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
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
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)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
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)
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, '
ThePope' 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_21TALK 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_21TALK 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
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
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
I think this one is a good idea. It's quite manageable to promote each article to good status, given the amount of information that has been published on the various actors who have portrayed the Doctor. Perhaps us members of this WikiProject can focus on one Doctor at a time. Given that @
OlifanofmrTennant has promoted
Peter Capaldi, perhaps we can begin work on that article in earnest...?
Lotsw73 (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually it hasn’t yet been promoted. Just nominated but yes anyone interested? I think after Capaldi the next easiest to promote would be Tennant or possibly T. Baker. The hardest would be McCoy. Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Are those ratings fair? I don't think the McCoy article is start class for instance, I mean it's a long way off GA but... I think these things get reviewed and then never revisited.
Rankersbo (
talk) 12:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Rankersbo and
Lotsw73: After looking over the articles, I would suggest that Tennant and Baker are almost certainly the closest to GA. I would be willing to work on both that article and the others with anyone who is willing to help out. Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
OlifanofmrTennant: I will have a look at improving/adding some references in those articles.
Lotsw73 (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Good Topics on the main page
Hi, not sure how to patch this up due to my lack of technical expertise, but the listing of Doctor Who Good Topics on the Project Page all link to Season 1 instead of the respective Season.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk) 12:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Doctor Who series 14 § Season 1 vs Series 14: Arbitrary break. This discussion relates to the location of season/series articles, based on the latest being retitled to a "Season 1" format, based on the current and common naming of the season. A list of moves has been proposed, based on a series of debated questions. --
Alex_21TALK 11:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That's a rather obscure notice, and it misses the lead. Which is adding the primary broadcast years for each season to the title of the article!
Nfitz (
talk) 23:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your opinion, as always. --
Alex_21TALK 07:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply