Talk:The Doctor (Doctor Who)/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Thirteenth Doctor in the infobox

Her official costume's been revealed via the BBC twitter account. You can go ahead and add the image now. --173.170.159.16 (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Do people have any ideas for how to fit her in? I can't think of a presentable way to combine thirteen rectangular images. Eccleston, Tennant, and Smith in the third row with Capaldi and Whittaker in the fourth? Or should we reopen the discussion about finding a non-collage solution, since it's always had a bit of an expiry date? —Flax5 17:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
No, it can still fit. Not that difficult. Like right here. Or if there's too much white space....you guys can still always do the right thing.  :) Whichever you go with, the size increment in the infobox will be minimal. The individual images will only slightly be smaller, but still large enough to easily identify each individual actor/Doctor - like in this screenshot I just snapped. --173.170.159.16 (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
(I'd go with 4-4-5, as that would put all the revival Doctors on the same line) --MASEM (t) 22:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Buut....too much empty space above. It doesn't exactly jive with the overall neatness that prolific Wikipedia pages usually go for. It's sort of an unofficial rule of aesthetics that visual cones go down, not up. Except of course the food pyramid lol. --173.170.159.16 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

However this gets resolved, this would be a great opportunity to replace the lousy photos of Eccleston, Tennant, Smith, and Capaldi with BBC promotional stills that more closely resemble the first eight character photos and look less badly Photoshopped. Capaldi's photo doesn't even have a background, fercryinoutloud. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Do people have any ideas for how to fit her in? I can't think of a presentable way to combine thirteen rectangular images. How about this, Flax5? Rows of five-four-four make thirteen with no whitespace.
Or if there's too much white space.... you guys can still always do the right thing Still not happening. Hurt was never the series lead, no matter how much you want it. That's the WP:CONSENSUS, whether you hear it or not.
And... this would be a great opportunity to replace the lousy photos of Eccleston, Tennant, Smith, and Capaldi with BBC promotional stills that more closely resemble the first eight character photos and look less badly Photoshopped. I was thinking that they should all be replaced the official BBC portraits on the BBC website (e.g. first, twelfth). -- AlexTW 00:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
As a result of the last paragraph of that last comment of mine and Kudzu1's suggestion, I would like to suggest this. It is a result of these pictures for Doctors 1 through 11, this for 12, this for 13, all BBC-official, and the image has equal widths for each row. -- AlexTW 00:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Sold. Nice work. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Still not happy about a certain someone's continued exclusion, but I'll take it! --173.170.159.16 (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Some people might object to having the first five smaller than the other eigth. I don't see the problem with having whitespace anyway, we had an image with whitespace both when there were only 10 [1] (admin-only) and 11 [2] (admin-only) Doctors and it was not problematic. Regards SoWhy 13:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Was there any point to giving us admin-only links? No. And Wikipedia has always tried to minimize whitespace, especially since it has clearly up'ed its efforts since those times - if it can be avoided, it should be. The first five are barely smaller - only the widths are different, not the heights, and it still displays the entirety of the character. Do you have any argument as to why whitespace should be used? I'm not seeing "some people" that you describe... -- AlexTW 13:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The argument against having five smaller portraits is clear: It suggests that those five were less important than the other eight. But if we do so, why not use 4-5-4 instead? After all, both 8th and 9th had shorter tenures than any of the first five. Regards SoWhy 14:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused as to your logic. You state we shouldn't have the 5 smaller images because it indicates they were less important, and you then go on to suggest that we should have the 5 smaller images because other incarnations were less important, hence arguing against someone's points then using that point for your own purposes. And simply based on their length; 8th and 9th had shorter tenures, yes - what about 5th, 6th and 7th? Why do you believe that they are "less important"? -- AlexTW 14:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
No, that was exactly my point. If we start discriminating against five of them, how to choose which ones? You are the one arguing that we should have five pictures smaller than the other eight, so you tell me why you chose to make the first five smaller and not 5 to 9 or 9 to 13. Regards SoWhy 21:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The difference is negligible and clearly designed only to fit them all into a collage without whitespace, and I think we can all agree having whitespace is aesthetically suboptimal. And if someone has a way to make 13 not be a prime number, I'm all ears, but this seems to be the best solution at this time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
If you really feel like there needs to be a such a fuss over it, I can draw up similar images with the row of five in the middle and bottom. Makes more sense to me to have the "extremeties" (barely) at one end of the picture rather than the middle. I really didn't think 30px per picture would make you feel like such an uproar was needed. Unless you find the image suitable and feel the need to argue? @Kudzu1: Exactly. We won't be able to fit them perfectly, and the community has always tried to eliminate whitespace where possible, and it is most certainly possible in this case. Thank you. -- AlexTW 22:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: I've managed to track down much better photos for all 13 Doctors, avoiding the use of Photoshoppy promotional images inasmuch as humanly possible. I'll mock up a few variants and upload a few possibilities. Might as well do my part instead of contributing to the bellyaching. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, here's what I've come up with. Option 1 is quite similar to your original proposal, 5-4-4. Option 2 goes 4-5-4. Option 3 goes 4-4-5.
My honest opinion is that I don't really have any strong preferences between these three -- any of them would work -- but I probably lean toward Option 3 because it puts all the "revival" Doctors on the same line. (On an entirely separate note, I didn't realize just how weird the lighting/cinematography for the Russell T Davies era of the show was until I was trying to find publicity stills or promotional photos that work for the Ninth and Tenth Doctors. A lot of closeup shots and a lot of too-bright/too-green/too-blue lighting. I'm still not 100% happy with the "best" photo I found for the Ninth Doctor. All of these photos are from the BBC website, for ease of attribution/fair-use justification.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Option 2 is aesthetically the best, no whitespace (!) and symmetrical in how the different width are displayed. With Option 3, yes, all the revived Doctors are on the same row, but we can't keep that up forever each time a new Doctor is added, and it further perpetrates the idea that the classic and revived eras are separate shows (which is why the serials page hasn't been split into separate classic and revived articles). -- AlexTW 07:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

In any case, this is my final attempt. The simple fact is, you can't make a collage with 13 or 14 images in the size required for the infobox without either having white space or certain portrayals getting cropped. It's that simple. So....you make use of the empty space to your advantage, like here. Nice, clean, even, and with a sort of "temple" appearance with William Hartnell at the top with white on the sides - denoting him as the first and original. These slightly better images for some of them were also provided by the BBC, so you're good there as well. --173.170.159.16 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, okay, ONE more. For obvious logical AND aesthetic reasons, this is the best approach that leaves the least white space. You'll just....have to reach an ACTUAL complete consensus this time. And please. Just do the right thing for once. --173.170.159.16 (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
You definitely are a case of "I don't hear that". Also known as beating a dead horse. War's not being added, you are the only one advocating for it. Other alternatives have been proposed that are better than yours. Cheerio. -- AlexTW 07:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd vote for Option 3 personally. The photos in all of them are the perfect photos too in my opinion. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Just for the sake of argument, I whipped up a 7-7 alternative that does include John Hurt's "War Doctor": Option 4. I retooled a few of the photos and used a couple different ones because I wasn't happy with the Ninth Doctor's and I figured there's not much need for the Ninth through Twelfth Doctors to all be looking worried toward stage right. Easy enough to mix and match for whatever format we end up settling on. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
(Redacted) --173.170.159.16 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
In fairness I agree. Aside from your abusiveness (though I get your frustration), I haven't actually seen anyone other than Alex openly and continuously talk against including the War Doctor in the photos of Doctors. There doesn't seem to be anything conclusive regarding "consensus" either. Personally I'm not bothered either way but it would make a lot of sense to include the War Doctor for the average user who isn't all familiar with Doctor Who and just wants to see where John Hurt fits into the picture immediately without having to scroll through the whole article. Wikipedia is of course for everybody to view and not just a couple of arguing admins. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The general consensus was to focus on the series leads rather than guest stars, no matter what character they're playing. From WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time.
Also, the average user probably won't know who the War Doctor is. DonQuixote (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
IP, you're coming perilously close to being reported for WP:NPA. It's not that your argument is invalid, it's that you're being a jackass. Knock it off and play nice with other editors. You clearly feel very strongly about this, and you're welcome to make your best argument and try to convince us, but 1) do it on a different thread instead of repeatedly hijacking this one, 2) leave personal attacks out of it, and 3) be prepared to accept the outcome if WP:CONSENSUS goes a different way. I've been on the losing side of I don't how how many attempts to reach consensus in my time on Wikipedia (more than 12 years), and it sucks, and it's the way of the world that you win some and you lose some. But you're not even going to get to be part of the conversation if you keep lashing out and cursing at fellow editors. That might fly on Reddit, but it's not gonna cut it here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

To get back to the original point about the Thirteenth Doctor in the infobox, I'd go for Option 3, as suggested above. If we could change the subject back to this and all discuss the 3/4 options linked above, and then determine which one should go on the page (forgetting the War Doctor for now because I personally cannot be bothered). Option 3. My decision. Let's all discuss. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

That's my preference as well. Though I might swap out the Ninth and Tenth Doctor photos for better ones. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I think those are the best photos to be honest. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Option 3 could definitely work. However, when the Fourteenth Doctor comes along, it's not going to be possible to keep all of the revived era Doctors on the one row. -- AlexTW 22:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
That will be at least a year away (probably a lot longer if Series 11 is a success) so I don't think we should worry about the Fourteenth Doctor for some time. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Just a note, since it seems that the biggest reason to support Option 3 is simply to have the revived-era Doctors on one row - this isn't going to be reasonable forever. -- AlexTW 22:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's a design priority, just a convenient stylistic choice since we have to either have whitespace (which doesn't look good on any collage version I have seen) or slightly compress one of the rows. Once the Fourteenth Doctor comes along, we could switch to a 7-7, or consensus may have evolved by then to include the War Doctor and it could be 5-5-5. Too far out to worry much yet. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I guess the fact that all the revived Doctor's are on one row helps in the aesthetics, but I just think 4-4-5 is better stylistically anyway. Hopefully it can be implemented. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
If there is consensus for it, then it can be updated, as well as the positioning of the links. -- AlexTW 13:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Just gonna say that, regarding your earlier points about the 14th doctor, it doesn't even matter because the graphic will have to be changed anyway whenever they come along - so no need to think about the future at all. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
My read is that there is consensus. Question is whether there is consensus to implement now or wait until the Thirteenth Doctor has appeared on screen. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
If there is, can you please provide a list of links for where you obtained the images for each Doctor? The documentation of the image file will need to be updated. And I see no issue with updating it now. -- AlexTW 02:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
All from BBC.co.uk: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 Done: I will plan on updating the file once we have episode stills of the Thirteenth Doctor in costume (so, probably not for another 9-10 months), in keeping with the goal of representing the versions of the Doctors as they appear(ed) on screen. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
You should try
1234
5678
910**
1112**
where * is the current Doctor, 2X2 larger than the rest. IKhitron (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The new image has already been uploaded by Kudzu. And simply because they are the newest Doctor (and not the current one until Christmas), that doesn't mean that they should get four times the amount of area of any other Doctor, especially when better alternatives exist and have been agreed upon. -- AlexTW 08:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Glad it's all sorted now. Looks much better :) TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Penpalthe in this discussion; please read the discussion and note the current consensus on the images used. In the face of this discussion, I've reverted your new addition and nominated it for speedy deletion. -- AlexTW 01:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Doctor (Doctor Who). 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.


  • 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.

Question? A help request is open: Wayback says that it does not have a page by this name in its archives. Replace the reason with "helped" to mark as answered.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Paul McGann (1996, 2013)

Rubiscous, you reverted my change of adding Paul McGann's appearance in 2013 to the infobox. I understand your objection, but I feel it is incorrect. The issue you raised was if we add all appearances it'll be messy (actually, what you said was 'out of continuity', by which I hope you're not implying Night of the Doctor is not-canon, because that's completely wrong). I assume (presuming you're not implying what I just said I hoped you weren't) that you mean all special appearances of past Doctors (e.g. multi-Doctor appearances). However, this case is not like that. The episode Night of the Doctor was unambiguously a Paul McGann episode (that is, one headlined by him, not a special guest appearance) and so should count as an appearance as much as his 1996 appearance. And if not, then I would argue on the same vain Sylvester McCoy shouldn't have 1996 next to his name, as that is even less of s significant appearance, appearing only in the opening of a TV movie that isn't headlined by him (indeed, he is credited as only a guest star). --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 21:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

By out of continuity I meant that the dates as they stand are chronological, and throwing in one instance out of that continuous chronology raises more questions for the reader than it answers. The whole list needs to be made a little less ambiguous IMO. We need to decide exactly what it is we are listing, and we need to accurately and concisely describe our intent to the reader. Be that series leads and their time served as series lead or headlining actors and their headlining appearances, or any other way of listing them. On reflection, listing McCoy's 1996 appearance does seem anomalous. Is the listing of any form of dates strictly necessary to identify key facts at a glance? Rubiscous (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Dates do reveal a lot to the reader about what the show was like when they were the Doctor without delving into OR. It also gives a crude summary of how important they are to the show's long run, overall, in terms of screen time. I think removing dates might take us in the direction of treating the show as the story of a fictional person, rather than an encyclopaedic account of the show's premise, development, creative changes and reception over the years.
On a separate note, I think Imagine Wizard might be right. It's fine to list 2013 for McGann and not 2010(?) for Davison in the list which presently exists, simply because it was in fact an Eighth Doctor episode. And because these things fall within our discretion. Zythe (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and reinstate my changes, as I feel that, as the list currently stands, McGann's 2013 appearance is valid in the format currently existing. If anyone has an objection, I think we should discuss it here until we reach a new consensus before deciding if we're going to revert back or forth or whatever. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 18:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)]
P.S. And also, RE: Rubiscous' 'out of continuity' point: I think that's fine. It shows that McGann's only other episode was not aired after his first 'episode', but in 2013 instead (and I would imagine any reader who can put two and two together can recognise the significance of his only other episode being broadcast in that year) which is an unusual and therefore point of interest. It probably would 'raise more questions', but as I explained in my brackets, not one that would confuse the reader if he were to do a minuscule of research as to the nature of his second episode (and anyone who didn't want to do that probably wouldn't care at all anyway). And McGann is an anomaly himself, being the only Doctor (with the possible exception of Hurt) to just have one special to himself. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 18:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It's been removed again, but for the record, I agree: McGann's return as the lead actor, in an episode entirely from his Doctor's perspective, is unique and unprecedented in the show's history. I think it should be acknowledged in the infobox. —Flax5 20:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian - McGann returns to that episode as the lead actor - he is not guest appearing in another Doctor's episode. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 19:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if it was an actual episode. Is it listed on List of Doctor Who serials? No. Hence, he was only the lead actor in one actual episode of the series. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Arguably the TV movie isn't an actual episode either, it's a TV movie. That page doesn't count as a basis of what counts as an episode. The only difference between Night and the TV Movie is length. It's still otherwise fully-produced, part of the canon. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 04:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
And the fact that the movie counts towards the total Story Count, per the List of Episodes page, dictating it as an actual "episode" of the series, whereas Night does not. Alex|The|Whovian? 04:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
To add another reason not to include Night or the other appearances - if we do it for these revived series shows, we also then need to do it for the Three Doctors, the Five Doctors, and the Two Doctor episodes, and that's going to look very very messy. The dates should only be the period where that actor was the principle actor for the Doctor, regardless of other cameo spots. --MASEM (t) 04:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Masem please look at what was said previously - this episode is not Paul McGann guesting in another Doctor's episode - this was a McGann episode. He was the lead actor in that episode. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 00:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
And yet, Night of the Doctor isn't counted as an actual episode, else it'd be listed on the List of Serials page. How many episodes are on the List of Serials page where McGann is the lead? One. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
But it wasn't a broadcast episode, much like the Davidson/Tennent one. While Night is "canon", it's also not in chronological order of the episodes that we are presenting the Doctor's stories in. It's a special appearance. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
No, no, no. Night of the Doctor is thought as an episode by the BBC. Many other wikias and media consider Paul's era as (1996, 2013), even in Official Books and such. Paul's appearance's isn't a cameo, it's an important piece in the Doctor's story. Like so, we wouldn't add Ten as (2005-10, 2013), cause he was in Day of the Doctor, oh, yet many others do. Ten's appearance isn't a cameo, or we would include War as a cameo Doctor. "How many episodes are on the List of Serials page where McGann is the lead? One." Nope, two. And way more if you include Big Finish, but you wouldn't. Night is a serial, just shorter than normal. Clawraich (Dalek) (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
For one, "Night of the Doctor" doesn't have a table entry listed at List of Doctor Who serials, as it wasn't televised (yes, it may be an episode, but it was not a televised episode), so, yes, only one episode is listed at List of Doctor Who serials where McGann is the lead. And we have our own sets of guidelines and policies here at Wikipedia - we do not base our content based on that of other user-generated wikis. Alex|The|Whovian? 14:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
But if the fans and literally the BBC see it as a serial, why aren't you? Call you a man with too much power. Clawraich (Dalek)
Because we run the Doctor Who pages on a certain set of guidelines. Was it televised? No? Then it's not a serial or episode in the typical meaning. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Where on Wikipedia does it say an episode needs to be televised? You get episodes on Netflix, Amazon Prime and so, they're not televised! It's streaming. clawraich (Dalek) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clawraich (Dalek) (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The infobox dates are for the tenure. In 2013, the incumbent lead was Matt Smith. Paul McGann starred in a short special, but he wasn't the then series lead and counts as Other appearances. DonQuixote (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm that's an interesting point - but I think there is an argument to be made that McGann is the series lead for this short. He is given main billing in that episode. He leads the episode. Technically his other only TV appearence in 1966 isn't part of a series, but was itself a special one-off episode. One could say he's as much a series lead in Night as he is in the 1966 movie. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 20:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

12th and 13th Doctor tenure

Hi all,

Could the 12th Doctors tenure be changed to staring from 2013 rather than 2014. 25th December 2013 is when Capaldi officially took over the role of the Doctor and made his first appearance full appearance as the Doctor and that should be when his tenure therefore starts. Same with Whittaker. They are both credited in these episodes as appearing as the Doctor, therefore, that should be when there tenure officially begins.

Thanks, FD96 (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It is from when they take the lead role. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 12:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To summarise the current consensus (and also mentioned in the inline note), the years are for the series that the actors were series leads and not for the appearances of the characters (eg, first episodes, cameos, etc.). Capaldi was series lead from Series 8 to "Twice Upon a Time". Whittaker will be series lead from Series 11 onwards. DonQuixote (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I would agree with this proposed change. I think it should be from when they both made their first appearance in the role and when they were both credited as such which was the regeneration episodes when they took over from their predecessors. JJJones1996 (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
It shouldn’t be when they start their own series. Jodie took over last night and was credited as such as the Doctor last night therefore her tenure started last night and she should not be placed as ‘other’ until she starts her own series. Just to add thanks JJJJones1996. Thanks FD96 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FD96 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Personally believe that a policy change is needed. John Hurt/The War Doctor deserves better than to be just listed under "other" considering his impact to the Who' storyline. Also believe that the new Doctor's should be listed from the moment they takeover, and not the moment they lead in a new series as it doesn't reflect previous appearances made which is misleading. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2017 (GMT)
I agree with the above. I think it also applies to McGann's 2013 appearance. I think there's a distinct difference between guest appearances of multi-Doctor episodes, and the situation of McGann and Hurt where in Night of the Doctor, McGann's Doctor was the lead character and Day of the Doctor was Hurt's only full TV appearance, where his story drove the plot, and he plays one of the fourteen canon incarnations of the Doctor - he isn't a recast or non-canon actor, he is one of the fourteen actors to play the role. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 20:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Years in 'Series leads' (infobox)

Go on then, I'll start this. What years should be on the Doctors in the infobox? There's a bit of dispure over Jodie Whittaker as the moment. Excluding her, there are only two other Doctors whose first appearance was not the same year as their first episode - Davison (who appeared at the end of Logopolis, broadcast 1981) and Capaldi (who appeared at the end of Time of the Doctor, broadcast 2013). Both of these are currently listed as being from their first episode. So should we go with first appearance (which would mean Davison 1981, Capaldi 2013 and Whittaker 2017) or first episode (which would mean Davison 1982, Capaldi 2014, Whittaker 2018) 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:69CB:B885:9CE8:6E6E (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It is from when they take the lead role. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 12:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I would be open to revisiting this, although I continue to lean in favor of listing the actors' time as the Doctor as referring to the span of years in which they were series leads. My main questions with this are: 1) is this original research on Wikipedia's part, i.e. are we the only ones who seem to use this more limited definition of when actors portrayed the Doctor? 2) is it proper to use this criteria to exclude Whittaker, whether she is listed as beginning in 2017 or 2018 (there is already a page for Doctor Who (series 11) listing her as the lead actor, so it does seem a bit silly to pretend she doesn't count as a series lead yet, in my opinion)? -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
well on all bout on DVD release the Davison years are given as 1981 to 84 and on the doctor who website run by BBC worldwide Davison is listed as 1981 to 84 and capaldi 2013 to 17 109.181.21.200 (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Luckily we're not the DVDs, and even luckier that we're our own website, so we have our own set of rules and guidelines made through consensus. -- AlexTW 20:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Portals

I have changed the link to the England Portal to the United Kingdom Portal. The latter seems to me to be more appropriate, not least as three Scottish Actors have played the Doctor and the series has been primarily produced in Wales since 2005 (Also from 2005-2017 the main writer was not English). Dunarc (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

family

The current doctor mentions having had sisters and 8 grandmothers but no mention in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.11.184 (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Source? -- AlexTW 10:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Pronoun use

Is it worth re-evaluating what pronoun we use when we refer to the character, at least in the general sense and not any particular incarnation, seeing as they are neither male nor female (although maybe we'll have to wait until Whitaker's episodes, as the Doctor might still continue to refer to themselves as 'he')? Is it worth changing the pronouns to the gender neutral 'they'? The same for other Time Lords who have been played by male or female actors. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 04:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The platonic ideal, I think, would be to write around pronouns inasmuch as possible when referring to the character generally (collective incarnations thereof) and continue to use gender-specific pronouns when referring to individual Doctors. For example, "his companion Clara Oswald" or "when he regenerated into the Fifth Doctor, played by Peter Davison". -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. There is, I think, an ideal three-tiered strategy here:
1) As above, try to phrase around pronouns. Use proper or descriptive nouns (e.g., "The Doctor"; "the character") unless it's disruptive or confusing. Let style dictate when to vary.
2) When referring to the character broadly, use the "singular they," as encouraged by Merriam-Webster (e.g. "... that although the Doctor is a technical pacifist, often they are forced into a difficult choice.").
3) When referring to a specific incarnation of the Doctor, use the appropriate gendered pronoun (e.g., "The Doctor threw back his head as arcs of energy -- not just streams, but fingered bolts -- shot from his arms, his face, tearing at the ship where they fell. For just a moment all was dark. When the Doctor regained focus, and peered into the smoke and flickering light of the console room, it was like she was had only now seen it for the first time. Which in a sense she had."). --Aderack (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
It has been established that The Doctor does not possess a gender. Therefore the Singular they should be observed at all times. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 15:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I'm not sure what you're looking to when you say that. Could you be more specific?
The Doctor's individual incarnations clearly are gendered, and always have been. Never mind all of the "Good Man" business the show has been doing since 2010; the whole rooftop-chip discussion in the second-most-recent episode goes against what you say:
DOCTOR: She was my first friend, always so brilliant, from the first day at the Academy. So fast, so funny. She was my man crush.
BILL: I'm sorry?
DOCTOR: Yeah, I think she was a man back then. I'm fairly sure that I was, too. It was a long time ago, though.
BILL: So, the Time Lords, bit flexible on the whole man-woman thing, then, yeah?
DOCTOR: We're the most civilised civilisation in the universe. We're billions of years beyond your petty human obsession with gender and its associated stereotypes.
BILL: But you still call yourselves Time Lords?
DOCTOR: Yeah. Shut up.
If you notice, this does not refute any recognition of gender. What it purports to refute is gender-based stereotyping. The Doctor is very clear in his distinction about men and women, and his use of pronouns... except for his absent-mindedness about which he or the Master happened to be at a given moment.
Ergo, when speaking of an individual incarnation, it is appropriate to do the same thing that the show does: use gendered pronouns.
When speaking of the Doctor in a more general sense, it should go neutral. --Aderack (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it may be similar to articles like Monarchy of the United Kingdom, which accept the possibility of male and female monarchs. Tangerine Cossack (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Interesting point of view. However, there's still a problem. With the reboot of the series, there have been various gender-mixing elements in Doctor Who which is confusing as a whole. Most of the Time Lords we have grown accustomed to seeing, specifically the Doctor and The Master, were portrayed by men, so we could easily refer to them as "he". Later on, however, with the Master becoming "Missy" and the Thirteenth Doctor being female as well, we have a problem addressing the Time Lords as "he" anymore, as it is now apparent that they can change sex upon regeneration.
Whether it is morally right or wrong is not so much the issue; the issue lies in how to address the Time Lords. Should we be flexible and say "he or she"? This makes it sound like more than one, when we address just one Time Lord. Should we use "they"? Again, this makes it sound like more than one Time Lord when it should be just one. Are they "its" then? The problem with "it" is that the word implies that the Time Lords are objects or unintelligent beings. Should we introduce a new pronoun? This would make speech very confusing, as it would sound like a foreign word in referring to a Time Lord.
IMO, the new writers and staff for Doctor Who should have left Time Lords the same gender from incarnation to incarnation. Mixing genders was a terrible mistake. ILoveWikis (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Use Wiki Tables?

Perhaps in an effort to clean up the article, which still has multiple issues, we should use tables? I'm not sure how to approach this, and I'd be afraid to tackle it myself, but I've added this section in an effort to open up the possibility. Also, perhaps we should research the places where citation is needed as we add these tables. Just a thought; let me know what you all think. ILoveWikis (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A) What problems are you referring to? B) Where would they be needed in this article? C) Why does you signature hide your username? MarnetteD|Talk 01:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a stupid question about William Hartnell's run as the Dr

It might just be the way series worked in the 60's, but the actor's age table list him as being in 4 series, but only in it for 3 years.

Didn't want to mess with such a loved and researched character's article so just thought I would mention it, in case it is a mistake (probably isn't)

Cheers! --TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

He was in the first two stories of season 4 so there is an overlap. MarnetteD|Talk 09:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Ahh. Cool. Figured it might be something odd. Thanks! TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Others - Jo Martin

Given developments in "Fugitive of the Judoon", and particularly given what is in the end credits of that episode, should Jo Martin be added along with Michael Jayston and John Hurt in the infobox under others, or should that wait depending on further developments in the current series? She is currently in the Other actors link, but her status would seem to be similar to that of Hurt (especially given the on-screen credit). Dunarc (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's not forget that David Morrissey was also credited as the Doctor prior to his episode. Let's wait until her identity is explained first.77.99.89.230 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I have been accidentally spoiled (no worries, I looked and all my fault :) but from what I've read, yes, absolutely we should not try to slot her into the timeline just yet. Treat her as Hurt as the War Doctor for the time being until we know more. --Masem (t) 23:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with the above by Masem and the IP. -- /Alex/21 05:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everybody - all sounds fine with me. Dunarc (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Incarnations in the infobox

If we're going to add the Valeyard to the list of incarnations in the infobox (or the Ruth Doctor), then there's no easy in-universe way of ordering the list given the convoluted internal mythology. The internal mythology can be explained in the article body in prose. The simplest list that requires no original research or interpretation is simple alphanumeric order. DonQuixote (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to be neutral on whether the Valeyard or the Ruth Doctor or Jo Martin should be added to the infobox. DonQuixote (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
My issue with alphanumeric order is that, in this particular case, it's not at all clear to the reader that it is alphanumeric order. The section is labelled as a "Character biography", and that biography is both helpful and accurate, except it currently indicates that the Thirteenth Doctor regenerates into the Valeyard, who regenerates into the War Doctor. Since we have a clear biographical position for the War Doctor and none for the Valeyard, I don't see why we can't simply put War between Eighth and Ninth and leave the Valeyard at the end. How about if we add a linebreak to separate the ordered Doctors from the anomalous one(s)? —Flax5 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't say anything about regenerating. It just says species, home planet and incarnations. The general reader unfamiliar with the internal mythology won't probably jump to that conclusion. DonQuixote (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
My point isn't that it suggests regeneration, it's that it suggests the Valeyard and War Doctor follow the Thirteenth Doctor in the character's biography. Some readers will leave with this impression, though I suspect a lot more will just wonder why the War Doctor is in the wrong position. I would go with something like this - keeps the ordered incarnations in order, with War in the position he's been in for years, but leaves the Valeyard on a different line to show that he's not part of the character biography in the same way War is. —Flax5 17:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Infoboxes are for simple summaries. Anything complicated like that should be mentioned in the article body. And "incarnations" is a general term that doesn't imply a strict linear chronology; any reader who jumps to that conclusion can read the article proper and get straightened out. The infobox isn't the final word on the information but the starting point. DonQuixote (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The way the list is now : with the 13 known ones in order, and the "others", along with the year(s) of their appearances, is the simplest way to do the infobox, but the structure of the article needs to be clear so that if I am wondering about those "others" I can tell immediately what section to go to. So for example, while there is an H3 "Actors" section I'd actually elevator this to a "Portrayal" section, which would include the rational of how they came up with regeneration (out-of-universe info) and has "Main actors" and "Other actors" subsections. The other stuff under "Changing Faces" is all principle in-universe detail. (A wholly separate problem is this article does have far too much in-universe detail, knowing we have separate articles for the 13 main Doctors). --Masem (t) 16:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Sounds great! DonQuixote (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with above as the way it is at the moment seems to work (and otherwise things could become very complicated and confusing). Dunarc (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

War Doctor not included in the article's header picture

I think the War Doctor played by John Hurt should be included in the article's header picture, between Paul McGann's Doctor and Christopher Eccleston's Doctor, with a hyperlink to his respective article. The War Doctor is very much an accepted incarnation of the doctor so he should be included in the picture. However it would mess up the caption below as it wouldn't be chronological anymore. Perhaps "in-universe order" would be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:AD1B:C900:A860:7268:E28A:B001 (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

In-universe POV is against wikipeida's policy. DonQuixote (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
It isn't inherently an 'in-universe' POV to describe the order presented in the fiction though of course.Frond Dishlock (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
In the context of this discussion, the order presented in the fiction (in spite of conflicting historical events) is in-universe. DonQuixote (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

So who wants to take a run at this?

So bits that need working in:

  • The Doctor is of an unknown species
  • The Doctor has unlimited generations
  • Time-lords gain their abilities from a genetic splice of The Doctor's abilities.

Cameron Scott (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Timeless Children does not exactly say that the Doctor has unlimited regenerations, highlighting that the Timeless Child only regenerated 12 times but leaving it open whether the next regenerations were granted by the Time Lords or not. But as established in The Time of the Doctor, even if they had more than 12, they never had unlimited regenerations. Regards SoWhy 12:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The episode said nothing of the sort. The Shobogans limited themselves to 12 when they spliced in the Timeless Child's DNA to become the Time Lords. Nothing was said about an upper limit on the Child, and the regenerations we saw, combined with the ones the show has depicted over the years already number far more than 12, even ignoring the "extra regeneration cycle" granted in The Time of the Doctor. dstumme (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

We need to remove ALL mentions of "first" doctor, "second" doctor, and any other numerical system since last night's episode explicitly rejects such a counting. 98.190.223.50 (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective, so no. All reliable secondary sources use the ordinal numbers. DonQuixote (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. In-universe the Doctor rarely if ever mentions their regeneration number or amount and does not refer to themselves as "Xth Doctor" (10 mentioned he regenerated "half a dozen times" when meeting Sarah Jane again and 11 mentions that with War and 10's first abortive regeneration he is actually in his 13th regeneration but those examples are rare and far-between). Regards SoWhy 16:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Doubly agreed. There is probably fair wording that we can borrow from when we had to adapt after the intro of the War Doctor's intro of how to refer to 9th and onward as to not retcon the common numbering system that can be used here. (And for pretty much 1-12, I would leave this as a footnote on their pages unless a new series episode later comes to address it). But we're still going to call Hartnell the First Doctor even if the character is the 13th regeneration or whatever. --Masem (t) 19:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree. As far as we're aware, the Doctor chose their name in their earliest known incarnation (i.e. the child version of Hartnell, after having his memory wiped by Division). There's no explicit reference to any pre-Hartnell incarnation actually being called 'Doctor', therefore until any such reference is made, any incarnation is still the Xth incarnation to be referred to as 'the Doctor', the same way we count the War Doctor as an incarnation but not an actual numbered Doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.89.230 (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Jo Martin's Doctor called herself the Doctor though and she was also working for the Division (at least according to Gat). And her TARDIS was the Doctor's TARDIS complete with broken chameleon circuit / police box design. As we know the chameleon circuit broke after the First Doctor "borrowed" the TARDIS, so her incarnation would have to fit somewhere between First and Thirteenth. Regards SoWhy 20:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Not necessarily: if "Ruth" and her companion had been on earth for 40-50 years, maybe at that point, it legitimately took the appearance of a police box, pre-First Doctor. But, either direction is OR. --Masem (t) 20:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. The numbering convention stays in place until explicit clarification, it's the only logical conclusion. 77.99.89.230 (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

What do we do concerning the species value in the infobox? There's been a fair bit of contention about it; I believe it should remain as-is, as the Doctor is still, always has been and always will be a Time Lord, and the article already expands on how this has been updated. -- /Alex/21 11:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Species

The Timeless Children (2020) makes it clear that whilst the Doctor is the progenitor of the Time Lord race, they are not a Time Lord (Gallifreyan or "Shobogan") themself. Because the Doctor is the progenitor of the species, they possess many of the characteristics that are indicative of the Time Lords, and so would nominally be considered one. (It's a retcon, I know, but that is now how it is.) Because of this, I changed the infobox to reflect the new continuity, but this has been reverted twice without providing a reason. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 11:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice, how there's two sections on the same topic... why? 56 years the Doctor has been a Time Lord, one episode does not change this. This is textbook recentism. Do we list the Doctor as half-human based on the 1996 film? No. Same concept. -- /Alex/21 11:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
There are two sections on the topic because you left a message on my talk page asking me to start a discussion, rather than join one; the discussion above is in relation to the number of regenerations. To answer your point, however, the fact that it is a "recent" change does not negate the value or gravity of said change, especially when said change can be and is properly cited within the article. As it stands, we now have conflicting information within the article (Infobox: is a Time Lord, Early life: is not a Time Lord). Furthermore, because of the retcon, for 56 years the Doctor has been believed to be a Time Lord. The most recent episode does not change that, hence why the "nominally" remark was left within the infobox. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 12:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I mean, I would have thought common sense would come into play when a discussion already exists... And for 24 years, the film has said the Doctor was half-human. Why don't we list that? Same concept. You didn't seem to answer that bit, any reason why? Lead says s/he's a Time Lord, infobox says s/he's a Time Lord, the article is where the detail exists. And actually, Early life clearly states "he was a high-born Gallifreyan". So, yes, still a Time Lord. -- /Alex/21 12:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making comments assuming a lack of "common sense" or otherwise making assumptions about me as a person – I haven't done anything of the sort to you. Again, back on topic; I didn't address the issue of the Doctor being classed as half-Human because, like we have here, it was retconned to no longer be the case. You appear to be suggesting we accept one retcon (that he is no longer half-Human) but not the other (that he is not a native of Gallifrey)?
Regarding being a "high-born Gallifreyan"; being a Gallifreyan (i.e. somebody who lives on Gallifrey) is not the same as being a native of the planet or member of the species. Even if the original meaning behind the term was to reference the Doctor's species, with the release of The Timeless Children, that is no longer the case.Finally, yes, the lead does indeed call the Doctor a Time Lord... as does the Infobox, but I shouldn't need to remind you that the point of this discussion is because of the change being made to the Infobox. (You cannot use the disputed claim in question as evidence of your position, since that is the point of dispute itself.) --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 12:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I will when you don't create duplicate discussions. I'm not saying that we should list them as half-human, that would be ridiculous. I'm saying: why are you supporting the addition of one retcon and not another? They're identical situations. being a Gallifreyan (i.e. somebody who lives on Gallifrey) - hm? I'm Australian, if I live in America, does that make me American? No. A Gallifreyan is someone native to Gallifrey. S/he is not native to Gallifrey. But you want to keep that? Also, high-born? A lot of contradictions here... Put simply, The Doctor is a Gallifreyan Time Lord from another dimension. However, so far, there is no consensus to rewrite the whole article. That's the consensus that you need to gain. -- /Alex/21 13:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand what there is to discuss? The current status of the character is clear in the show and RS - anything else is original research. yes that could change again in the future but we deal with that as it happens. Cameron Scott (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It is under dispute and thus the status quo remains while the discussion continues. -- /Alex/21 07:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

RE: The Master's dialogue on The Timeless Children

Unless a majority of reliable sources deem it important in a thematic way that the Master is the one giving the exposition, it's unimportant to this article. From a real world perspective, stating that it's revealed in the episode itself is sufficent. DonQuixote (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

To be more specific, you would need to cite a reliable source that says anything like what you're claiming here: noting that the information that The Doctor is The Timeless Child is only conveyed by the Master. We can of course only take it at face value, but that context is very important. Multiple reliable sources have to consider that context "very important". DonQuixote (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
And, once again, I've done so. However, since you've removed the sources I cited literally within mere minutes of my adding them, why don't we let them be available as part of this discussion for others to weigh in on:
"Understandably, The Doctor was confused about what all of this meant, until The Master giddily informed his rival that she is that child."
Doctor Who Dropped A Major Timeless Child Reveal, And What About That Cliffhanger?". CinemaBlend. 1 March 2020.
"The Master uncovered the truth and it shook him enough to burn Gallifrey to the ground; now, he’s sharing that knowledge with his oldest foe (and oldest friend)."
"Doctor Who season finale recap: The Timeless Child, revealed". Entertainment Weekly.
"… his [the Master’s] treat for the Doctor is to reveal to her where she comes from. She is, by his telling, the original ‘Timeless Child’…This is all explained by the Master as if it were a jaw-dropper for the ages."
"Doctor Who review, The Timeless Children: There's so much going on it becomes overwhelming". Independent.co.uk.
"After the Master uncovers the shocking truth of the Timeless Child mystery… The Master goes on to explain that the rest of the memories have been redacted…"
"Doctor Who: 13 huge questions after finale The Timeless Children". Radio Times. 1 March 2020.
"At this point, the Master reveals that the Timeless Child is none other than the Doctor herself."
"Doctor Who's Timeless Child reveal sets up an even bigger mystery for season 13". Digital Spy. 1 March 2020.
"…there is something to be said for the flashback scenes which The Master shows The Doctor. 'Everything you knew was a lie,' The Master told The Doctor. Can we trust The Master to tell the truth? It’s not as if the character hasn’t lied to us before numerous times."
"'Doctor Who': S12.E10. The Timeless Children". Harsh Light News. 1 March 2020.
"The Master reveals that the Timeless Child is the Doctor… This essentially implies that the Doctor has lived countless lives, and there may be many incarnations other than the fourteen we’ve come to know."
"Doctor Who Fans Are Furious Over That Cliffhanger Ending". wegotthiscovered.com. 1 March 2020.
As noted in previous edit summaries, among the cites sources that "one of those thinks it's siginificant" [sic]. And in case those (or that one, whichever it was) is not enough, here are a couple more:
"…the changes in the show’s lore are delivered to the audience via the Master, who recaps the story of the titular “timeless child” to an incapacitated Doctor." DoctorWhoTV.com
"It was, without a doubt, one of the most consequential and seismic events in the whole of the show’s 57-year history, cutting deep into the mythological heart of the central character’s origins as well as the foundation for all previous lore ever presented about the Doctor’s home world, Gallifrey, the Time Lords, and much more besides. At one point, the Master… revels in, as he puts it, having “broken” the Doctor… with the knowledge of her true past." IGN
The point is simply that it's verifiably notable enough to merit a brief, neutral mention of the fact ("by the Master" would be sufficient to follow "revealed"), with no statement or even allusion to its importance beyond that. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 03:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Most of those are plot summaries. Only one of those actually gives it any importance Can we trust The Master to tell the truth? It’s not as if the character hasn’t lied to us before numerous times, and even then, it's pure speculation from one source. You need to find more sources that specifically says that it's an important detail rather than just providing plot summaries. DonQuixote (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
From where I'm sitting, all of the above do as you describe, short of literally including the words "this is sufficiently notable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article". I'd be curious to hear some other opinions, but I wonder how any other detail in this paragraph has justified inclusion based on the standard you've put forward here. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 04:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Since you're the one claiming that it's an important context, the burden of proof is on you to show that it's an important context. So, why is it important? How is mentioning it better for the general reader than not mentioning it? DonQuixote (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I know that the point that Shub. is trying to suggest is that The Doctor being the Timeless Child could all be a lie by the Master given that is it the Master that makes the statement to this end, and all this 'omg this changes everything' the fandom is going on about could all be for naught. Which I agree is a possibly. But, at the same time, I will also point out interviews with Chibnall like this (right before Timeless Children aired) [3] where we get statements like "‘The Timeless Children’ — plural! — will pay off a lot of the strands that we’ve set running both last year and this year. I’m going to do classic British understatement here: It’s a relatively seismic episode for the Doctor, and for the show. You will get some answers, but you will also be left with a whole load of new questions in true Doctor Who style.”" which begs the question that if all that was just a lie set by the Master, then all that Chibnall is saying is pretty much bogus. I know *that* is not 100% proof in the other direction either, and it is unlikely we'll get answers until the Christmas special at the earliest. --Masem (t) 06:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I've done all I can do to make the case that it's notable via plenty of sources above. It's not a requirement that it's earth-shatteringly-important to be included; simple that it's notable. Why is "as a young girl" notable in "Tecteun discovered the Child as a young girl next to a portal to another reality"? —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 03:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Why is "as a young girl" notable in "Tecteun discovered the Child as a young girl next to a portal to another reality"?
It's not. That can probably be trimmed too.
I've done all I can do to make the case that it's notable via plenty of sources above.
Those sources don't say that it's notable--they're only plot summaries. So your case is rather weak since only one of the sources actually take note of it and, even then, they're speculating on why it's notable. DonQuixote (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
your case is rather weak
I disagree.
That can probably be trimmed too
Looking forward to seeing the much shorter version of this article once this standard is consistently applied… if there's anything left. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 02:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Saying that you disagree doesn't accomplish much. As I've said before, you need to find sources that specifically say that it's an important detail rather than just providing plot summaries. That would actually strengthen your case. Also, showing why it's an important detail (whilst avoiding OR and SYNTH) and explaining why mentioning it is better for the general reader would strengthen your case too. DonQuixote (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagree.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 00:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
If you can't be bothered to explain why it's important, then it's probably not important. DonQuixote (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
If you can't see that I already have, then it's probably not important that I convince you other than that you appear to WP:OWN this page, which rather makes trying to add useful information pointless.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 12:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, please quote where you have explained why it's important. DonQuixote (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to drop "assume good faith" and be rather blunt at this point. No one has to bend over backwards for your fan theory. The fact the Master gave the exposition is already mentioned in the episode article, where it belongs with regards to the above plot summary sources. Unless multiple secondary sources consider it important thematically (ie unreliable narrator, as you try to imply) or a primary source specifically mention this, it shouldn't be in this article. So, the burden is squarely on you to go out and do the work. The fact that you won't or can't do the minimum amount of work to meet the bar means that it shouldn't be included in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. Other opinions?—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 02:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thirteenth Doctor episode count

  • Shouldn't the episode count for the Thirteenth Doctor be 31 not 30? 10 series 11 episodes + 10 series 12 episodes + 6 series 13 episodes + 5 specials.

--Meteor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.124.119 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The final special has not yet aired. -- Alex_21 TALK 06:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Atheism

Please see WP:CATVER there is no sourced info in the article about the characters attitude towards religion. Along with that is WP:CATDEF as the term atheism is not a defining feature of the character of the Doctor or, indeed, the show in general. IMO the attempts to add the category is not within Wikipedia guidelines. 20:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)MarnetteD|Talk

Matter of fact, in Demons of the Punjab, she makes specific reference to the religion of her people.Aresef (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Fourteenth Doctor in main image

Despite the fact that it's Tennant again, would this not be useful in order to a. clearly show the lineage from one lead actor to the next and b. provide a link to the Fourteenth Doctor article as per all the others? 87.80.230.159 (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there actual sourcing from the BBC or Russell T for this numbering or is it all just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? With all of this WP:SPECULATION I have to ask, at the end of Logopolis, was the Watcher the 5th Dr and Davison the 6th and the numbering has been off ever since. I know we have to wait a year to get answers so we should hold off on this 15th Dr stuff until then. MarnetteD|Talk 14:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Aresef (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

They wouldn't say he is the 14th Doctor if he wasn't. That would only serve to confuse people. His tenure upcoming may be short, but Tennant is in fact the 14th Doctor and Ncuti is the 15th Doctor, he should be added again to the picture box with his latest look. This isn't a meta-crisis ten or War doctor situation, he is a main incarnation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.58.150 (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"They" needs a source. So far I have only read outsiders use that number. MarnetteD|Talk 15:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
“Doctor Who” showrunner Russell T. Davies said: “If you thought the appearance of David Tennant was a shock, we’ve got plenty more surprises on the way. The path to Ncuti’s 15th Doctor is laden with mystery, horror, robots, puppets, danger and fun. And how is it connected to the return of the wonderful Donna Noble? How, what, why? We’re giving you a year to speculate, and then all hell lets loose.”
If Russell T. Davies himself is calling Gatwa the Fifteenth then surely that's a good enough source. Of course, this might be a troll and he might pull out the rug from underneath us all in a year but for now, the showrunner himself is calling Gatwa 15 which clearly indicates Tennant is 14. If that turns out not to be correct the article can be amended but for now, the best available sources are saying it's true. 87.80.230.159 (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Hell, thanks to the post-TPOTD trailer we now have images of both the Fourteenth AND Fifteenth Doctors in character so I don't see why we can't add both to the main image. 87.80.230.159 (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks you both for the research and I think you can proceed with your suggestion. I know Russell T. enjoys creating storlines for the show that will intrigue and entertain us. Sometimes I think he says to himself "that storyline will set the cat among the pigeons" among wikipedia editors so lets go with it :-) MarnetteD|Talk 18:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Each Actor's Starting Age

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but wouldn't it make more sense to list the original appearance of each Doctor as the first time they appeared, AKA the regeneration? I had always assumed that each Doctor's era would start from the moment they appear on screen. This would change the ages of several of the actors on their first appearance and change the air date of the first appearance under 'Changing Faces'. The likes of Pertwee, McCoy, and Eccleston would obviously remain the same, but other actors would change to their first appearance immediately following their regeneration on screen, as this officially marks the beginning of their era. Thoughts? Bethesdaholic (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd say that McCoy should be listed as being in the TV Movie in the chart, but perhaps separate by a comma to show the gap. I say this because McCoy was in the TV Movie for a good half an hour, which is actually more or less the same amount of time Tennant was in Christmas Invasion. McCoy is even listed in the title credits of the TV Movie as a lead actor, appearing in it for what is essentially a whole Classic episode amount of time. Regardless of the first appearance ages and starting dates, I definitely feel as though McCoy's stint in the TV Movie should count as his last appearance on the chart given he was given a lead title credit and appeared in the story for a significant amount of time before bowing out to McGann. Bethesdaholic (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The current concensus is that it should be their tenure as series lead. DonQuixote (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Which would be from the moment they appear on screen, no? The BBC market the show with the current lead actor this way. For example, Tennant is marketed as the current lead actor for the show, from the moment Whittaker passed the torch. Tennant is currently the lead, both in the show's marketing and as just the current Doctor. They've always seemingly handled it this way. They don't take the lead role from their first full episode, but from their very first appearance.
Additionally, what about the McCoy comment? That was a separate point as McCoy was the lead actor for half of the TV Movie and credited as a lead in the film. Bethesdaholic (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
No. It's well documented (production documents, promotional material, etc.) that Tom Baker was series lead from Robot to Logopolis, Sylvester McCoy was series lead from Time and the Rani to Survival, Paul McGann was series lead for a failed backdoor pilot, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Doctor_(Doctor_Who)/Archive_9&oldid=1219891206"