Talk:Doctor Who spin-offs

Documentaries

Would it be advised to do a page/listing on Doctor Who documentaries? (I know there have been numerous BBC ones, including Doctor Who Confidential, as well as video documentaries and the CBC's "Planet of the Doctor". [1] Orville Eastland

Webcasts

In the "Webcasts" section I created links for the various productions, but I don't know enough about Death Comes to Time to create one myself. I only know how it ends, but I didn't want to put an unannounced spoiler in the section. I think it's important an article be created for it, though, because I've seen a lot of online chatter by people who consider the 1996 movie, and - by extension - the new series as not possibly being canon because of what happens to The Doctor in Death Comes to Time. 23skidoo 18:45, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Games

I moved the Doctor Who (board game) info here, added some more about the other Doctor Who board game I know about and the CCG - but am wondering if there's a better way to organize it or even if it should be in this article or somewhere else. Any suggestions? -khaosworks 08:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's old news now, and the way it looks currently serves the purpose effectively, but I wonder if it might be worthwhile to produce a "Doctor Who toys" (or "Doctor Who collectibles," perhaps) article. There's certainly enough out there, and I suspect the term "spin-off" may not be as intuitive as one might hope for when dealing with things like games. It's just a thought: while I think this may be more effective than the current presentation, it's not like the present system is particularly bad, and so this is pretty low priority, in any case. – Seancdaug 04:58, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

It probably is - I've always had the idea of a Doctor Who merchandise article in mind, but have never put it together because I've never possessed enough material to warrant a separate article. If we get to the point where we can gather enough info to do so, certainly it's a good idea. --khaosworks 06:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Audio play list

I've been trying to put together a list of Doctor Who-related audio plays. It's still incomplete, and I'm playing around with the formatting, so I've not posted it to Wikipedia proper yet, but I've put up a rough draft under my user pages at User:Seancdaug/List of Doctor Who audio plays. As of now, it's only the Big Finish output (and it doesn't include all of the related series yet, either). When complete, it should probably include the BBV plays (Faction Paradox, etc.) and the handful of BBC-produced material (Pescatons, Slipback, etc.). Worthwhile? Decent formatting? Other suggestions? – Seancdaug 04:46, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Masters of Luxor

There are links in other articles (such as fanon) to "Masters of Luxor" which was the unproduced second serial of the series. The links redirect here, but there's no actual mention of the story in this article. I don't know enough about Luxor to add anything myself; anyone else want to take a shot at it? 23skidoo 03:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's a brief mention under Novelizations. Masters of Luxor was one of the script books released by Titan books in the 90s. --khaosworks 05:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article

Page is now too big, ideas on how to split it? Tim! (talk) 17:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

khaosworks and I discussed spinning the games section into its own article ("Doctor Who merchandise," probably) a while back. That's probably the most logical way to go, IMO, as the inclusion of that material here has always seemed a little bit forced, IMO. – Seancdaug 18:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Picture Cards section could also go with it, the rest are more less related topics. Tim! (talk) 19:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I've also thought that if we want to go further we can even spin-off audios and books - something to think about, now that Tim! is listing the audio plays from Big Finish. I'm shifting this conversation to Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Doctor Who. --khaosworks 19:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to the principle of be bold, I have started the Doctor Who merchandise, although only with the material that was on this article. Any organisational ideas for that page most welcome! Tim! (talk) 09:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since you asked, there is already a page for Doctor Who audio productions - indeed this is even linked as the first line in this sub-section. It's odd then that THAT page lists early history of Pescatons, Genesis then Exploration Earth while THIS page lists only Pescatons Pre-1985. My opinion is either shorten this audio section to a brief mention, pointing at the audio productions for full info or delete it altogether. As is, this page is incomplete for Audio and duplication of full listings in both pages seems pointless. An anonymous user who thanks you for your time.

I value anonymous contributions as highly as logged in people's :) That section was originally EVEN longer, and was reduced to the couple of paragraphs and the link to the main article about audio productions. You can feel free to reduce that section even more if you want. Tim! (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the way to reduce the page is to start using the term "spin-off" correctly. A lot of what's described here isn't a spin-off. The only spin-offs from Doctor Who, strictly, are things like Faction Paradox, Miranda, Dalek-only material, K-9 & Company, Sarah Jane Smith, Bernice Summerfield, Gallifrey, Cybermen, UNIT, and other productions or literary work which is somehow based on the Doctor Who universe, but doesn't include the Doctor. Though I've started a number of stubs using the same format that was already established (i.e. one that included the term "spin-off"), it's really wrong to call PDAs, NDAs, NAs, BF productions, animated web adventures, and novelizations "spin-offs". They're continuations or "appearances in other media", really.

The following line is, as far as I'm concerned, the source of the problem with this article: "One aspect of Doctor Who spin-offs which makes them different from many spin-offs from other science fiction franchises is that many of the television writers and stars have been directly involved in the production of spin-offs. For example, it has become common for a former television actor to reprise their character for an audio play." It goes out of the way to describe why these aren't spin-offs as would be commonly understood, but then illogically allows the continued use of the term. Fact is, if the main character(s) of a show is directly involved in a production (as with Big Finish) it's no longer a spin-off. (Note the reluctance of Wikipidia editors to call Archie Bunker's Place, for instance, a spin-off of All in the Family, and the complete absence of the term "spin-off" from the main articles on the various post-original-series Star Trek series--even DS9, which is the only one that might be called a spin-off.) The main problem, here, is that there is no widely accepted term for what, in Star Wars lingo would be the "Doctor Who Expanded Universe". So the implicit argument in this wikiproject seems to be that everything that can't be categorized as part of the televised canon is a "spin-off". That's simply not what the word means.

Put another way, cite a source for the very first sentence of the article, or retract it. CzechOut 08:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Finnish novelizations

Although the information about the translations of the novelizations into Finnish is interesting, it seems odd to have two sentences about the Finnish editions instead of merely listing Finland among the other nations where translations were published. (Why list the names of the Finnish translations, and not, say, the Japanese ones?) Unless anyone objects, I'm going to edit/condense the relevant bit; please feel free to edit it back if you feel strongly about it! --Josiah Rowe

Autons

Shouldn't the auton movies also be listed here? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0176465/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0176466/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0204851/ Ausir 17:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Douglas Adams

I've just found out that Professor Chronotis, a character Douglas Adams created for Shada also appears in his later novel Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. Given that there is now quite a bit of precedent for Doctor Who-related fiction featuring individual characters (i.e. the Liz Shaw films, Auton, etc etc), I think Adams' book should be considered a Who spin-off in this context as well. But I'm not quite sure where to list it. Any ideas? 23skidoo 21:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd put it in the "original fiction" section, in the paragraph with Faction Paradox, Miranda, and Guy de Carnac, with a note explaining that "Shada" hadn't been released in any form when Dirk Gently was published, so it's not quite the same as re-using a character who appeared on TV or in a published Doctor Who novel. —Josiah Rowe 22:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"Novelization" or "Novelisation"?

I know we've discussed this before, but I can't remember where or what the outcome was. Which is proper UK spelling: "novelisation" or "novelization"? This article currently uses both, and we should stick to one or the other. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd plonk for "novelisation". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, always went with the proper spelling of "novelisation". DrWho42 04:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Tony Attwood (moved from article page)

It is not true to say that the Companions of Doctor Who series was a failure - in that this implies its sales were poor. Far from it, both the original books sold out, and Turlough and the Earthlink Dilemma was due for a reprint while further editions were in the pipeline.

I can say this with some authority as I was the guy who came up with the idea, and the title for the series, persuaded WH Allen (owners of Target) to run it, and wrote the first one.

What went wrong was a row between WH Allen who had the publishing rights and the BBC who had the character and format rights. Such rights were at that time a matter of great dispute and unresolved argument, particularly in relation to Daleks, the Terry Nation creatures that had made Doctor Who so popular near the start of the series.

In the end WH Allen pulled the series (or to use the jargon of the day, "put it on hold") while rights issues elsewhere were resolved. The BBC had given us permission for the series, but then started expressing informal "we didn't think you were going to..." type objections.

But this was small fry compared to the on-going Dalek and Blake's 7 arguments, in which I was also sadly involved (the Blake's not the Daleks) having written the Blake's 7 Programme Guide and Afterlife, both with Terry Nation.

It is interesting, all these years later, to watch spin-offs like Torchwood, and K9 and co, and think, well, maybe, if the time had been right, we could have got there a lot sooner.

Tony Attwood —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.209.107 (talk • contribs) 16:58, January 26, 2007 (UTC)

"the new series has contradicated the old series..."

Where has there been an incident in the new series seemingly contradicating the classic series that cannot be reconciled in any way? A wikipedia member with an awful username 20:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'm not sure when that was added, but I've removed it. (I've seen arguments that such-and-such in the new series contradicted so-and-so in the classic, but such claims are dubious and at the very least POV.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

An example: the Doctor went vegetarian at one point in the old series, but ordered a steak in the 2005 series. That can be explained by the change of persionality in regeneration. Digifiend 13:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

People keep on about inconsistencies between episodes but forget the pivotal rule revealed by the 10th doctor, those four essential words - wibbly wobbly timey whimey. That should suffice to explain any inconsistencies that may occur or have occurred or may not have will be occurring. Simple! In a discussion about the magnificent time lord, an idea was born for a new Doctor Who film, a film directed by Tim Burton, starring the usual suspects of one Mr Johnny Depp and the most beautiful Helena Bonham Carter, roles would be the sole decision of TB of course. Interesting? Just how delightfully dark do you think it would be in the hands of this superbly honed triumvirate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.28.68 (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

video game

Am I just being stupid? I can't seem to find any info on wikipedia about the upcoming doctor who video game Andral 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there much to say about it, yet? It was mentioned here a week ago. I know I haven't seen a huge amount of info via OG. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 21:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Arcadia

Currently, the lead mentions the following:

"One area of speculation is the degree to which spin-off material is considered canon by the series following its 2005 revival. It includes references to some spin-off material, for example the reference to Arcadia, (a planet created for the Doctor Who Magazine comic strip Profits of Doom and the setting of the novel Deceit) in "Doomsday"

Do we have a source to the effect that each use of the name Arcadia is intended as a common reference? That is, is the Arcadia in the novel a reference to the one in the comic, and the one on television a reference to the one in the novel? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 17:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization

The Original Fiction section was a bit of a mess with a lot of repetition and was in need or reorganization. I have done so by moving all discussion regarding novellas and short stories into one section and full-length novels into the other. I've placed the short stories/novellas section first because it was short stories that were the first published original fiction on Doctor Who, but I can't see why the full length novels section can't come first if someone's willing to revise accordingly. 23skidoo (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a more radical re-organisation. Why is there no Doctor Who books article? There are articles for the Cushing films, for the audios and so on, so why not for the longest-running spin-off medium? Instead, the books section takes up a large chunk of this article, unbalancing it. Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, even its title is a bit odd in retrospect. Why "spin-offs", when it's an article about adaptations and tie-in works? An article about spin-offs would talk about K-9 and Company, Torchwood, The Sarah Jane Adventures, and maybe the more unusual stuff like the BBV videos and Bernice Summerfield franchise. This is mostly about Doctor Who in other media. A Doctor Who novel isn't a spin-off; it's just... Doctor Who, in novel form. Probably in licensed form.

I'd suggest a new title along the lines of "Doctor Who in other media".Aderack (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, why is there no article on Doctor Who comics? There's a lot to talk about there. Surely if someone with a decent rough knowledge were to start the article, it would inspire others to come in and flesh it out. I'd... kind of like to read that. Having barely read the comics myself, however, I can't say much.Aderack (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested this over at Talk:Doctor Who Magazine#Doctor Who comics and redlinked Doctor Who (comics). It looks to me that we'd be best off splitting this article up and making it a holder for a short description paragraph or two and the media linked to via {{main}} (or even slimming this down and merging a basic framework back into Doctor Who). (Emperor (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Considering IDW are announcing an ongoing series and there are other one-shots and mini-series I suspect now is the time to split off the comics section. Is anyone interested in putting the novels and other larger sections up for a split discussion too? Or I could just be bold and split it off. (Emperor (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

The Ultimate Adventure

Doctor Who - The Ultimate Adventure was mounted at Wimbledon Theatre in London for several months starting in March 1989. This musical play paired the Doctor with a set of new companions in a battle against not only the Daleks but the Cybermen as well. Just checking, but since when was this a musical? Arraitchjee (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FirstDaleks.jpg

The image Image:FirstDaleks.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

IDW Doctor Who list

I was just wondering whether it would be worth making a list of IDW Doctor Who comic adventures (on a separate page), maybe listed by month/year released or split into Doctor and Martha, Doctor and Donna etc etc. Just give it a think. 8-)

Thefartydoctor (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)