Talk:Matt Smith/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Why not move this

Is there any reason why this page shouldn't be moved to Matt Smith (actor). Dmn € Դմն 18:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also Matt Smith (voice actor) which appears to have been at the location for over three years.
By the way I've put move protection on as well as temporary edit semi-protection because IME articles that suddenly become high profile are prone to getting moved all over the place without discussion first. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There is also (at least one) American actor by the same name, See the talk page at Talk:Matt Smith for further discussion on page naming/moving instead of splitting across multiple articles. --AlisonW (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely the section about him being cast is fine, but the pieces presupposing that he'll actually complete filming and it'll be aired presume a lot about the future? Shoudl we be predicting the future, irrespective of how likely it will be? --Hugorudd (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of semi-protect

nuff said, this is being used FAR TOO WIDELY these days, have some .'ing respect for your fellow contributors admins... try remember the motto (under "Welcome to Wikipedia")... It's supposed to be only used when there is widespread vandalism, not slapped on whenever someone feels like it... --87.113.0.21 (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeated violations of WP:BLP are grounds for protection. If you have something to add to the article, discuss it on the article's Talk page. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't edited the article before but I wanted to.... I won't now, since obviously you regard contributors who won't submit a registration as lowest of the low. Whatever. And I looked in the history and I didn't see any messages about vandalism... --87.113.0.21 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Where did I say that? Discuss your edits here. You can see the history of the vandalism and the reason for the protection at the article's history page - [1]. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I also object to semi-protection of this page as being heavy-handed. I found maybe three of four edits that could be counted as vandalism by anon-IPs, all of which were quickly reverted. Hardly evidence of a concerted campaign to violate BLP. Some accusations of vandalism were made when anon-IPs were adding information about his casting based on the announcement in Dr Who Confidential (but before the written statement), but calling that WP:vandalism is itself out of line. This will be a very popular page over the coming days, I fully agree, but that is no reason to semi-protect it. GDallimore (Talk) 11:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
When it comes to BLP, it's much, much better to protect too cautiously than when it's too late. Having said that, the history of this page doesn't appear to me to be littered with either vandalism or BLP violations. I've left a note on the protecting admin's talk page, User talk:VegaDark, alerting him to this conversation. If he doesn't respond in a reasonable length of time, I will unprotect this page. TalkIslander 11:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all. the page was listed at WP:RFPP where someone had requested its protection. Looking at the history, there had been almost no edits for 2 whole months, then suddenly tons of edits starting January 2. I'm looking over the history right now and the first 13 edits in the start of the surge were all unhelpful. The 14th edit was an attempt to add a source, which was later removed anyway because the source didn't support the claim. I'm not going to disect each later edit, but many subsequent edits were additions of unsourced content, vandalism, reverts, undos, and other unhelpful edits, and I felt protection was appropriate (note that the protection reason was not vandalism, but rather additions of unsourced content). Further, someone had just protected the page just prior to me, abiet only an hour (not sure if that was a mistake or not), and when unhelpful edits continued I protected for (only) a week- not that long to wait. I will not be undoing protection, as I feel it was done appropriately, but I won't object if another admin wants to undo it before the expiry. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I originally put the one hour protection on during the broadcast of the Confidential episode announcing him. The clues so far had been strong hinting it was Smith and the page was going wild with instant edits (usually from anon IPs) and reversions that frequently cause problems (not least because when the article changes so regularly it can be difficult for a substantial edit to keep up and often stuff gets lost in transition), so I put a one hour protection on to slow things down, give a breather space and get people to discuss things first. Similarly I put a permanent move lock on because a page with a disambiguation tag that suddenly becomes high profile invariably attracts requests for it to be moved and often gets moved without discussion and just an oblique reference to an unspecified part of the naming conventions. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

School play

"A drama teacher at his school tried to introduce him to acting; Smith was first cast as the tenth juror in an adaptation of Twelve Angry Men, a role he refused because as a footballer, he thought "acting wasn't that cool"." This a misreading of the source. That says that he refused to attend a drama festival for those reasons. He was in Twelve Angry Men. My friends' son was in the same production. Myrvin (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to leave for later

  • Prose length before announcement: 1308 bytes
  • DYK eligibility: 6540 bytes
  • Current prose length as of 00:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC): 1691 bytes
  • Expansion needed by: 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the way this man has been in a number of well known productions over the years yet his article only suddenly appears once he is announced as the new Doctor. --78.146.26.87 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the Weird Al effect. There are plenty of musicians who are well known, but didn't really "make it", or become famous, until Yankovic parodied them. Sceptre (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually I created this page 16 Oct 08, people only started going berserk with adding and editing the day before the announcement, on 2 Jan 09. I created the page because I thought the fact that he "has been in a number of well known productions over the years" meant he should have a page, not because he was the next hottest thing i.e. Dr Who. That said I am extremely pleased for Matt and to see that lots of people have finally taken an interest in him. (I'm also pleased that page I started has taken off so much.) -- Philoyonder (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

he played for dynamo football club —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skip17171 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK eligible now; 5.25x expansion. Sceptre (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

David Knijnenburg

The article currently being used as a source is purely journalistic speculation. If what it says is actually correct, then there is a possibility that Mr. Knijnenburg was considered as a possibility, but nothing to verify that even that much is true. It's irrelevant to the article. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality and supposedly Sub-Culture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Many people are saying that Matt Smith is both: Gay and an emo, though I think he is non of these. I am getting pretty annoyed at seeing tonnes of people's opinions about him being a "gay emo", but the last time I checked gay's and emo's HATE football, is it possible to get some sources to proove he is non of these? Or is there just nothing of usefulness on the internet?

Jonni Boi 17:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonni Boi (talk • contribs)

Ask these people for references to reliable sources to prove their claims and watch them fail!--Joshua Issac (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Sorry I don't know whether Matt Smith is gay or not (or whether he is an emo either)- nor do I care if he is or not. But the statment "gays hate football" is utter rubbish - are you aware that there are now a large number of gay football teams in the UK which have huge support fom gay people. and I know lots of gay people who regularly attend football matches to watch their favourite (straight) teams play —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntie babs (talk • contribs) 07:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note this is not a forum. Edgepedia (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christian Slater

Also - sorry, only just noticed this. The timeline is incorrect:

"His role in the latter earned him an agent and his first professional jobs: in Fresh Kills opposite Christian Slater; and a short time later in On the Shore of the Wide World."

Christian Slater wasn't in Fresh Kills. Fresh Kills also starred Nicola Walker and Phil Daniels. Matt Smith starred opposite Christian Slater a few years later in a stage adaptation of Swimming With Sharks.

The article then goes on to say: "After The History Boys, he would act in the teen play Burn/Chatroom/Citizenship, and Swimming with Sharks; the latter being his West End début, once again alongside Christian Slater."

All correct except the "once again" part. Swimming with Sharks was his first time acting with Christian Slater.


Juicebox100 (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Sceptre (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"drama and creative writing at the University of East Anglia"

I was in Matt's drama class at uni. The article current states "Smith studied drama and creative writing at the University of East Anglia". I feel this is a little ambiguous. To me it implies that the course he did was called "Drama and Creative Writing". It wasn't, nor was there any such course at the time. The course he did was simply called Drama. The UCAS code was, if I remember correctly, W400. He may have taken a few creative writing modules during this - I forget whether he did and he wasn't in any of my groups for the creative writing units.

Should I clear this up? Juicebox100 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a case of capitalisation. If the course was called "Drama and Creative Writing", I'd type it in capitals, if it's Drama with Creative Writing modules, I'd put it in lower case as in the article. Though I understand the confusion. Incidentally, how was he as a student? Sceptre (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood. He was a nice guy as a student - quite quiet but fairly sociable. I didn't get to know him massively well as we weren't in the same social circles but I never heard a bad word said about him and he was always perfectly pleasant to me. But anyway - as for the article; I'm happy with whatever you decide. Juicebox100 (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

i know you want to promote your country's doctor who

but that image is just distracting. --AaThinker (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That is an image of Matt Smith and he has a slightly odd face, so there isn't much that anyone can do about the fact that you find him distracting. There are no other images out there that are usable within the realms of Fair use as far as I know, even the one used on the Eleventh Doctor can't be used because it is far too role specific. I agree that it's not the best image of him, but it's better than nothing. If you can suggest a better image, that fits within fair use policy (WP:WPFU), then please point it out :) magnius (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Eleventh Doctor image is *much* better than the current emo-image in use... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.105.36 (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Main Picture Size

Can someone with a little more Wiki-code knowledge than me try to get the main portrait image closer to a 1:1 ratio or something? I can't agree with the people who have complained about it before for various reasons, but we aren't helping anything by stretching the image out so much that it looks like it was taken with a webcam. Portraits don't have to be huge, especially when they are stretched to the point where image quality is significantly lowered. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added the resize option and shrunk it a little, buy please go ahead and adjust the px size to suit. magnius (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Young harry?

In the credits section it states that Matt Smith played Young harry in a deleted scene of In Bruges. I don't think this is right. In this deleted scene (which is on de DVD) this part is played by a much younger boy. IMDB gives credit to Robbie Kay for this part. Grioghair (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Credited with Doctor Who

Why is he credited with the TV role of Doctor Who? He hasn't done it yet? Original air date 2010! This is not a verifiable fact. He has only just signed the contract. I suggest this is either changed to indicate this is a proposal or is removed completely. --84.112.111.89 (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that unless something exceptional happens between now and when they start filming the next series (which will probably be in the next few weeks or months), he is likely to remain the next Doctor. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 21:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Filming isn't due to start until "summer 2009" (which could be anything up until August, logically) and, whilst I wish him no harm whatsoever, one doesn't know what might happen in the meantime. As such crediting him as the Eleventh Doctor is seeing into a murky future; all we can say is that he is cast in the part, nothing more. --AlisonW (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The BBC, an extremely reliable source, credit him as the Eleventh Doctor, thus logically so should we. If, and of course I don't wish this, anything should happen to change this, there's no reason why we couldn't remove this at that point. Until that point, however, the fact that he is the Eleventh Doctor is well sourced. TalkIslander 22:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There was a 30-minute show on BBC One, on (British national television), dedicated to his new role as Dr Who...I think it's pretty safe to say he has the role! GiantSnowman 23:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me like the objection being raised isn't that he's not officially in the role, it's that the article is documenting the future instead of the present. That is, nobody's arguing that we shouldn't say he's been given the job. We just shouldn't say that he's actually done it, which is what "crediting" an actor is. --67.105.209.72 (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That's seems fair enough. Delete Doctor Who from "Credits" but leave the info about him being cast as the Doctor in the rest of the article. DonQuixote (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


Its official. He just took over (onscreen) on the new years episode 86.16.163.55 (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Eleventh Doctor's start date.

"Smith will begin portraying the Doctor in early 2010, in Tennant's last episode." is referenced by the Doctor Who confidental. I can't remember this being said, but perhaps my memory is faulty. Anyone else? Edgepedia (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It might've been in the podcast for The Next Doctor. It's evident he will, mind; Tennant needs to appear in the same episode as Matt Smith to regenerate (they won't do a Stolen Earth), so Tennant's last episode will be Smith's first. Sceptre (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I listened to the podcast as well. I've found where Matt Smith appears in the confidental (24mins approx), and will watch again during my lunch break. Edgepedia (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope, didn't hear that. I'm taking it out as not sourced by reference. It did confirm that he will appear in Spring 2010, but it's likely that's Series 5. Edgepedia (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
As production of Tennant's last episode is expected to wrap up this spring, we should know for certain then if Smith will be appearing at the end of Tennant's last episode. I can't imagine him not appearing; there almost always a hand-off scene. 23skidoo (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he appeared in the new years episode and took over86.16.163.55 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Article is getting out of control

This needs serious cleanup. The thing is littered with awkward phrasing, needless repetition and in-universe conceptualization (David Tennant regenerated? I seriously think not.). Now I see this passage stuck in here again:

Smith was a relatively unknown actor compared to the actors speculated to take on the role, who included Paterson Joseph, David Morrissey, Sean Pertwee, James Nesbitt, Russell Tovey, Catherine Zeta Jones, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Billie Piper.

Smith is relatively unknown, yes. Russell Tovey is not better known than he, and of the rest of the names on this list, not one of them was ever legitimately considered a candidate for the role. Are we printing baseless tabloid fodder and fanboy rumour as fact now? And then I check the ref list to see we're accepting The Sun as a legitimate news source? The Sun?? Who have made up more baseless rumours about Doctor Who than the entire rest of the journalistic world has reported actual fact? This is astonishing. I am well aware that the overall quality of Wikipedia has been slipping of late and that the Powers-that-Be are considering restricting the admission of content, but my gods...this is a new nadir. Canonblack (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one, The Sun has an infamous reliability with leaking Who spoilers. Even so, this is just routine press coverage, not an "exclusive" from an "insider". This is probably someone taking the BBC press pack on the matter and writing about it. Also, you removed a source to the news department of the people who make and finance the show. I know that the BBC has an obligation to advertise itself, but the News and Press Departments of the BBC aren't the one and the same. The BBC was just reporting on the hype regarding the announcement, and, believe me, there was quite a lot of hype. We don't have a policy against all speculation, just speculation we can't verify. Sceptre (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


Any chance of a Semi-protect for this page

The page is constantly being vandalised, usually with derogatory comments about Matt's sexuality. I don't know (or even care) what his sexuality is, but some of these comments are potentially libellous. We really should consider making this page semi-protected - particularly as there will be a lot of Dr Who interest in this page over the Christmas Stormcloud (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree. There are a LOT of idiots who think they are SO smart and frequently vandalise this page. I'm suprised that some of them don't get banned from editing because of the stuff they say.

And it's all because David Tennant is leaving Doctor Who. I mean COME ON! For those who are Doctor Who fans (Like me) and vandalising this page (Not me), get a life! You haven't even SEEN him as the Doctor yet and your already saying he can't act! Jeez...--The Rogue Leader 01:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am watching this page, and if it gets bad enough, I'll protect it if I'm on. Otherwise, the place to take it is WP:RPP. GedUK  21:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Stormcloud (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "Controversy" Comments

The following blurb "The casting was controversial among fans: some believed that Smith was inexperienced and too young for the role while others supported him by citing his demonstrated acting ability" seems to be a back door to circumvent Wikipedia policy regarding POV. I understand that this is sourced, but it is still just opinion, and in the article is noted as such.

If the casting was "controversial" at all is simply a matter of opinion, and nothing more. Articles similar to this appeared when the then little known David Tennant took the role, and all it appears these articles do is cite conflicting fanboy comments. Again the fact that an article was cited, does not mean this merits inclusion, nor does it negate the clearly POV nature of the article, which seems to be an attempt to usurp Wikipedia policy. It should be removed. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

It was controversial. Honestly, after all my efforts to fight misuse of the word, I'd know if I'm using it correctly myself. From Merriam-Webster, "controversy" is a noun defined as:

A discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views.

There was much discussion about the casting with the diametric viewpoints, as the source shows. Sceptre (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Then if I'm understanding this correctly, a small number of fans objected to Smith being cast, the same way many reacted when Tennant was cast, thus making that casting controversial as well. So essentially anyone being cast would have been "controversial".

The very limited definition provided could be widely applied to any figure in modern culture. To use the term this broadly will cause it to mean little.

Matt Smith's casting does not rise to the level of being "controversial" in the sense that the word is usually used in most, despite Merriam-Webster's definition. The definition is technically correct, but it isn't usually used this way to describe matters such as this. There have been no boycotts, movements, or organized protests in regards to Smith's casting, nor any response one would reasonably expect from something that is controversial.

Dictionary definitions aside, let's use common sense here. All this equates to is the grumblings of a few fanboys. Do you honestly see this as a real "controversy"?? (75.69.241.91 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

So we shouldn't use the word because we get it right for once? (Incidentally, for the record, I like Smith). Sceptre (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The whines of a few fans is hardly "controversy". If they had cast, say, a heavy cocaine-user as the Doctor (a popular role model for children) then THAT would be truly controversial. Mrstonky (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the wider public's understanding of the term, as well as the way it is almost always used does not fit here. By the definition, every replacement in any show would be controversial, as well as any winner of any well known award, and the winner of any election. Have you gone to Barack Obama's page and cite his controversial election? It was controversial according to the definition offered. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

How's the replacement, then? Sceptre (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. It retains the points, while seeming more objective. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

Interview

He's given a fairly extensive interview to The Guardian, which can be found here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Official site

Doesn't he have an official site to link to in the External Links section? I'd thought he did. 70.20.87.68 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can find it, then put it here, and we can add it. GedUK  18:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not move GedUK  07:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


Matt Smith (actor) → Matt Smith — Wondering if Matt Smith the actor is the primary topic for the name. Of the first 20 google hits for his name, 17 refer to the actor, and I'm sure this article recieves far more hits than any other on the Matt Smith disambiguation page. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Google tailors its results to recent news and the location of the searcher so I don't think it's sufficient evidence to establish that this is the long-term, worldwide primary topic; oppose for now. Knepflerle (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sure he's the flavour of the month, but such a common name is unlikely to ever have a primary topic. Not so bad as John Smith but same problem. Andrewa (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure I agree. I mean, yeah, Smith is an incredibly common name, but despite that there doesn't seem to be anyone even approaching his level of notability of the Matt Smith page. Sure, there may well be another famous Matt Smith in the future, but for now there doesn't seem to be any at present. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Doctor Who has a large fanbase, and they are particularly active on the Web (and in Wikipedia), possibly owing to the appeal of the genre to those with an interest in technology. So Google is not a good indicator in this case (nor even is Wikipedia). I'm not at all sure that this Matt Smith is any more notable as yet than say the drag bike rider ( see http://www.nhra.com/drivers/motorcycle/Matt-Smith/ and http://www.autoracingdaily.com/news/nhra/matt-smith-joins-don-schumacher-racing-for-2009/ ) or the Poison guitarist... neither of whom even have Wikipedia articles as yet! See also the DAB at Matthew Smith. Andrewa (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Andrewa. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's such a common surname there's hardly ever going to be a primary topic. An admittedly only recently notable actor is not as notable as, say, Adam Smith. Sceptre (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems like several of the entrants on the dab page have notability, such as the primary ITV sports announcer... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Andrewa. Inherently ambiguous name. Google Books doesn't show any hits for the actor. older ≠ wiser 14:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons given by everyone else. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Picture

Resolved
 – Replaced with a seven-month old photo Sceptre (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

We need a better, more recent picture, the current one in use is pixelated and makes me not want to look at it. Please reply :D GrandTheftFreak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC).

Have you found another better one that meets our policy requirements? Edgepedia (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Worst portrait on Wikipedia?  Mr JM  17:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Changed it. Flickr is a Wikipedian's best friend. :) Sceptre (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No Personal Life Section?

I can try and find some stuff if people are agreeable. But I'm relatively inexperienced so may need some mentoring before I can do such a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by catherinespark (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The question is, do we need one? We're not a gossip site, we don't want to overburden it with such an over-arching section that ruins the tempo of the article and is basically just trivia. If a person's personal life is notable (marriage, sexuality, etc), include it where it makes the most sense without these sorts of sections. Sceptre (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I would say that a biography is lacking if it doesn't include stuff on their personal life. However, it does need to be properly sourced, we shouldn't, as Sceptre said, just report rumours as that pointless in my view, and the section shouldn't be given undue weight. GedUK  10:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Daisy Lowe has confirmed they have been dating for a year by the way. 72.152.157.166 (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Interesting but I don't think the relationship is currently notable and well known enough to be worthy of reporting, an engagement would likely be - or some high profile incident but personally I don't see it yet - if others disagree I have no problem with it being added but its currently trivia in my opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd say his relationship with Daisy is well-documented enough to be worthy of a mention (Lowe's on page mentions it). It even, according to the Mail on Sunday's Live magazine dated August 7th, started after Smith mentioned his attraction to her in a Guardian interview and she got in touch. I'd say that puts it firmly in the public domain, and it regularly comes up in less Who-focused interviews with Mazza. U-Mos (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I've added details about Smith's atheism and relationship with Daisy to the personal life section, along with references. -- MisterMorton (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2012 (GMT)

Writing/directing aspirations

Would it be worth having a section mentioning Smith's desire to go into writing and directing in the future? Obviously he hasn't done anything notable in these fields yet so I'm not saying we call him a director, but he has said on at least a couple of occasions that he would like to write and direct future Who episodes after leaving the role, and also that he wrote some fan-ficiton to get into the role of the Doctor. I can't remember offhand exactly where these come from (I have a feeling he may have mentioned his fanfic on the One Show, which may make it tricky to reference), but if refs could be got hold of would it be worth a mention? U-Mos (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Back injury

Per the interview he did with Top Gear S18E05 I think it's worth noting the back injury he sustained was SpondylosisMoosgocow (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he said spondylitis which is something quite a bit different. Spondylosis is basically permanent. Trialia (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2012 (BST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.28.132 (talk)

Olympic games

Apparently[2] he will be carrying the Olympic Torch in Cardiff tomorrow (2012-05-26). This should probably be mentioned on this page somewhere, I do not now where and how though. --Anka.213 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC).

Ditto--would it be considered personal life? And it has been confirmed by the BBC. Glimmer721 talk 00:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Added olympic torch details under the Doctor Who section along with a reference from BBC News; I reckon it would've come under "Personal life" if he were given the chance to carry it on the back of his own career, but the truth is that it's a reference to the 2006 Who episode "Fear Her", so it belongs under Doctor Who. -- MisterMorton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think claiming it's a reference to "Fear Her" might be stretching it a bit; for starters that was a different actor, and I'm sure that he can't be the only individual who has carried the torch both in fiction and reality. Still, it seems like a decent location for it unless anyone decides to move it. Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Matt's Age

I know the page is locked from editing (maybe only if I'm not logged in,) but can someone change his age to 30? He turned 30 today.--71.168.71.88 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a template that spits out his age. It'll update itself. Hit refresh on your browser. DonQuixote (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 October 2012

Matt Smith turned 30 today, October 28, 2012, and the page still says that he is 29.

74.110.145.82 (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hit the refresh button on your browser or clear your cache. DonQuixote (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2012

Please change Matt Smith's age from 29 to 30 because he just had a birthday (October 28th). 99.71.109.58 (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hit the refresh button on your browser or clear your cache. DonQuixote (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

Does anyone know if Matt Smith has ever publicly stated his sexual orientation? Given some quotes that he has made, such as "I have admired [Ryan Gosling's] abdominals in Crazy Stupid Love. Yes, he's a very handsome man, that's for sure," and "I'll start with Jennifer Lawrence..." when asked what would be on his bucket list at San Diego Comic-Con International 2013, as well as his proclivity to spontaneously kiss his co-stars of both sexes on Doctor Who, particularly Arthur Darvill, and the fact that he has publicly dated women, one might assume that he is bisexual, but assumptions aren't good Wiki article material. If he has gone on the record about his orientation, I feel that it should be included under the Personal Life header. -Draeth Darkstar (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that if he's stated it, then there's a case for putting it in (though being straight is seldom worth putting in a bio), but until he does, or there's something non-salacious to refer to, it's entirely OR and SYNTH, which obviously we can't have. GedUK  12:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit the introduction paragraph

"On 1 June 2013, it was announced that Matt Smith would leave the series and the eleventh Doctor would regenerate in the 2013 Christmas special"

It should read TWELFTH Doctor not eleventh doctor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindorian (talk • contribs) 21:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia follows what other sources say. Try searching goggle for images of the eleventh Doctor (this is what I got). Edgepedia (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Captain Kirk Problem: How Doctor Who Betrayed Matt Smith

What is the reason you placed this link here? --‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 00:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd venture a guess that the contributor thinks it's a good article that was recently published that may be of use. Centerone (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition

...He left the series at the end of the 2013 Christmas Day special, "The Time of the Doctor"....to be replaced by Peter Capaldi as the 13th Doctor.

87.83.182.50 (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think that an edit needs to be made to the article, then do it! Centerone (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2014

WHY CANT WE EDIT THE PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whatfriendrice (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the log, this page was locked four times at the beginning of 2010 for vandalism. Do you have a change you would like to see? Edgepedia (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this page remains semi-protected? Edgepedia (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The log is very weird. BletheringScot isn't and never has been an admin, so I don't understand why his name is the last protection. Dabomb2011 was the admin who actually protected it when pending changes was removed. I think that now PC is back again, this could probably go back to pending. I'm prepared to give it a go, and I'll notify dabomb in case they think I'm too involved, though I haven't edited the article since 2011 apparently. GedUK  12:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, they've retired. GedUK  12:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Ged, the weird protection log entry appears to a left over from Article Feedback; I'm listed in the same way here.I was thinking that, since he has left Doctor Who, perhaps protection is no longer needed; but I suggest we review in 3 or 6 months? Just understood the protection. Edgepedia (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Darvill-Gillian-Smith friendship

I've heard in at least one interview (a Karen Gillian, I believe) that the three actors became good friends during their time on Doctor Who and remain so afterward. If a firm source can be found, this would make a nice addition for the Personal life section. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is kind of a moot point. It's really not that important. Of course co-workers sometimes become good friends. Does this matter to the public in the grand scheme of things? Is this something that needs to be recorded in an encyclopedic way? Centerone (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarification Regarding Adventure In Space and Time Appearance

Given the context of his appearance in the scene, and the uncredited nature of it, is Matt Smith playing himself in the scene or the Eleventh Doctor? Because the way the scene is set up it could either be seen as Hartnell looking and seeing Matt Smith in the role or looking to see the Eleventh Doctor, especially since Matt Smith is in his costume at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.200.123.34 (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

He is playing himself. It is not the 1st Doctor looking at the 11th, but Hartnell looking at Smith. Vyselink (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator (per WP:SNOW). --Neve–selbert 21:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Matt Smith (actor) → Matt Smith – Most probable WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as the Doctor Who actor is undoubtedly more renowned than the Canadian voice actor by now. This article has received almost 2 million (1,825,000) hits since July of the previous year, whereas the entry for the voice actor has received only a little less than 6,000 since then.[3] --Neve–selbert 20:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose You're missing something very crucial. The fact is that there are a heck of a lot of famous and notable Matt Smiths. While Matt Smith (actor) may be more famous than Matt Smith (voice actor) in the field of acting, there are many many Matt Smiths in many fields who are notable. So, Matt Smith (actor) gets noted as an actor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Smith Centerone (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    @Centerone: Ah, I forgot about that. I was just basing my assessment on the previous discussion, I apologise. Shall I withdraw the request?--Neve–selbert 21:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    However, I do think that it would be right for a hatnote to be included above the lede in the article.--Neve–selbert 21:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Withdraw it if you want. I think that is the right thing to do, but you are welcome to seek other opinions and further discussion if that is what you choose. I do agree that there should be another hatnote linking to the Matt Smith (disambiguation-type) page. I don't know why there isn't one already. Centerone (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matt Smith (actor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matt Smith (actor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


– In my opinion the actor is the clear primary topic. He gets the vast majority of all page views (over 10,000 per day while all the others combined got less than 1000/day in the last 90 days): Massviews Analysis BegbertBiggs (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:PRIMARY. (t · c) buidhe 01:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matt_Smith/Archive_1&oldid=1144187884"