Doctor Who is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 16, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 4, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted March 1, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted July 3, 2009 Featured article review Demoted February 9, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 9, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed September 6, 2013 Peer review Not reviewed November 1, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed November 26, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 5, 2013. Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 23, 2007, November 23, 2009, November 23, 2010, and November 23, 2015. Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Doctor Who Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Media franchises Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. England Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television: British High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. BBC High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Science Fiction High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cardiff Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cardiff, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cardiff-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CardiffWikipedia:WikiProject CardiffTemplate:WikiProject CardiffCardiff Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Wales Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:Vital article

	Other talk page banners
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Manual of style Muir, John Kenneth. Critical History of Doctor Who on Television. McFarland & Co, Inc. 2007 ISBN 978-0-7864-3716-0 Gouchera, Wendy. "Keeping Doctor Who's secrets". Computer Fraud & Security. vol. 2008, iss. 9, Sep. 2008, pp 13–15.

Bad Wolf Productions needs adding to the Production Companies as 2022-onwards as filming started back in June [1] for the 60th anniversary specials

Doctor Who has also been broadcasted on UKTV's W (Formerly Watch) and Drama Channels from 2008 to present [2] BenjiFoxy (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Wolf to be added to the Production Company list.

I.e.

BBC Studios 2018-2022

Bad Wolf 2023- Present 90.249.164.167 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. BlueNoise (Désorienté? It's just purple) 21:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhain. Thanks for your detailed edit summary. My edit was based on the response to this thread. Apologies for not taking the time to read the article properly. MarnetteD|Talk 00:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: No apologies needed! There was a reason I didn't add it myself earlier—it took someone else doing it for me to realise it was probably appropriate, and only then did I look to see if the information was already sourced. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following WP:BRD after a reversion of my edit by Rhain. While only original/home networks should be in the infobox, Disney+ is now a home network, thanks to the co-production deal that's just been announced. Same as HBO being listed for His Dark Materials (TV series), to trace back the Bad Wolf lineage. U-Mos (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@U-Mos: Thanks for the follow-up. My reversion wasn't about Disney+ being a "home network" but rather the original network: per {{Infobox television}}, the parameter is for the original network(s) only, not foreign broadcasters. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just jumping in here to add in because U-Mos called it a co-production deal: this isn't a co-production deal like with Starz for Torchwood's last season, it's just a broadcasting deal. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, isn't it? News this week has shifted towards the financial investment that's part of the deal, i.e. money into the production. [3] However, recognising that this is currently being discussed in terms of alleged/speculated, happy to wait for something more concrete. U-Mos (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, I don't think Disney+ should be listed as a network. I do however think Disney Platform Distribution should be listed in the distributor field. I've seen this done on other series where the international distributor is different from the distributor in its country of origin (ex: The Rookie, Magnum P.I., The Walking Dead, Designated Survivor). This Radio Times source specifically says Disney "will now act as a distribution partner overseas" so it does qualify as a distributor. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the article you linked says is that Disney are helping to increase the show's budget, it's nothing to do with who's producing the show. The article even says "What’s not mentioned in Broadcast’s report is if this financial injection from Disney comes with any creative control for the megastudio". The source basically says they might be helping provide more funding, and if that's true, then they might be part of the creative process. It's a conjecture within a conjecture. OliveYouBean (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very narrow view of what constitutes a co-production, and not in line with how it's considered by the industry, critics or indeed Wikipedia. They don't need creative control (which is hard to quantify) for it to be a co-production, as long as they are financially investing. That would also make Disney+ an original network for the series going forward. As acknowledged, I jumped the gun given what's currently certain, so happy to revisit later. U-Mos (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disney helping with the budget could possibly be interpreted as having prepaid a sales contract.  Stepho  talk  07:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of the network listing, any opposes on reinstating Disney just to the distribution field based on what I said above? Details on funding aren't certain yet, but distribution seems to be. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure it's entirely appropriate. {{Infobox television}} says the parameter is for the "original" distributor, and while that doesn't explicitly exclude international distributors, I still think we should stick to the original country only. Disney should certainly be mentioned in prose though, and I'm not opposed to a footnote. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding original distributor is not limited to the country of origin. It seems this is a direct distribution deal (BBC Studios > BBC One/iPlayer and Disney Platform Distribution > Disney+), not a third-party distribution (BBC Studios > Disney Platform Distribution > Disney+). The Infobox instructions does also say company or companies, so it does imply that there could be more than one. Perhaps this specific issue needs a wider discussion at either the Infobox talk page or WT:TV/MOS:TV for a wider consensus given the other articles I mentioned above. I'd be fine with removing it again until that discussion gains some input, especially since Disney won't begin distribution until 2023. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points. Either way, I definitely think this could benefit from a wider discussion at Template talk:Infobox television or WT:TV so we can make the phrasing more specific for future reference. (It seems to have been brought up a few times over the years, but never given a definitive answer.) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at the talk page of the Infobox if you or anyone else cares to chime in. I'll also drop a notice at WT:TV. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the new issue of Doctor Who Magazine, RTD says edits of the Tennant specials were sent to Disney+ for comment. Does that look more like a co-production? Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole lot of interpretation, synthesis, and analysis going on here. It's all interesting to consider, but when it comes to adding this to the article, don't we need a reliable source that calls it a "co-production"? —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right! OK, what about these that appear to be in favour of co-production: Telegraph, Screen Rant, Geek Tyrant? Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of series, show and programme is inconsistent. It has a narrative and is under British English so shouldn’t show be used, according to the Television show article. I personally use programme (don’t use it that often) and show a synonyms so I don’t know if the article is correct.

Show seems to be most consistent (just over a 100), programme around 50 (I did just remove some off the lead section so under that) and series is also used for sets of episodes so it’s hard to pick up how often its used. Chocolateediter (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have to use just one throughout, as like you say they are largely synonymous. My feeling is "show" is more colloquial and less encyclopedic, so I would favour usage of series where the context makes clear that it is referring to the series as a whole and not just a particular year's worth of episodes, and programme otherwise. In this specific case, it might be that programme also refers to the entire history 1963-present, while series could mean 1963-89 or 2005-present? U-Mos (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Series" in British television always refers to what Americans refer to as a "season." The entire show should be called "show" or "programme" Rcarter555 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect; "series" can (confusingly) refer to both an individual season and the show as a whole. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We all have our opinions, but what do the sources say? As for primary sources, BBC's Doctor Who site refers to it up top as a "show" but then other language within the site also calls it a "series" (particularly as it pertains to the Disney+ deal) and BBC-branded DVD releases alternate between the use of "series" and "season" for a particular year's-worth-of-episodes. But as (per WP:PST) we're meant to rely more on secondary sources, it's notable that elsewhere in media, "series" is commonly used among often reliable sources, including UK outlets Radio Times (example), and The Guardian (example) as well as de-facto-standard reference sites like IMDB (example). With the increasing international reach of the series/show/program(me) – and perhaps the above discussion about Disney+ is a factor in that – I wonder if it's not a better approach to use more common nomenclature that's increasingly used not only internationally but within the country of the show's origin? That would be "series." —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: What's your rationale for this reversion? – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhain, when you've been reverted, usually you come to Talk and put the case for your edit. That would have been a nicer way to start this conversation.

You removed a large number of categories. I am, in general, in favour of trimming categories down. People don't pay enough attention to WP:DEFCAT and I think there are many categories that don't belong on this article. However, you have twice given your reasoning as WP:SUBCAT. WP:SUBCAT means that if an article is, say, in the Cities in France category, it should not also be in the Populated places in France category or the Geography of France category, because Cities in France is a subcategory of those, and so including it alone is sufficient. That rationale does not apply to many of the categories you removed, like BAFTA winners (television series), or Television shows adapted into novels. Thus, I reverted your edit, as the edit summary and the edit made were discordant. I would be happy to support removing some categories if you could better explain why you think they should go. Bondegezou (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: When you revert someone, usually you give a reason for doing so. That would have been a nicer way to start this edit. I already explained my edit here, so it's generally expected that you do the same when reverting, even if your reasoning is the same as your previous reversion; "WP:BRD" is not a valid reason.

You've understood my reasoning well, but you're mistaken: the rationale does apply to every category I removed, since Category:Doctor Who is a subcategory to all of them. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you for that explanation. You are right. My apologies. I have restored your edit. Bondegezou (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhian, Doctor Who is only a subcategory of those categories as you added it to them. It's not like it was there all along. Rankersbo (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rankersbo: Correct, I added it to most (not all) of them, for consistency; I never claimed otherwise. That has no impact on this discussion. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking that up, Rankersbo. Rhain, your assignment of the Doctor Who category as a child to so many other parent categories seems questionable, so I've now reverted that and re-reverted the change here. If putting category A in category B, you should ensure all subcategories of A fit in B, and that doesn't apply to the changes you've made, I suggest. For example, the subcategories of Dr Who concepts or characters does not fit in the parent category 1963 British television series debuts. Bondegezou (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: It's not currently labelled as such, but it appears to me that Category:Doctor Who is a topic category and thus doesn't require this direct is-a relationship (for example, the subcategory Category:Health in France doesn't really fit the parent category Category:Member states of the European Union, but it needn't since their intermediate—Category:France—is a topic category). Perhaps I'm mistaken, but this is my understanding. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Categories are complicated and I do not pretend to understand all the ins and outs of Wikipedia's policies. I am going by WP:SUBCAT, which says, "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second (an is-a relationship), then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second. For example, Cities in France is a subcategory of Populated places in France, which in turn is a subcategory of Geography of France." By that rule, some of your categories for the Dr Who category seem wrong to me. I don't see anything saying that topic categories don't require that. If you could point me to something?

I thought it might be useful to look at practice elsewhere. So, I looked at Star Trek and Category:Star Trek and, frankly, it's somewhat confusing. Some of what they've done there matches what you are seeking to do; some doesn't. The Star Trek article, for example, is in Category:Television shows adapted into comics, Category:Television shows adapted into films, Category:Television shows adapted into novels and Category:Television shows adapted into video games, but Category:Star Trek isn't. That's contrary to what you did. However, Category:Star Trek is in Category:Space opera, which does match what you propose here.

With Thunderbirds (TV series) and Category:Thunderbirds (TV series), the article is in most categories and the category is in very few parent categories, which largely goes against what you propose. Perhaps further examples will be helpful to consider. Bondegezou (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read that quote from WP:SUBCAT earlier and certainly recognise your point. I think the following paragraph has an even more relevant quote: "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also." There's nothing specific about topic categories not requiring that; that's just my interpretation of WP:TOPICCAT, especially considering the example of Category:France. I could be (and most likely am) wrong.

Unfortunately, looking elsewhere really doesn't help, since there seems to be little consistency—other articles are just as messy as this one, if not more so. Of the four categories you listed, three (comics, films, and video games) are also used as the parent categories for some (though admittedly few) subcategories—hence my edits. Perhaps Thunderbirds is the best example to follow here; it seems much simpler and more logical. Either way, Category:Doctor Who's parent categories are currently a mess of inconsistencies, which is what led to my edits in the first place.

Despite this discussion and my edits, my interest in the existence and maintenance of categories was pretty minimal to begin with and is progressively decreasing—wearing a bit thin, so to speak—the more I try to understand them, so feel free to make whatever changes you see fit. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 15:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change: From 2005, the series switched from single-camera to a multi-camera setup.[21]

to

From 2005, the series switched from a multi-camera to a single-camera setup.[21]

^[1] Asfolsom7 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done–small jars tc 18:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]