Forum:BBC-produced shows and episodes that make extensive use of DWU elements

Index → Inclusion debates → BBC-produced shows and episodes that make extensive use of DWU elements

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

Introduction

I'm not good at doing these long-winded introductions, so I’mma just cut to the chase:

We already have pages for a small number of works that would otherwise just go under Cultural references to the Doctor Who universe if it weren't for the fact that they just so happen to be BBC-produced. Specifically, things like Extras: The Special, or The Silurian Disruption, or that one, really old Lenny Henry sketch.

With this in mind, there are some other things we don't cover that I think may very well qualify for the same reasons.

Let's start with these two:

• The Vicar in White: Final (regular) episode of The Vicar of Dibley, in which our lovely titular character, Dawn French's Geraldine Granger, finally finds the love of her life and ties the knot, in a ceremony in which Doctor Who plays a pretty big role. Geraldine's airheaded verger and best friend, Alice, dresses up in, what she explicitly describes as "the Doctor, as portrayed by the actor David Tennant", complete with bridesmaids dressed up as - what else? - Daleks.

• Untitled and Untitled (or perhaps just one combined Untitled): Two episodes of EastEnders that were broadcast circa February 2008. These two episodes are notable in that a Doctor Who convention, or event of some kind, is the backdrop to a storyline in which Stacey Slater aims for a reconciliation with estranged husband Bradley Branning. You can read more about these episodes at EastEnders (series).

What do you think? And are there others that may qualify? WaltK ☎ 20:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't know. Personally I think how we cover the two highlighted segments is probably right. In cases where Doctor Who is licensed but they're just depicting fans of the show, discussing the instance as a pop-culture reference is your best bet. I don't think we would gain anything from allowing non-valid coverage of Ted 2, even if the Dalek cameos in the background of the Comic Con are totally licensed.

When it comes to what we do cover that might otherwise just go on the parody list... My personal opinion is that if something is included on an official Doctor Who VHS or DVD, we basically have to have a page on it. Not to mention that some sketches, like Lenny Henry, have enormous historical importance. Extras is extremely important itself for showing David Tennant in a fictional episode of the show, something totally worth documenting by itself.

I'd thusly be much more sympathetic about other BBC productions where "the Doctor" shows up in-character, or something like that. Something like the Channel 4 series Chelmsford 123, where the TARDIS appears and then vanished in the background of a scene (although obviously this example is probably not licensed). But if it's just, "Oh well the BBC allowed the Big Bang Theory to show the TARDIS" I don't see what we gain by covering that outside of a blurb. OS25🤙☎️ 22:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel like the reason we cover skits or the ilk on this Wiki because they're necessarily BBC produced, but moreso that they're licensed. But the commonality between the ones we cover currently is that they depict some semblance of in-universe events, however parodical or unrealistic.

I don't think this Wiki has quite figured out how to cover non-DWU television series that licensed out DWU elements but only uses them in a fictional in-universe way. This type of story is more of a broad range than just the BBC produced material as outlined above, as it also extends to Ted 2 of all things. (FYI that movie has licensed a Dalek, but it's explicitly a costume at a comic con.)

I feel we need a better way to cover these types of stories, as valid or invalid coverage well lead to extraordinarily tangential information being on the Wiki; a page for Geraldine Granger may be reasonable enough but when it also means we have pages for Dr. Ed Danzer it kinda becomes ludicrous because a movie featured a Dalek for less than thirty seconds of screen time.

Note that if the licensed usage of elements is portrayed as "real" in-universe, then I don't have objections to such obscure pages, but I feel the subjects being depicted as fictional in-universe is just one step removed from what I feel deserves full coverage.

I have mused about creating merchandise type pages for such stories, but haven't done anything about it yet as I feel it needs discussion.

I'm not sure this thread is best equipped for such a discussion, as it is broader than just BBC produced material and I don't think invalid or valid coverage is best for these sources (although I'm not shut off from a compelling counterargument).

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

22:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I agree that it's a "bad thing" that tangential information is on the wiki, in fact I strongly disagree. Covering content which we do cover to any extent really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I stand by the fact that we don't really gain anything by covering random licensed stories where Doctor Who is presented as a 1:1 copy of itself as a TV series. We gain something, however random it might seem, from Seventh Doctor (The Lenny Henry Show). I don't understand what we'd gain from articles on all of the characters in Queer as Folk just because the K9 prop showed up one time. OS25🤙☎️ 23:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that we gain anything by having pages for things where Doctor Who is shown as oou. Except, OS25 just brought up Queer as Folk, written by Russell T Davies, who has explicitly stated that he considers everything he writes to be set in the same universe. How do we deal with that? Aquanafrahudy 📢 10:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? The conditions you've outlined there are not remotely enough for validity, especially as RTD has never singled out Queer as Folk in his "shared universe" quote. OS25🤙☎️ 14:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

To clarify my point about these sources which depict Doctor Who being only fictional in-universe, is in part because of authorial intent. None of these are meant to be part of the Doctor Who multiverse. And other part of my reasoning is because, um, covering Ted 2 on this Wiki as a valid or invalid source would result in literally tens of thousands of in-universe and out-of-universe pages, covering everything from characters in the background wearing a recognisable costume to any of the hundreds of people who worked on the film's graphic design all because a fictional Dalek appeared for less than thirty seconds. We should have a page on Ted 2 because it is licensed, but it should not be covered as a "source" page given the floodgates it'd open. This kinda situation should be similar to the notable fan works idea proposed, where we have a page on something but don't allow it to be valid, invalid, or even noncovered.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

16:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, the RTD quote doesn't actually relate to The DWU at all, but to Queer As Folk, It's a Sin, and Cucumber (it can be found <a href="https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/culture/article/russell-t-davies-its-a-sin" rel="mw:ExtLink">here</a> if you're interested). Aquanafrahudy 📢 06:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, to me notcovered means "does not justify in-universe coverage by itself." I know selective coverage is also considered notcovered these days, but to me not having extensive coverage is being non-covered. Our fan works pages will be non-covered, as would Ted 2 if we only created a short page describing the film's existence without in-universe coverage. OS25🤙☎️ 14:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

There are a few stories from other series that feature elements as "real", but are quite minor, non-covered, and I suppose might not have been approved to use the elements. Examples include Red Dwarf: "Demons & Angels" (The Doctor's TARDIS makes a cameo) and Sherlock: "The Lying Detective" (Torchwood is mentioned). Again, quite minor, possibly not worth covering, but regardless worth noting in this forum IMO. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 22:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it in-depth, but I do believeMoffat asserted many times to crossover-hungry fans that Sherlock was not in fact set in the DWU — so it seemingly fails Rule 4, and thus falls afoul of the general understanding discussed at Talk:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (series) that a minor cultural reference is not necessarily grounds for coverage if Rule 4 is lacking. I would say the waters are muddy enough that it shouldn't be covered without a dedicated thread, at the very least.

(I have no idea where Red Dwarf stands.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Sherlock is out, but Dracula (and retroactively Jeckyl?) might be in. Najawin ☎ 23:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Also perhaps Years and Years? Aquanafrahudy 📢 07:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is one where it's not really possible to come up with a blanket policy which will cover every instance of this. That said, here are some guidelines we could adopt and that I think (in some respects, at least) we're sort of already following:

• A release on an official Doctor Who DVD or home video is a shoo-in for coverage on the Wiki. This applies to The Silurian Disruption and The Lenny Henry Show sketch mentioned in the OP.
• Sources should generally not depict Doctor Who in an out-of-universe manner. These episodes of The Vicar of Dibley or 2008 Eastenders aren't adding anything to the Doctor Who universe; they are explicitly set outside of it. (Ted 2 may have an argument for coverage of a kind as it's non-BBC and thus specifically sought out the rights to the Daleks, but I'd much rather leave it as some sort of NOTCOVERED page, or alternatively we could give the franchise a Category:Real world series with DWU connections page.)
• Licensed reprisals by actors of their Doctor Who roles are far more notable than a random cameo from the TARDIS or something, which I expect is why Extras: The Special has an article.
• And lastly, solid Rule 4 evidence (proof that the events depicted therein are intended to contribute to the DWU) could be used to promote a source from a mention on the Cultural references list to a valid article.

As I said at the start, I don't think these should be hard rules as I'd say there are exceptions to every criteria I've listed save the first bullet point, but this would give us a better idea of where to draw the line, at least. Borisashton ☎ 23:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Resurrecting this briefly because I noticed the recent creation of this page, for a story that utilises a DWU element in the same way as what I exemplified in the opening; specifically, a background appearance by a Dalek tree ornament. I don't know if this changes anything about the discussion, but I still felt it interesting to point out. WaltK ☎ 13:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Unexpected Christmas Presence is certainly a similar case to the ones discussed in this thread but it does not fall under its purview, with the BBC having licensed out the use of the Daleks to Big Finish, who are presumably allowed to utilise them for marketing or promotional campaigns such as this. I'm happy to examine its merits briefly but as it's not of the "implicitly licensed because it was broadcast on the Beeb" ilk I think it should probably be its own thread if there's significant disagreement. The same goes for Ted 2, but everyone so far seems to agree it is not suited for in-universe coverage.

With that said, Unexpected Christmas Presence should definitely not be valid. The Daleks (and Thunderbird 2) are not treated as if they are anything more than fictional and there is no background of a Doctor Who/Terrahawks shared universe which would lead the viewer to think otherwise. This fact isn't neccesarily a reason for invalidity in and of itself but Unexpected Christmas Presence is promotion for a non-DWU series, so I see zero reason indication it is intended to contribute to the story of the Doctor Who universe. Borisashton ☎ 19:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you just mean valid, or should it even be covered to begin with? WaltK ☎ 17:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed this reply when it was originally made and subsequently forgot about the thread. I think I'd lean slightly towards keeping a(n invalid) page for it. It's under a minute in length so doesn't do much harm and although its relevance to Doctor Who could be covered in a bullet point at Cultural references to the Doctor Who universe/2010s just as well the presumed license that Big Finish has to use the Daleks for things like this tip the scales in that direction for me. --Borisashton ☎ 20:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Although I'd prefer it to be valid, I guess I can see why it might need to be invalid. (Even if I like having it on "Daleks in popular culture and mythology") Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 20:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This has been brought up at Talk:Hedz (series) - although I hadn't previously thought about it, it seems the various DWU-related Dead Ringers and Hedz skits fall under this thread. I'd like to voice my support for their coverage as licensed parodies. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 23:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)