Talk:Doctor Who universe

Spin-Offs?

The article states that:

Prior to Torchwood and later The Sarah Jane Adventures, Doctor Who had not had a successful spin-off series.

Doesn't the Bernice Summerfield series count as a successful spin-off series? Because it pre-dates Torchwood by about a decade and is still going strong.

Expanded Universe?

I removed this entire paragraph from the article:

A related term, Expanded Universe, borrowed from Star Wars fandom, describes persons, events, and stories depicted in the various spin-off materials, as their canonicity is a matter of debate, as well as personal taste and opinion. Some elements of the Expanded Universe have made their way into the mainstream Doctor Who universe. Examples include the two-part 2007 episode Human Nature/The Family of Blood, which was adapted from the novel Human Nature, the 2005 episode Dalek which was adapted from the Big Finish audio drama Jubilee, and The Monsters Inside, a BBC Books novel the setting of which is referenced in the 2005 episode Boom Town.

This definitely needs credible citation. I have NEVER heard the term wholeheartedly applied to Doctor Who by the BBC or any major players in the fan community. "Expanded Universe", especially in the sense that the Star Wars community uses it, isn't appropriate to Doctor Who. SInce RTD, Moffat, Cornell, Tennant and other prominent Who luminaries have repeatedly asserted an all-inclusive approach to (or a distinct disinterest in) canonicity, it is exceedingly difficult to assert that there is an "Expanded" Whoniverse.

More to the point, it is impossible to define "Expanded Whoniverse" in a way that will achieve agreement amongst a majority of Doctor Who fans. Some will say that comics aren't an essential part of their core canon; others will assert that without comics you're missing the heart of the Eighth Doctor's adventures. Some will say that the New Adventures are central to understanding the Seventh Doctor, others dismiss the entire range as contradictory. Hell, some refuse to accept that Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy's televised adventures don't count as "real" Doctor Who; others say that the 2005 series is utter rubbish.

One simply can't define a "mainstream" Whoniverse and an "expanded" Whoniverse. You can define the term "Whoniverse" in a broad enough way that the majority will agree, as the first paragraph does. You can even supplement this with quotations from the mainstream press, and document its history from published works. But the moment you start confusing the terms "Whoniverse" and "canon" is the moment you've descended into personal opinion. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 15:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, I think it started early on in this wiki's development (when we were borrowing from various places to build up bits or act as place holders) and then others just grabbed a hold of the place holders before they could be un-defined. --Tangerineduel 15:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I do believe though, that said erased paragraph, is true, the term has been used to describe Doctor Who, but did originate in Star Wars works. I cannot cite any sources, but am quite sure.90.212.221.122 15:50, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

first time lord

Who was The First Time Lord?

Does this even exist?

The BBC, the creators of Doctor Who etc. have never used the expression "Doctor Who Universe". The earliest usage of the term was used to include all Doctor Who activities, merchandise etc.(eg. action figures or the Longleat Exhibition would be part of the "Doctor Who Universe", individual stories would not). The usage of "Doctor Who Universe" found here is unique to this website! Attempts for someone to actually properly clarify what it actually means has been met with responses like "this has been asked before" and "that's the way we do it", but there is yet to be a single proper definition of just what exactly the "Doctor Who Universe" actually is. What we have been told is that it's NOT equivalent to 'canon'. It's NOT equivalent to 'continuity'. Nor is it equivalent to 'narrative'. And it's certainly not equivalent to "a list of the Doctor's adventures". It's also not equivalent to "a history of the Doctor's world". We are however told that certain contradictory stories can both be part of the "Doctor Who Universe", while at the same time other stories that fit seamlessly into the continuity, canon etc, are NOT part of the "Doctor Who universe". Certain dubious semi-official spin-off merchandising products ARE part of the "Doctor Who Universe", while at the same time certain adventures produced by the BBC themselves and declared to be canon, official and part of the official continuity are most definitely not part of the "Doctor Who Universe". Clearly then the "Doctor Who Universe" can not be defined by mere words. It is whatever a certain small group of people who edit this site deem it to be at any particular moment in time. It defies a logical, coherent explanation. When confronted with providing a clear description of what it is or isn't one can respond with either "That's the way we do things" or "This has been brought up before". Neither are really good explanations, but perhaps the former IS the ideal answer. The "Doctor Who Universe" is indeed "the way we do things" around here, meaning quite simply that it's illogical, self-contradictory, has no rational explanation, and can not be properly defined. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.133.0.68 (talk).

Well, how would you describe the fictional space in which Doctor Who, Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures take place? —Josiah Rowe ☎ 23:10, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

But that's till not a proper explanation. "the fictional space where Doctor Who and The Sarah Jane Adventures take place" is a start. But then the BBC themselves decreed that, as an example, Dimensions in Time takes place in the same fictional space. Yet according to this here wiki, it is "not part of the DWU". Meaning the "fictional space" explanation no longer works. Likewise, if we include both Spare Parts and the World Shapers, then said "Fictional Space" must be changed to "fictional spaces". And if we include the BBC Books PDA then PDA #64 must be included. Oh wait that's Scream of the Shalka, and that's "not DWU". And yet there is/was no difference between it and any other PDA. Unless we shift "fictional space" to "fictional spaces". But you insist of space, singular, which is an impossibility. "Doctor Who Universes" may be a better description, considering how many parallel worlds and negated timelines there are.

There is no "fictional space in which Doctor Who, Torchwood, and The Sarah Jane Adventures take place". It doesn't fit. Therefore there is no "DWU". Unless you want to change the definition yet again. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.133.0.68 (talk).

This seems to be a similar discussion as was raised on Tardis talk:Canon policy#Canon. Says who?. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:31, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well, what I'm asking for with regard to the "Doctor Who Universe" is cited sources from TARDIS:Valid Sources that such a thing as a "Doctor Who Universe" even exists. Not a "Fan theory", not the idea that a "Doctor Who Universe" could exist, but actual Valid Sources that it does exist. I'm not looking for explanations such as "what do you call the fictional space?" I'm looking for real, concrete Valid Sources that the "Doctor Who Universe" actually exists at all. Master of Spiders ☎ 14:01, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

Haha. Snap.

There are NO Reliable Sources that this concept even exists. The reason for the article's existence is because its is supposedly necessary for such a concept exist for such a concept to exist, in some extreme circular logic. The article admits that the BBC has NEVER given any official verdict on canon. Can anyone supply even ONE official source that such as thing as a "Doctor Who Universe" has ever existed at all? On the very remote chance that such a source has ever existed, what are the chances it would line up with the article as stated here? Not slim to none. None. Period. This whole idea is an unsourced "fan theory" at best and someone pushing their personal POV at worst. The BBC has never indicated that there is such a thing as a "Doctor Who Universe". It's never mentioned in novels, audios, comics etc. The only mention I can think of is in the "About Time" books where they make fun of anyone who believes that such a thing could ever have existed.

Well in part of defining the DWU is defining Canon and how the term is used and that article is cited.

DWU is as noted bound by the stories you use to create it.

"Whoniverse" is an often more frequently used term and as the article states dates back to at leas Haining's A Celebration.

The BBC re-published analysis from the Television Companion on their website as part of their episode guide, several of which mention the "Doctor Who universe" Celestial Toymaker and Ribos Operation both mention it.

Other publications like Doctor Who: The Legend state that novels like the NAs, MAs, EDAs and PDAs continued the travels of the Seventh and other Doctors. Which points towards a continually developed adventures (and therefore universe).

On Telos Novella's site here, they mention "Doctor Who universe", in the context in which it's mentioned it's talking of the fictional universe of DW. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:23, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

"DWU is as noted bound by the stories you use to create it"...or in other words, it's created by a person as they see fit, it's not an official concept.

The BBC book the Legend actually cites "Scream of the Shalka" as part of the tv continuity. And whatever it says about the novels, it DOESN"T mention that they are part of any "universe". And, as noted, several times, the PDA include Scream of the Shalka(#64). And it's wholly unsourced POV to state that just because there's "continued travels" means that there's a "Doctor Who Universe". We may as well call it WhoLand or DoctorWhorld or whatever.

Haining's book uses the term in a far more general usage than this article. In fact, in his usage, both this website, as well as the two of us would be part of the "Doctor Who Universe"!

Both the BBC articles mention a "Doctor Who Universe", but what they don't do is clarify what it actually is.

Likewise, the Telos site mentions only that the book "stepping into the Doctor Who Universe for a while". Not only is this ambiguous(to say the least), but even IF we accept it as being the so-called "fictional space", it doesn't define the borders of that "fictional space".

So, yes there ARE some references to a "Doctor Who Universe". Most of them are ambiguous or so vague as to be meaningless. The only unambiguous reference is Haining's which includes various aspects, including fandom, as part of the "Doctor Who Universe". And that's certainly not the way this unsourced article uses the term.

From the Telos site:

One of Telos' stated aims with the novellas is to bring new life into the Doctor Who universe through harnessing the talents of general science fiction, fantasy and horror writers, and getting Newman signed up to pen the launch title was something of a coup.

and

"Writers as accomplished and respected as Kim Newman are always very much in demand," notes Howe, "and we were delighted that he agreed to contribute to the novellas range. Kim is a great fan of telefantasy, and is enthusiastic about the idea of stepping into the Doctor Who universe for a while."

From the BBC:

Gough really comes across as a powerful being, limited by nothing but his own whim and equal, if not superior, to the Doctor.' This excellent character is, arguably, The Celestial Toymaker's greatest legacy to the Doctor Who universe.

and

The sixteenth season - often referred to simply as the Key to Time season - gets off to an excellent start with a cracking set of scripts from Robert Holmes, brought to the screen with great style by director George Spenton-Foster. The opening scene, setting up the season's over-arching plot, was actually the work not of Holmes but of script editor Anthony Read. It is no less well-written, however, and successfully establishes the White Guardian and his unseen Black counterpart as important new characters in the Doctor Who universe, representing a previously unknown power above the Time Lords themselves.

No one can honestly believe those usages are equivalent to the way the term is used in the article.

Removed so-called "sources". and why

1) The BBC links DO refer to "the Doctor Who Universe" in passing and it is never clear as to what they believe the term to mean. They refer to a character as an addition to the Doctor Who Universe, which could be interpreted in any number of ways.

2)The Legend states that the novels "continued the story of the tv show after Survival". True, but they NEVER mention any "Doctor Who Universe". It is ENTIRELY someone's personal interpretation and point-of-view to make the infinite leap to that statement being proof of a "Doctor Who Universe", in the sense that this article uses the term.

And so the "sources" were reinstated....and removed again.

AGAIN, yes, the BBC articles DO both use the term "Doctor Who Universe". So does the Telos article. However, they all use it very briefly, in passing, and in a totally ambiguous manner. The Legend book NEVER USES IT AT ALL. The only usage of the term, with a clarification of what it actually means, is Haining, and there it means something totally different to the way it is used in this article. 41.133.0.68^{talk to me} 17:05, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

The sources were added to add clarity to the concept, not just of the DWU, but the other concepts and ideas that make up the DWU, shared universe, mythos etc. --Tangerineduel / talk

17:07, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

But this is an article about the Doctor Who Universe, not about anything else. And again, The Legend NEVER uses the term Doctor Who Universe. The two BBC sources DO use the term, but it is unclear what they are referring to. So all you have is the line that a certain character is "an addition to the Doctor Who universe", and that an author was going to "step into the Doctor Who Universe". You have NOTHING else. 41.133.0.68^{talk to me} 17:09, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

Yep. But the article isn't claiming to be about the BBC's usage of the term "Doctor Who universe".

It stated in the first sentence that it's "is a term used by fans and, increasingly, the mainstream press.".

It's an article about the concept of the DWU, that is what the third paragraph says; "The Doctor Who universe exists as two concepts... " --Tangerineduel / talk 17:14, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it's not about the BBC's usage of the term, then why are you using the BBC usage of the term as a source?! And yes it somethingstated in the first sentence, but you are yet to provide a source that backs up what is stated in the very first sentence, or anything in the article at all for that matter.

"And you use "the concept of the Doctor Who Universe", and then state "two concepts". So which one is it? Do you have any idea what you are even saying at this point. Let's clarify:

You have not given a single source that backs up the article. You have gicen sources that are wholly irrelevant...or vague or ambiguous. When this is pointed out, you then state "aha! but the article isn't even about that". 41.133.0.68^{talk to me} 17:19, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

First of all: Stop edit warring. If the reversions back and forth continue, this page will be locked, and the participants may be blocked.

Second: The citations from the Television Companion (via the BBC website) do establish that the phrase "Doctor Who universe" is used in a valid source. Another source which at least establishes that the phrase is used with some meaning is AHistory by Lance Parkin, which bears on its cover the subtitle "An unauthorized history of the Doctor Who universe". The phrase is used, and has some meaning. What has not yet been established is whether the article as it stands defines the phrase correctly, and in a manner which reflects the sources.

I think that the anon (Master of Spiders?) has a point that the article needs better sourcing. But we're not Wikipedia; we don't require that every sentence be sourced and footnoted. All that is necessary is to establish general accuracy.

I'm not at home, so can't check right now, but I'm fairly certain that the Parkin book uses the phrase "Doctor Who universe" in the general sense in which it's used here: that is, the fictional universe in which Doctor Who and related fictions take place. The concept is a valid one, and worthy of an article on this wiki.

Now, you can dispute whether the concept represents something which actually exists or has meaning, just as an atheist would dispute that the word "God" represents something which actually exists. But regardless of the existence of God, the term is a useful one, because it reflects something in our common culture. Similarly (though on a much, much smaller level), the concept of a "Doctor Who universe" is something which has currency in fan circles, and is treated as if it were something meaningful. (Even the references in About Time support this: if the concept were completely empty, it wouldn't mean anything to mock people who think it exists.)

So I think that what the article should do is indicate the breadth of opinion on the subject, saying something like "Fans disagree on what is included in the Doctor Who universe, and some dispute the concept's meaning or utility alogether." —Josiah Rowe ☎ 21:38, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

The deletion tag has been removed by admin. Do not re-introduce it. By all means continue the discussion that we're having on this page so that we can write the article better. But with over 3000 links — not even counting those created by DWU — the practical hurdles to removing this article from the wiki are immense.

Moreover, there are several usages of this term by the mainstream press, so the suggestions that it "doesn't exist" are frankly absurd. What the term means is debatable, but not its existence.

This article will not now, or ever, be removed from this wiki.

czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 21:40: Sat 28 Jul 2012 

A lot of the argument against this article — and again, the question of its removal is completely off the table — is that the BBC have allegedly never defined the term. The BBC have also never defined what a companion is — but we still have an article at companion.

There are some terms which simply pervade discussions about Doctor Who to the extent that an article is warranted, regardless of how ill-defined the topic is. This is one of them. It's not terribly logical to pretend that there is no such thing as the "Doctor Who universe", when even the mainstream press uses the term. To those people who don't believe there is such a thing as the DWU, Google it. On a narrow search for exactly that term, I'm currently getting 346k hits. As a real world concept, it therefore absolutely exists, since Google is an accepted de facto test for existence. Defining' it is a different matter. But denying its existence, and, worse, miring it with the discussion about canon, is a waste of time.

After all, the term is used in:

• headlines in the general entertainment press
• the subtitle of AHistory
• well-respected fan journals
• press releases by merchandisers
• academic papers

That's more than enough varieties of use to indicate that we can have a real world page on the subject.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 23:16: Sat 28 Jul 2012 

But a real world use in what sense? Maybe it means this:

http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/doctor-who/20092/5-doctor-who-universe-characters-who-could-join-torchwood

– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.133.0.68 (talk).

...which seems to me to be an example of what I said when you began this discussion: the "Doctor Who universe" is the fictional space in which Doctor Who, Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures take place. So characters from any of those TV series could be considered "Doctor Who universe characters", which is how the author of that article uses the phrase, and more or less how this wiki uses it. I say "more or less" because we also include most non-television spin-offs, so Bernice Summerfield and Destrii and Evelyn Smythe are also "Doctor Who universe characters". Our seemingly interminable inclusion debates are merely an attempt to draw the boundaries of this universe for our own internal purposes. But our use of the term is consistent with its general meaning. —Josiah Rowe ☎ 05:30, July 30, 2012 (UTC)