the next draft at Draft:Doctor Who (series 15). -- Alex_21 TALK 00:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Davros's Article

The article for Davros has been tagged that it "may not Wikipedia's general notability guideline." Given that Davros is a very important article in this WikiProject's scope, I thought I'd bring this up here in case anyone is able to help improve the article's sourcing state. I'll probably end up going through and seeing if I can dig up anything myself once I've got free time on my hands, but I felt it best to inform you all regardless. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Latest articles

Just a list of all the latest articles and drafts existing for upcoming episodes/series of Who:

-- Alex_21 TALK 10:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

BBCCDW needs to use archived links

{{BBCCDW}} is linking to classic Doctor Who pages that no longer hold any content, e.g.

links to https://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/threedoctors/ which only has three lines:

  • "In Detail" – dead link
  • "Cast & Crew" – dead link
  • "Original Paperwork" – still works.[1]

The Internet Archive still holds the original details, cast & crew e.g. [2]. I recommend extending the template so that it also links to this. – Fayenatic London 11:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's been that way for a while now! U-Mos (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Doctor Who and the Pirates

Someone PRODded Doctor Who and the Pirates. I objected and added a little to the article. Can anyone please take a look and see if you can add any useful cites to the article? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

PRODs

Hello, WikiProject,

There are a lot of Doctor Who-related articles that have been tagged for Proposed Deletion several days ago. The ones I looked at didn't have this WikiProject mentioned in the assessment on the article talk page so I don't know if they will be included in the deletion alert for this WikiProject. But you can find them by browsing User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary, I believe for the November 22nd date. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this notice Liz, I'll look around and see what I can save... probably not much though Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Doctor Who (series 14) § RFC: Title of this article, and following seasons

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Doctor Who (series 14) § RFC: Title of this article, and following seasons. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Doctor Who (series 14)#Requested move 2 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Doctor Who (series 14)#Requested move 2 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Bulk deletion of Big Finish articles

Big RfD on a pile of Big Finish articles that could use eyes. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Harvest (audio drama) is the active one, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colditz (audio drama) having already closed and deleted the article on Storm Warning, which surely could have been salvaged given the coverage it would have gotten as McGann’s return. But honestly, all of these should have multiple sources given how widely reviewed they are. El Sandifer (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Dan Lewis

Why has Dan Lewis’ page been deleted? AlwaysBi (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@AlwaysBi: If you mean Dan Lewis (Doctor Who), it wasn't deleted but redirected, and the relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Lewis (Doctor Who). --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
But he no longer has his own, individual page like other main companions. AlwaysBi (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
This was because no significant coverage, analysis, or commentary on the character could be found when editors searched for it. This is most likely due to his short tenure more than anything else (Cause Dan was a great character) but in any case, policy dictates that there just wasn't enough for an article. I will note this isn't the first time this has happened (For instance, Katarina and Kamelion both had their articles redirected per a lack of SIGCOV) as well as the fact that Dan has potential for being brought back in the future (Should be brought back in a recurring role like Mel, for instance, there's a good chance of it there.) As it stands now, Dan just lacks what it takes for a proper article divorced from the Companion list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal regarding season article naming

There is a proposal to change the naming conventions of TV season articles from the current practice of XXX (season 1) to XXX, season 1 or XXX season 1. As such a change would affect a substantial number of articles, you are invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) § Move TV seasons from parenthetical disambiguation to comma disambiguation. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Update: Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) § Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Prod at Silver Lining (audio drama)

Hi guys, just a quick message that the above article has a PROD on it (unsourced since 2008). If anyone has any sources, I'd add them now. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 04:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox audio drama and the set_between parameter

In perusing Category:Pages using infobox audio drama with unknown parameters, every entry is a Big Finish audio drama based on Doctor Who. The parameter that is throwing the error (look to Legend of the Cybermen for an example) is "set_between," which appears to have been added in 2006, but removed in 2015. The template does have "preceding" and "following" parameters, but seems fitting for real-life sequential entries in a series, while this old field was meant for an in-universe placement in the Whovian timeline.

So, thoughts on what to do? Zaathras (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I could remove this parameter with AWB for all pages within that category, if there are no objections. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Before the parameter is removed, I feel we should note in each article the information that is contained in the "set_between" parameter. For example, with the Legend of the Cybermen article, we would write somewhere in the article that the story is set between The Wreck of the Titan and The Curse of Davros. Lotsw73 (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I should've added this in my first message, but does anyone agree or disagree with my idea? I'd be happy to do this task myself if there are no objections.
And when I have done the task, I will notify you, @Alex 21, so that you can then remove the parameter, if indeed there are no objections from anyone else about removing the parameter. Lotsw73 (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Beginning task. Will let you, @Alex 21, know when I'm done. Lotsw73 (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
@Alex 21: Finished. You can now remove the parameter. Lotsw73 (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
@Lotsw73  Done -- Alex_21 TALK 10:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, @Zaathras. Cheers. Lotsw73 (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
No prob, just something I came across. There's only 1 entry left with a different issue, The Hollows of Time, which is complaining about a "Production" parameter. I'm not sure what that section of the infobox is trying to convey, so I will leave it to more experienced hands. Zaathras (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Update the to-do list?

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)

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)
@Rhain, @OlifanofmrTennant, @Alex_21, @Redrose64, @U-Mos... Any thoughts? Lotsw73 (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
I plan to nominate The Star Beast (Doctor Who) for GA Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Split the History of Doctor Who article?

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)

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)
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)

Tardis Wiki

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)

{{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)
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)

Doctor Who: The Curse of Fatal Death move proposed

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)

Time to change the infobox "original network" parameters per the closing logos at last

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)

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

@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)

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)
  • 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)
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)
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)

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)

  • 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)
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)
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: [3][4] U-Mos (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
  • Yes per U-Mos. Disney participates in the production, not just the distribution. JM (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
the evidence here seems incontrovertible. JM (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
    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)
    Fair point. Thanks for explaining. :) Lotsw73 (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
    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)
    Aha, very interesting... thanks for the clarification. Lotsw73 (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_34&oldid=1226579438"