Talk:Doctor Who spin-offs

K-9?

The K-9 TV series ... where does it fit in? if allowed? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.236.219.49 (talk).

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."

In any event this two paragraph section seems to me to be highly misleading to the average reader.Najawin ☎ 22:51, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

Aaah, I see. I reckon this is a holdover from when the list was all BBV and Reeltime, before all the prose spinoffs got added to the list. And insofar as it concerns things like Wartime, it's not wrong. The observation that these productions, while licensed, broadly played the same role in the unfolding Doctor Who fandom that high-end fanfilms did in the Star Trek fandom is one that is borne out by several serious critical sources, and worth mentioning. I'm unsure how to reword it, but it's an interesting point to make and I don't see where else to make it. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:58, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

No, no, I certainly agree. It's a difficult issue. Hence why I brought it up in the talk page rather than just going ahead and doing something about it. Najawin ☎ 23:03, June 13, 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so I think I need to clarify my point here. It's not the position that troubles me, it's the word 'licensed' being only at the top. That's misleading and to the average normie, looks like the rest are 'lesser' or something like that. They all contain elements licensed from the BBC and/or the creators. And I would heavily disagree with Wartime being perceived as a fan-film. It's a amateur film, yes, but it is a film with all the licenses needed and such, with the bonus of John Levene as a part of it. Basically, I don't have a problem with distinguishing BBC produced stuff and outside BBC stuff, but all of the series on here are licensed, and I'd like the page to reflect that. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 00:42, June 14, 2020 (UTC)

This went dark suddenly. I'd just like to reiterate my points, as stated above. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 14:32, June 18, 2020 (UTC)