Talk:Doctor Who spin-offs
K-9?
The K-9 TV series ... where does it fit in? if allowed?
Licensed vs Overseen
So User:Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived brought up the idea that we change "Officially licensed by the BBC" to "Officially produced or overseen by the BBC". The reasoning being that the current wording is somewhat prejudiced against the other spinoffs. I think discussion on this should be opened, and furthermore, if this change isn't made, we should probably be a little more clear as to the legal situation of the other situations, since as it stands the average reader of this site might not understand how the character rights for Doctor Who worked. Also, we should maybe rewrite the "Other Doctor Who spin-offs" section as it seems to lump various books in as "fan films". Which is bizarre. And also not exactly the spirit of the books either. Najawin ☎ 22:35, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
- I definitely think "Officially licensed by the BBC" is the way to go; at a stretch I could see us using "Officially overseen by the BBC", but I don't really see the point.
- I haven't the faintest idea what you're on about with "various books being lumped in as 'fan films'"? Could you point me towards the relevant section in more detail? The only "fan film" I see covered on this page is the special case of Devious, which has nothing to do with any books. Though argubaly Devious shouldn't be on this list for the simple reason that it features the Doctor as the main character, albeit not a valid Doctor. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:42, June 13, 2020 (UTC)
- The two paragraphs directly under "Other Doctor Who spin-offs". "By way of comparison, these spin-off productions, often classified as fan films, are in spirit similar to the professionally made fan films based upon the Star Trek franchise that began to emerge in the early 2000s when the rights holders for Star Trek relaxed their restrictions; unlike the Doctor Who-related productions, however, no restrictions on character use have been imposed."
