Talk:Big Finish Productions

Sherlock Holmes audios

Can have here mention about the new series of Sherlock Holmes audios series? Here's a link about it: http://www.bigfinish.com/ranges/sherlock-holmes --Victory93 (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who is not cult today

I have removed the reference of Doctor Who as cult and the link to the BBC Cult website. The BBC Cult has content on how Doctor Who was perceived prior to its return to television in 2005. Since 2005 millions of people have been watching Doctor Who plus there has been influx of tie-in items that have been released for the general consumer market as a result of Doctor Who's 2005 TV return. I mean why would the BBC released this amount of material for a show that is considered to be cult.

Therefore the perception that Doctor Who is cult and the BBC Cult website is completely outdated and therefore not applicable for this article. The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I dusagree, the BBC also rate Blue Peter as cult, a program that has never been off air since it first broadcast in the 60's and is a staple of BBC Childrens output. A;lso that BBC cult site was running for 2 years after the revival, If the BBC call thier programs cult, who are you to disagree? Jasonfward (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Blue Peter is a children's program meaning it would have smaller audience numbers without most adults watching it, therefore would easily be called cult due to its said audience numbers. As you say the BBC Cult site ran for two years after the revival meaning 2007. This is 2011 and therefore the current situation is that BBC Cult is not an active site and therefore no evidence that the BBC themselves who makes Doctor Who is calling it cult today. The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

1) Doctor Who is also a childrens program. 2) There are many sources calling Doctor Who cult 3) If you read the article it doesn't actually directly call Doctor Who cult 4) You are editing the article to conform to your opinion and you have no sources to back that up, at best you are engaged in WP:OR Jasonfward (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a message with one of the administrators asking them to review this edit war Jasonfward (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Independent view, Doctor Who is verifiably a "cult" programme. Our own cult following article explicitly mentions Doctor Who, a Google search of "Doctor Who" plus "cult television" reveals several hits, including a cult television book, numerous BBC links (and it's not for any of us to decide that they're "completely outdated" by the way, cult is cult is cult), the Daily Telegraph recently referred to it as "cult", as did Metro, Reuters, The New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, MIT, the Sydney Morning Herald, and that took all of five minutes to find. It's verifiably "cult" so as long as we cite it, then there's no problem at all having the term in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who Magazine editor Tom Spilsbury makes a case in his editorial in issue 392 of the said magazine on why Doctor Who should not be called cult and I don't see why this is as less valid as other publications which had used the cult term. It may be argued that Spilsbury was speaking from a bias point of view but then again why should the view of those who have expressed it as cult be considered more valid since these are people who are necessarily fully appreciative of the programme. In any case Doctor Who's high ratings since 2005 proves that it is not fitting for the word cult to be used to describe Doctor Who. The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please desist. Multiple independent and reliable sources have referred to the show as "cult". Please see WP:V. In other words, we can "verify" the world thinks this is a "cult" show. Your "opinion" is irrelevant. The "truth" according to you is irrelevant. Multiple sources say "cult", that's how Wikipedia works. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

" in issue 392 of the said magazine on why Doctor Who should not be called cult " I didn't read said article so I cannot comment on it directly, but using what you say about it, it seems clear that many people do call Doctor Who cult, if someone makes a case for not calling it cult it clearly is called cult already. And this is the point, Wikipedia is not the arbiters of truth, Wikipedia does not even attempt to give the truth, Wikipedia attempts to give an accurate reflection of the important and major views on a subject, and who decides what is important and major is the preponderance of reliable sources, in this case the preponderance of reliable sources call Doctor Who cult and Wikipedia reflects this. Jasonfward (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Rambling Man I do not appreciate the message you have given me so do not contact me again and I was talking about Doctor Who since 2005 not before it.

The article on "cult following" says this: "Cult media are often associated with underground culture, and are considered too eccentric, bizarre, controversial or anti-establishment to be appreciated by the general public." The fact that millions of viewers have tuned into Doctor Who since 2005 clearly contradicts the view of Doctor Who being cult for today's viewers.

I do not get to be on the Internet at any time I like so I only get back to this debate when I feel that I have sufficient time to make a case here. I also do not believe in putting all my eggs in one basket.

If it persists for this article to describe Doctor Who as cult I will dissect the editorial for DWM 392 bit by bit in order to argue why calling Doctor Who a cult today is wrong.The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

See the above multiple reliable sources I've provided. There are plenty of sources stating DW is a cult television show. Your version of "truth" is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant what the "cult television" article says. If that article is wrong, fix it. Continuing to push your POV here will result in your account being blocked. "Dissecting the editorial" is a waste of time when we have multiple reliable sources to back up the position of it being considered cult. You may not believe it, many millions do. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not care that millions believe it to be cult because it does not reflect the effort the BBC has made to promote Doctor Who something it would not be doing if it was a cult show. Also using an obituary on Lis Sladen to prove a point that Doctor Who is cult is absolutely distasteful. In any case the cult description in this article is not necessary due to this article stating that Big Finish primarily produces science fiction properties. Science fiction alone makes the cult description absolutely superfluous. 122.108.156.100 (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It's still described as "cult" in multiple reliable sources. If you can dispute that, please do so. If not, you have nothing new to add. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources does not mean they are right on this and don't you dare put back Lis Sladen's obituary because as I say before it is offensive. 122.108.156.100 (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

In case you're unaware, Wikipedia uses reliable sources to verify claims made in its articles. Please do not threaten me, that's not useful or helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Both of you are in violation of WP:3RR, please refrain from continuing to edit war or I will have to report both of you. However to chime into the point being argued - the "cult" description is not just referring to the Doctor Who product line - but also the other products - so regardless of the cult status of Doctor Who the sentence is accurate. If you don't like the current references find better ones or flag it - but there is not justification for the total removal of this content. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Dresken nope, I was reverted a blocked editor. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Then as a courtesy to your fellow Wikipedians, I would recommend next time to state that in your 4th revert to make it clear for others your intention. And there are definitely no prizes for dragging me back here with a ping to correct me - that's just a bit rude and unnecessary - my comments only suggested you two stop what appeared to be an edit war - the fact it wouldn't have continued is obviously enough. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

No, there was really no need. I waited for the individual to be blocked and then reverted his changes. There was absolutely no need for your commentary. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It appeared from the edit history that an edit war had started and I called out the behaviour - that is perfectly acceptable. That I hadn't gone and checked to see if either of you had already been blocked already is also perfectly acceptable. I don't see how you were being constructive by pinging me back here - totally unnecessary. Even if you had just commented - that would have been fine. Dresken (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Well as I said, it was entirely unnecessary had you looked to see that the other editor had been blocked. I have no idea why you are so put out by being pinged, it's extremely commonplace to do that, especially given your scant edit history. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

What your behaviour appears like on a page is on you alone - but you cannot expect people to chase down the history of those involved when they make a simple observation of a situation on a single page. Pinging me is demanding my attention - you had no need to demand my attention - even if my edit history was actually "scant". Cheers, Dresken (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

If you didn't want to be pinged, you can turn that functionality off. I'm really not getting why you're so upset by it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The Avengers

On June 26, 2013, Big Finish Productions announced they had signed a license with StudioCanal to produce full-cast audio productions of 12 lost episodes from Season 1. More details at http://www.bigfinish.com/news/v/the-avengers-licenced .85.81.82.15 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Big Finish Productions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.doctorwho.co.uk/faq.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Big Finish Creative

Big Finish Creative are the animation arm which has done some of the gap filling in 1st and 2nd Doctor stories. http://bigfinishcreative.com.au shows them having essentially the same logo, and a web serch throws up Jason Haigh-Ellery in linkedin saying "Animation: Chairman of Big Finish Creative studios in Sydney, Australia." That's probably not solid enough references to avoid any mention getting reverted away. Anyone got sound sources?Nickpheas (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)