Talk:The Doctor/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Lists of appearances?

This applies to all the individual Doctor pages (1-10), but I thought it would be better to post on here rather than post it ten times and get ten separate sets of responses. (In fact, this problem probably applies to the articles of all the companions as well.)

There really needs to be some kind of consistency here, because at the moment it just looks messy. The various pages can't seem to agree on whether to provide a list of televised appearances (or how it should be done - most use a normal list, but see the Tenth Doctor format), nor whether they should be written in list form or prose (see Martha Jones in particular, which seems to directly contradict most of the other entries in its format for this section, and again, see the warning message on the Tenth Doctor page).

Personally I think the List of non-televised First Doctor stories has got the right idea about listing spin-off appearances, and should be applied to all the Doctors (and maybe companions, I don't know if there are enough appearances to make it worthwhile). As for televised appearances, who knows; I think a list of story titles might be useful, but as the information is already recorded elsewhere, I don't think it's essential, especially if the tenure is already clearly indicated within the article itself. (Mostly it seems to be the companions that have story titles listed at the moment.) Either way, there needs to be a consistency about whether to list the TV appearances and how it should all be displayed because at the moment, the level of inconsistency across the article lists just makes the whole thing look sloppy.

However, this is a job for someone with more efficiency and Wikipedia-savvy than me, alas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.57.24 (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter Cushing

Where is Peter Cushing ? He played the Doctor in two feature films - more than Paul McGann. Has he been exterminated from History ? Is he the First Doctor or Second or First minus One ? Or What ?--Streona (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

He is neither; Cushing played "Dr. Who", a human scientist who invented a time machine, as opposed to a Time Lord from Gallifrey. A studio bought the movie rights of the first two stories and those films are the result. Otherwise, they have no connection to the original series. — Edokter • Talk • 23:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So he was not "The Doctor" but "Doctor Who".--Streona (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Besides, he is already mentioned in the article. — Edokter • Talk • 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Eleventh Doctor

Okay, here goes. My best friend is Josh (Sarphie) from Mutual Friends. He auditioned for the role of the Jewish boy in The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas but he was not chosen and then went on to play Marc Warren's son in the show. His brother, Ethan, plays a minor role. If you don't beleive me, he goes to Abingdon Preparatory. He says that his mother's (in the show, I haven't actually seen an episode, so I have to go by his word) husband (in real life) is auditioning for the role of The Eleventh Doctor. It probably won't happen, so please don't spread this stuff all across the Internet or Sarferz'll (his nickname) murder me. It's only another guess. Only a guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.125.159 (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless we have a verifiable, third-party source about this, we can't add anything to the article. Sorry - weebiloobil (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. That's cool. Josh won't murder me and the surprise won't be ruined. So it'll all turn out fine...I hope....I do hope that's not an AK-47 you've got there..... Uh-oh....No, Joshua! Don't kill ME!!!!!!!!!!!!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hehe. Jokes. Oops. Sorry for being stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.125.159 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, the person in question is Matthew Macfadyen. BLP prevents us from adding any unverified information about him - weebiloobil (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you loads for letting me see a picture of him. He might make a good Doctor. I've never seen him act, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.93.212 (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7699513.stm which shows who BBC News thinks are the front runners. Being American, I don't know the relationship between BBC news and BBC tv, is this accurate source material? Should some comment about the contents of this article be mentioned??? PPPP (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's accurate insofar as it's an accurate portrayal of widespread speculation. However, it doesn't reflect any inside knowledge about the actual decision. It's not BBC News saying "these people are in the running", it's BBC News saying "People are talking about these people, and making bets about which one might be the next Doctor." As such, we should keep it out, per WP:CRYSTAL — including this here would be like including people's March Madness predictions and bets about the NCAA Final Four in NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

family

The above below was added by an IP a short while ago. It has been removed as it is not particularly encyclopaedic. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The Other

unknown

The Doctor

Doctor-Donna Donna Noble

River Song

Matron Joan Redfern

unknown

Jenny

half-Human Doctor from his hand

Rose Tyler

Susan Foreman

David Campbell

|}

It looks like more reaserch should be done before a tree is added. eg Names of the doctor's wife, children etc.

also most of the info comes from the new series's so a tree may be needed in the future

rdunn 11:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Since certain aspects of this "family tree" are derived from the expanded Whoniverse, most notably the fact that the tree immediately preceeds The Doctor with The Other (who did not appear in the series itself), I doubt this could be said to be an accurate representation. Canonicity is a big debate on books and the such, and if I remember correctly, for something like this we tend to stick only to the televised series as being canon (the rest being a footnote as sort of "here's what could have happened"). The big question is of course whether something that was planned to have been included (the Other during the Seventh Doctor's tenure) can be counted as canon, or whether we have to leave it as the footnote it currently is. Stenir 03:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Doctor's real name

I am astounded that The Doctor's real name was mentioned nowhere in the article! I have now corrected this glaring omission. Should the article not be named after his real name, rather than his pseudo name? --Rebroad (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, his real name has never been revealed (at least officially). And Theta Sigma is a nickname (see Happiness Patrol). DonQuixote (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Lack of categories

There's such a glaring lack of categories applied to the Doctor and his incarnations that I feel I should ask if there's a reason why before I start adding them. Most of them only populate "Doctor who Doctors" and "Doctor Who audio characters". There's a few more colorful ones added to the Third Doctor and one to the Fifth, but other than that... -- AvatarMN (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

New Doctor To Be Announced on 3rd January

Finally!! The speculation will finally be laid to rest and the BBC announces the identity of the new Doctor during the Doctor Who Confidential on Saturday January 3rd! Confirmed by the BBC here: [1] magnius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate at that point to make Eleventh Doctor into a full article, discussing the actor cast, any insight he/she may provide in the ensuing coverage, along with all the speculation leading up to this? Radagast (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. We shouldn't create an article when all we have is a name. After the press dies down, we can return and see what the options are. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is all jumping the gun hugely — the new fellow is not The Doctor until Ten dies in 2010. Until then (give or take a few months), we won't know enough about him to have the content for Eleventh Doctor. Thus we can't link to it, thus he shouldn't appear on Template:Doctornav or under #Changing faces either. David Tennant is the oldest version of the Doctor in the show until then. End of. Surely? DBD 00:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely there will be more on the new Doctor as filming on those episodes begins in the summer; details on costume, companion(s), etc will come out as a matter of course. Eventually we will know quite a bit on this character, and that point will come before his episodes start broadcasting. The question is: When do we have 'enough' information to provide a separate article? Radagast (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything from five days (DWM 404) to five months. I assume that we'd have enough information by June, though. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Having a look at the available information now (i.e. 45 minutes before announcement), I think we have enough now. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Updating the infobox image for the 11th Doctor

How about this? [IMG]http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b7/Valiant86/11doctors.jpg[/IMG] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valiant86 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The current 10 Doctor Image is located here File:10dr19.jpg by the way

To avoid image edit wars, how was this handled for the past two Doctors? Were they added at time of announcement, or at time of regeneration? I don't mind either way, but a statement of consensus would be usefull as no doubt the presence on Wikipedia of two collages would no doubt enrage the free content missionaries. (and also obviously only one version can at any one time be in compliance by being used in an article, the other being deletable).

Also, if he is to be added, what should be the format of the collage? 4-4-3? 3-4-4? 4-3-4? Left/Right justify or centre the row of 3? And please note: do not display non-free images in the talk page, this is definitely not allowed.

MickMacNee (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We cannot add him at the moment because there is no image of Smith as the Doctor. Let's consider this problem once there is, not sooner. We got Tennant for another year, so let's not make ourselves crazy... Regards SoWhy 18:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I would not have said that the 9th Doctor in a leather jacket, or the tenth in a suit, are not particularly illustrative of the Doctor character rather than themselves as actors. An official press image of him as seen below would be perfectly fine in comparison, but no, the free content mission is sadly always paramount (even though the presence of the current collage means this page is already not free content anyway, but that never matters in discussions about what the actual reasons for the NFC existing are). Presumably we are not expecting the BBC to give him plastic surgery or shave his head for the role of the Doctor. MickMacNee (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Eleventh Doctor now has a non free image with a rationale "illustrate the character in popular tv series". If the above interpretation is true, that should not exist either. MickMacNee (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two images, as of now, one of which has already been used for the Eleventh Doctor's page. As MickMacNee pointed out you can't post images on the talk page but here's the link [[2]]. For your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.48.253 (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to use it, I redid the collage with the photo from Eleventh Doctor. I'm not sure whether it's okay for me to post the link to the image here, but it's in my contributions if someone wants to put it up.--Yuefairchild (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

TBH I don't think Matt should appear in the collage, or in the article about the 11th Dr until such time as filming has started, and pictures of him as the Doctor have been released by the BBC. Ideally we should also wait until his regeneration has been shown on screen. Martin451 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Linking is always allowed: File:11doctors.jpg. However, we can't use that particular image as it is blown up. The original image should be updated instead (which is already done). As to wether the 11th Doctor should be included, I think it should. The image is released by the BBC and it is a news-worthy event. — Edokter • Talk • 00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean included on its own, or in the collage uncropped? MickMacNee (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated the new 11 Doctor image for deletion as it was not being used in any articles (as I said would happen), and because it was subsequently uploaded as a new version of the 10 Doctor image (see top). I have reverted back to that images last version, as there is currently not a strong consensus to use it, and an issue over what form (cropped or original) needs to be used. I will also revert the image map data (but you will see in the edit summary where they can be found if neede again). MickMacNee (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC). Here is that image map revision for the record [3]. MickMacNee (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer, when we have a pic of the Eleventh Doctor (as opposed to Mr Smith), we use the 4-4-3 formation, because we then have the 3 NS Doctors on one line, and the (i) bubble can appear next to them... DBD 05:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. MickMacNee (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that we don't know if the press pictures are Smith as the Doctor or as himself. Who's to say that isn't his costume? And it can always be updated. The picture shows "the eleven faces of the Doctor", and it does. It can always be substituted to a more relevant picture of Smith closer to the time. To not include him is a blatant omission, not to mention that his picture is probably of most interest to the reader. (Note: I didn't see this section before re-adding Smith to the multi-Doctor image, and if I had I would have held fire before doing so. I say we leave the image now until there is a consensus here, although I don't think there's much to discuss personally) U-Mos (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that until we've confirmed that the outfit/poise is the Doctor as portrayed by Smith, as opposed to just a picture of Smith, then we have a non-free image of a living person, which is pretty much against WP:NFC requirements. Now, I do agree to an extent that completeness is useful, but given that Smith won't be in the role for a year, the rush to include the picture seems premature. --MASEM 14:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As the full image on the Eleventh Doctor page shows, it is certainly a picture of him in relation to being the Doctor, in a Doctor Who-y setting if you like, even if he doesn't turn out to be wearing the same clothes next Spring when he takes over. It's certainly not just the actor on the same level as, say, the shots of David Tennant and Freema Agyeman upon the announcement of Martha. Surely if it's good enough for one article picture, it's good enough for the other? Also, I don't believe it's a case of "rushing" to add him. We have a decent picture of him taken for Doctor Who promotion, so we use it. If we were dredging up any old picture of him, fair enough, there's no real rush, but we do have (in my mind at least) a decent picture showing him as the Doctor. After all, the whole point of the picture is to show him as the Doctor. U-Mos (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly have no problems with this image representing the 'Eleventh Doctor' persona for the time being; I'm sure once filming begins with him in the role this summer, we'll have a proper, costumed shot, which can then replace this. Radagast (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I edit?

I can't seem to edit this page. It is semi-protected, but my account has been active for a long time now so shouldn't be affected. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this is only your third edit, which means you have not yet reached the autoconfirmed threshold necessary to edit semi-protected pages. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Article name

I changed it to "The Doctor", as the character is always called like that, and not only "Doctor". Wedineinheck (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved it back. I'm sorry, but we need some consistency in naming conventions (See also Master, Rani etc.) WP:MOS en WP:WHO MoS tell us to avoid having unnecessary articles in article titles. — Edokter • Talk • 18:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Master (Doctor Who) has also been moved twice in the past day, using the same rationale. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Doctor (Doctor Who) redirects here anyway. StuartDD _{contributions} 11:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but the header at the top of the page remains "Doctor (Doctor Who)". Personally I believe this should be The Doctor (and by implication The Master, The Rani). The current title should IMO redirect to "The Doctor". --Deadly∀ssassin 11:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. He's not A Doctor, but The Doctor, and introduces himself as such. The Doctor Who Wiki, arguably the premier authority on the subject lists his name as The Doctor, and so should we. For that matter, THIS article, in sections Alias 'The Doctor' and On-screen credits, it's made plain that The Doctor's official name is The Doctor and certainly not merely Doctor. Hughtcool (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That as it may be, Wikipedia does not use "The" as the first word in article names, unless it is part of a work (ie. book or movie). Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). — Edokter • Talk • 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It IS part of the work, the characters name is THE DOCTOR. To just call the article doctor, you could be refferring to the medical title, and therefore the title does not sufficantly define the article. 81.96.65.151 (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that (Doctor Who) being in the title does a good enough job of defining the article. Characters have just refered to him as "Doctor", so it seems the "The" isn't entirely compulsory. magnius (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A character's name is not a 'work' as defined by our naming conventions. 'Doctor Who' is the work, 'the Doctor' is the character. The only instances where an article title starts with 'The' (or 'A') is when it is part of a proper title of a work, ie. titles of books and movies. This is not one of those instances. — Edokter • Talk • 16:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Matt Smith's Image

Since no footage has been shot or pictures taken of the Eleventh Doctor, the character does not yet exist in any form, therefore there are no images of him. The image on the page is of Matt Smith, not the Doctor, and posting any picture of the Eleventh Doctor is premature by at least a year anyway. The image should be removed for now and replaced with one of Smith in costume when he actually assumes the role. Right now that image smounts to speculation, and undeniably innacurate speculation at that, since the Eleventh Doctor will not actually look like that. On top of that, while it is unlikely, things may change and Smith may never actually play the Doctor. He's not even scheduled to step in front of a camera for another year. Wikipedia should maintain a policy of reporting announcements, but not treating future events as if they have already occured. Keep the announcement of Smith's acceptance of the role in the Info section but take down the innacurate and speculative image.71.142.213.9 (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a picture officially released by the BBC along with press releases, it serves as a good visual reference for the actor. Until an in costume shot is released I see no problem with using this image. magnius (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

Sorry... but few points:

• The Smith image is cropped from the BBC's press release [4] and the full image is also in use on Wiki (File:11thdoctor.jpg). Since the image uses props (the TARDIS) related to the show and role, there is nothing to suggest that the image is not Smith "in character".
• At this point, based on the previous series production dates, it's likely that filming involving Smith, in some form, will start later this year. Making it likely that there will be promotional stills from the episodes before the 2009 holiday season, not well into 2010 as you suggest.
• "Right now that image smounts to speculation, and undeniably innacurate speculation at that, since the Eleventh Doctor will not actually look like that." That line smacks of hype and disbelief. As pointed out, this is an image sourced to the BBC, not a fansite PhotoShop construction. Yes, there is a bit of faith that the BBC isn't putting that out knowing they aren't going to use that costume and/or actor just to shut people up. But it is what the BBC is saying and showing they will do, so it's hard to classify it as "innacurate". And unless you have a verifiable source that states:
  • The BBC is lying through its teeth;
  • Smith was told to "Just wear anything, we don't have a costume yet.";
  • Costuming stating "No, not even close to what we're thinking."; or
  • Finalized costume designs - on mannequins , hangers, or artwork.

Don't make a definitive statement like "...since the Eleventh Doctor will not actually look like that."

That being said... I do agree that updating the infobox image here at this point is a big case of crystal-balling. Yes, the promo image is reasonable for Eleventh Doctor, but at this point that article is strictly about the process of casting the role. That is, it's entirely real world based. This article deals with the character, and should try to severely limit information that has yet to be broadcast. Right now, even with the BBC presenting an actor in a particular costume, "things may change". Since Wiki doesn't have a deadline we can hold off, at least until filming starts on the series 5 episodes, on adding the image. - J Greb (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a bit silly that the pic is of Matt Smith in costume holding what appears to be a script. Surely an image cropped from one of the pictures in which he's not holding something so obviously OOU would have been more suitable? Like this one: http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0e29dLWdQ48ja/340x.jpg (86.1.172.195 (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

Oh, sorry, just looked at the timestamps. Ignore me here! (86.1.172.195 (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

New photos

Could somebody upload one of these pictures up to Wikipedia for the article? I dunno how to do that. Just pick the one that you think will fit better.
http://hyves.nl/index.php?l1=ut&l2=photo&l3=show&media_id=487093679&media_secret=JUML
http://hyves.nl/index.php?l1=ut&l2=photo&l3=show&media_id=487093682&media_secret=C2GN (Includes a better picture of Matt) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.71.119 (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A newer image has already been uploaded. — Edokter • Talk • 18:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I just though these might look better as the row with 3 faces is in the middle. Plus Matt look better (In the second pic) IMO. 82.139.71.119 (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I too prefer the 4-3-4 arrangement to the current 3-4-4 one, but I'm not really bothered by it either way really... Etron81 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's 4-4-3 now; I uploaded it just over an hour ago. — Edokter • Talk • 21:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah so it is - my browser hadn't grabbed the new one - I like it! Etron81 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The 443 does look much better. It's almost like someone suggested so right from the off (*points upwards by a way*)... :P DBD 01:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So... What do you think? Shall we upload 434, or should we leave it as 443? 82.139.71.119 (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

4-4-3 makes sense to me - you then have the "classic" doctors on the first two rows and the "new" doctors on the bottom row - a logical arrangement I think.

Well, ok. How about this: http://hyves.nl/index.php?l1=ut&l2=photo&l3=show&media_id=487951817&media_secret=XxDI ? It has a better Matt picture, don't you agree? 82.139.71.119 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Matt doesn't seem to be in character in that picture. — Edokter • Talk • 21:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like he's wearing the same outfit as in this image, which would make it as in-character as is possible at this point. I personally prefer this image to the current one, as the look is more engaging and less aloof, but whether that gives it a more accurate impression will depend on what the new regeneration's personality is like when he's in actual episodes. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 16:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(←) It also depends on sourcing; we know where this one came from (The BBC). — Edokter • Talk • 18:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing? Okay, umm...

http://drwhofans.hyves.nl/album/27680304/Doctor_Who_Fanhyve/uPUdV08V/photos/450568396/0/QeUN/

It's a Dutch mini-website (Called a Hyve) dedicated to Doctor Who. There is where I got the image from. I'm not sure where the image itself came from, but yeah. There it is. 82.139.71.119 (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That website is far from a reliable source. magnius (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

indeed... a fansite that does not specify the source of that image cannot be used. — Edokter • Talk • 18:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Looks like I wasted loads of time and effort on 3 images to please you ungreatful sods and for absolutely nothing. My bad. I knew I should have used it to make my story I'm making. Well, bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.71.119 (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2009

No-one is being ungrateful, it's just that wikipedia comes with rules and guidelines. Images and information need to come from reliable sources, so blogs and fansites. magnius (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Radiation

I've noticed that the article says that the Tenth Doctor absorbed radiation "from an x-ray of significantly magnified power". Why not just saying it was a MRI machine?Diana Prallon (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it wasn't an MRI. Magnetic resonance uses a giant eletro-magnet not radiation, and he wasn't inside one. The thing that the vampire in the episode was using as a weapon was an MRI. DonQuixote (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Eleventh Doctor Pic

There might be a good reason for this, but why are we using a picture of Matt Smith in costume holding what appears to be a script? Surely an image cropped from one of the pictures in which he isn't clearly "on a break" would make more sense? Wouldn't a headshot from [5] (or a better quality version) be preferable? Jus' saying. 86.1.172.195 (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the same one as I uploaded for Eleventh Doctor. I chose that one as it's the only official BBC photo of him in costume at the moment. (I felt paparazzi photos might be a bit iffy for free use when an offical photo exists). Etron81 (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sir Doctor of TARDIS, Dame Rose of the Powell Estate....

Shouldn't the Doctor's title reflect that he was given a knighthood by Queen Victoria in 1879?

I was researching what potential honours were available to Victoria at that time, and found this being the most senior of those possible at that moment... http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Order_of_St._Michael_and_St._George —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.126.241 (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Brain of Morbius note

It says on the article that the mind battle showing the doctors faces in the brain of morbius imply the doctor had incarnations before his 'first'. Well I think that the faces seen were obviously morbius' incarnations and the note should be changed to speculate so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.90.16 (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Cushing

Shouldn't Peter Cushing be counted as one of the Doctors?--The Rogue Leader (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He played a different character that was based on the First Doctor. He's listed in list of actors who have played the Doctor, though. DonQuixote (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Human/Timelord

In section 4.5.1 (Continuity Curiosities), it states that:

"The idea of a "half-human" Doctor is further discredited by the 2008 series finale "Journey's End", wherein the Doctor expresses dismay at his "half-human" double, and explicitly states that a human/Time Lord cross such as Donna becomes in that story has never existed before; events later in the episode show the latter combination to be inherently unstable."

However, the exact wording in the episode was 'Human/Timelord metacrisis'. The author of this section has a different interpretation than what was intended. I think we should stick with the explicit wording of the lines and disregard this section as evidence of continuity problems with human/timelord interbreeding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.37.235 (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of the old image

The older image of the 11 Doctors lacks sources for the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Doctors and the quality is atrocious on some of the pictures like the Fifth. And we have quite a few official images of the Eleventh Doctor, those images should have priority over a set photo. Since technically a set photo of Matt Smith isn't a picture of the Eleventh Doctor. Currently I have my modified image in place of the old one since there are actual sources for the individual images. But I propose another new image of the Eleven Doctors with the best quality as possible and sources for each of the individual images. Hai Tien (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at both images and the issues brought up:

• File:Versions of the Doctor.jpg (the file was renamed for clarity issues) did lack sourcing for the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th Doctors. However, since a source for the 6th was provided for the same image in File:Versions of the Doctor alt.jpg (also renamed for clarity) that dropped the "missing" down to 4. And a similar source was found for the 7th Doctor.
• At the same time Versions of the Doctor alt.jpg was missing a source for the 5th, 7th, and 9th Doctors. Since the 7th is again shared, that make it effectively short 2 sources. This does bring up a massive concern though - if one of the primary intents of the revised image was to provide 11 sources (a good idea), then sources for all of the 4 retained image should have been found, as was done with the 6th, or they should have been changed, as was done with the 5th. The half measure makes both image equally invalid on this point.
• Because of the nature of the image, the quality of the sub-images is going to be low. Face it, a 124 x 198px image isn't going to be great, and it's worse when displayed since they are ~40% of that size.
• As the image currently stands, there is an attempt to follow a consistent style - looking at or facing the camera, head & shoulders, without effects, in color. Some - 1st, 7th, and 8th - art "best fits" based on what is available. But the 9th really should be replaced. And the proposed replacements for the 10th (harsh lighting) and 11th (lighting and effects overlay) don't fit.
• While the "It's an actor in costume at the reading" may be a fair criticism of the 11th, the same can be said of the other 10 images - they are all actors in costume on set. That being said, a better, currently on Wiki, and sourced image for the 11th may be File:11th Doctor.jpg. At least until there is a like image to cull from an episode.
• Last thing... IIUC, Versions of the Doctor.jpg was set up to be the default and evolve as need be, not be replaced. That's part of the reasoning behind the name change. If/when there is a consensus to change one or more of the component image, or with the next regeneration, the change should be to the base file, not a new one put up in it's place. And ideally, this type of discussion should be done on the file's talk page with pointers left on the 2 article and main project talk pages.

- J Greb (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Copied to File talk:Versions of the Doctor.jpg#Replacement of the old image - J Greb (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Addition to physiology?

At the end of the Tenth Doctor's (David Tennants) time, The Doctor was shown to be able to drop from a flying vehicle (in this case a space vessel flying at low altitude on Earth, for gravity reference), land many metres below, impact solid ground with significant force, and despite briefly being somewhat incapacitated, recover back to what appeared to be relatively normal health (without having to regenerate) in a matter of minutes. This is another implication that his physiology and resistance to blunt trauma is far greater than human and his non-regeneration based recovery capability is significant. --86.148.247.201 (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

and this contradicts the regeneration of the Fourth Doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.50.125 (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily a contradiction as he could've buffed himself up somehow to prevent such a thing. DonQuixote (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

People have been known to die from a fall of a couple of feet, whilst skydivers have managed to survive the impact into the ground after a failed parachute deployment..all about luck. magnius (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And it was the 4th doctor's time, perhaps, as evidenced by the Watcher's presence throughout. GedUK  14:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Aliases

What? Why aren't the Doctor's aliases listed? I know of Doctor Foreman from the first season and John Smith from the new series off hand... is there any reason why they aren't listed? felinoel (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's in the section "Doctor who?" DonQuixote (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Usually an alias is listed under the picture though... felinoel (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD, if you think it should be added in the infobox. DonQuixote (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There's also Theta Sigma which was what he was called at the Time Lord Academy as stated in The Armageddon Factor --VitasV (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.234.102 (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Choosing his company

I removed this puzzling statement from the article: "At no time in the programme is the Doctor known to have deliberately chosen any of his own company." That makes absolutely no sense, and is wrong, to boot, since he has explicitly invited several individuals to travel with him: Grace Holloway, Rose Tyler, Donna Noble, Astrid Peth, and Amy Pond come immediately to mind. He has been turned down - Grace and Donna initially - and Astrid died before she could join him. One can also assume he chose Susan. I'd say he's chosen his company at least a few times. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Brain of Morbius note

It says on the article that the mind battle showing the doctors faces in the brain of morbius imply the doctor had incarnations before his 'first'. Well I think that the faces seen were obviously morbius' incarnations and the note should be changed to speculate so.

timestamping for eventual archiving. umrguy42 20:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Further expanding the Doctor's family

There's much of the Doctor's family not mentioned on here. The novel Lungbarrow features much of the Doctor's cousins and his family so could we maybe have a look into that and mentioned here? --Victory93 (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

All the spin-off media (particularly the Virgin series) are non-canon, thus should not be included here. --MASEM (t) 11:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that you can apply concepts of 'canon' to an encyclopaedia. All that matters is notability and if it is sourced correctly. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC has stated that the spin off media is non-canon - not that it conflicts with their definition of the DW world, but that they won't hold themselves to any statements made in that. Thus, for discussing the Doctor in a canonical fashion as appropriate to the encyclopedia, the spin-off novels are unreliable. Now, this doesn't dismiss a section that discusses briefly some elements of the character in the spin-offs, but it needs to be indicated as such. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussing the Doctor in a canonical fashion, is not appropriate to an encyclopaedia. Indeed, an encyclopaedia should consider all points of view not just the dominant ones. Unless you can cite a policy with regard to elevating material over other material due to its status in the canon, (and even then you would need to prove that the BBC canon was more worthy than that of any other company), then all information must be assessed on notability and verifiability. That said, I don't think their is any harm in making it clear where all information came from. (There is quite extensive discussions about this matter on several similar topics, such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Buffy, et al. If you want to see more views on the subject. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

See The Holy Grail (or any other Arthurian legend or any other mythology for that matter). There's no such thing as "canon", only "versions". DonQuixote (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Although the BBC may dismiss it, Stevem Moffat and other writers have hinted in the latest series expanded universe material but not directly. Plus Lungbarrow was published on the official Doctor Who website as an e-book free to read. Simply add them in and state that they're unclear whether they relate to rest of the series like mentioned in the section with John, Gillian and Miranda. --Victory93 (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no such thing as cannon for fiction. If I choose to accept a book as part of the story, who is anyone else to tell me I'm wrong? You can't prove it never happened because none of it actually happened, it's fiction. Cannonicity is on an individual basis. I'll accept what I want as "true" and you can accept what you want.129.139.1.68 (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicking

It states the portraits are in chronological order. But they travelled in time back and forth, so is it really in chronological order? 81.182.149.94 (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's chronological in terms of TV production, which apparently matches the Doctor's own subjective sequence. —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

a hint of age

Didn't #3 once say peevishly, "I've been a scientist for several th—", apparently biting off the words "thousand years"? Or maybe he was saying "centuries" with a lisp. —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's mentioned in the article. DonQuixote (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Romance

I know there's already a note saying the section needs work, but I was puzzled why there's a gaping hole in it regarding anything from the 11th Doctor's series; Amy Ponds' pre-wedding confusion kiss and the mysterious River Song. —freaky_dragonlady(talk) 15:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

????

Can anybody explain the random i image by the pictures of the 11 doctors? it seems out of place, but I feel like it isn't. I thought that image was only used for user/IP warnings. hewhoamareismyself 01:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

if you're talking about the little blue "i" icon, it's there so people can be linked to this page as if you click on any part of the rest of the image, you are taken to an individual Doctor's page Etron81 (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Doctor as murderer

In an early episode, The Doctor picks up a rock and is about to bash in the brains of a native of another planet. (I don't remember the reason.) He is stopped by one of his human companions and gives some lame excuse.

It should also be noted that William Hartnell did not leave the series solely because of declining health. He was disturbed by the increasingly violent character of the series. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Continuity, "The Doctor lies."

I keep adding this because it is relevant to continuity and supposed inconsistencies thereof. If continuity issues are presented simply because of statements made by the Doctor himself then these may be explained by assuming that the Doctor was lying. As stated by himself and others in several episodes such as Let's Kill HItler the Doctor does, in fact, lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.200.235 (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Deciding when he's lying, particularly in regards to any continuity errors, is original research. DonQuixote (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's merely stating that many so-called "continuity errors" may simply be the Doctor lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.200.235 (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're using the word "may", then it's speculation and original research. DonQuixote (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The word "may" occurs in this article 40 times. Are you planning to revise all of those as well? I am attempting to alleviate some speculation of continuity errors that may or may not exist based upon who made the statement(s) that contradicted continuity. If you would like to re-word what I wrote, fine. But there is no need to continue removing it. It is relevant to continuity and it is canon that the Doctor lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.200.235 (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added the following line to the section about continuity: "Some continuity issues have arisen due to contradictory statements made by the Doctor himself. As stated by many of his companions and the Doctor himself in Let's Kill Hitler, the Doctor lies." Does that work better for you? It doesn't suppose anything. It simply points out two facts: 1) Some of the continuity issues are because of the Doctor's own statements. 2) The Doctor lies. 216.47.200.235 (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: "may"...yep, they're probably speculations too and need to be trimmed out of the article. It doesn't help to add new speculations to the page. Anyway, even with the rewrite you're still implying that the cause of the continuity errors may be the Doctor's habit of lying...which is still original research. It won't be original research if you can cite a reliable source that makes the same connection between the two. DonQuixote (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Or I can simply continue to undo your edits. The fact that the Doctor lies AND the writers have gone out of their way to point this out time and time again is relevant. Sorry. 216.47.200.235 (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that kind of action would fall under "disruptive editing". That is against Wikipedia policy.

And the writers didn't point it out "time and time again"--they only did so twice (The Big Bang and Let's Kill Hitler). Be as it may, everyone lies, and so it's non-notable in-and-of-itself. The fact that you're trying to pair it with continuity issues means that you're trying to make it notable. That by its very nature is original research. Per Wipedia policy, such things should be cited from reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think what you are doing is "disruptive editing". What you are doing is trying to hide information that is information that is relevant and pertinent to the subject matter at hand. Readers should have this information when reading about so-called continuity issues. 216.47.200.235 (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's your POV that the information is "relevant and pertinent". Unless you can provide a reliable source that says the same thing that you do, you're probably not going to convince anyone else. See WP:OR and WP:Verifiability for more information. DonQuixote (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with Don here. There is no compelling evidence that "the Doctor lies" is a running motif in the series, compared to, say "I wear an X, X are cool now", which is very easy to see without interpretation. If it later turns out to be something the showrunners were building towards and it becomes crystal clear from primary sources or discussed in a secondary source, then by all means we can add it back, but not at the current time. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And now I begin to understand why so many people doubt the viability of WikiPedia as reliable source of information on any given topic. You cannot present an article about a character and then state that there are flaws in the continuity of the characters storyline while simultaneously deciding to omit proven canonical information that may explain said flaws. No matter what else you try to tell yourself, this information is canon, it's provable and it's relevant. You are simply choosing to hide said information from WikiPedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.200.235 (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You're using "may" again ("that may explain said flaws"). That's a sign that you're speculating. So, contrary to what you might think, it's not "provable". Please cite a source, otherwise you're trying to make Wikipedia less reliable. DonQuixote (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I did. Several episodes of the show in question state that the Doctor lies. He's admitted it himself. Therefore, based on simple logic not speculation, any so-called "continuity errors" that are the product of anything he says are thereby subject to this FACT. It's really very simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.200.235 (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The Doctor lies: fact. There are continuity errors: fact. One causing the other...show how this is implied by using simple logic. It can't. There is nothing that mandates that continuity errors are "subject" to the fact that Doctor lies. The process of going from two independent facts to a correlation is speculation. In fact, I can "disprove" your speculation with a speculation of my own: any continuity error involving what the Doctor says is a result of the TARDIS exploding. So, he wasn't lying, time was just rewritten by the cracks in the universe. And so forth. My speculation is no better than yours, and that's why it's not included in this article either (unless I can cite a source). DonQuixote (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you listening to yourself? "There is nothing that mandates that continuity errors are "subject" to the fact that Doctor lies." How could they not be if they arise from something he said in the first place? 216.47.200.235 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"How could they not be if they arise from something he said in the first place?"

Er...the cracks in time can rewrite history, so whatever he said was true before time was rewritten. And so forth. There's nothing that says that my bit of speculating is better than your bit of speculating and vise versa. The bottome line is that we're both speculating. DonQuixote (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that mine is based on facts that have been pointed out in multiple episodes. Either way, I'm sick of this. You want to spend this much time and resources to hide a very good explanation for what is being called "continuity errors". Fine, have at it. Once again, this is why the veracity of Wikipedia has been in question for so long. Because people like you get to pick and choose what information they want readers to know. I'll end by stating this one last time, these are facts and they should be included in this article: Fact: the Doctor lies. Fact: Some of the so-called continuity errors come directly from the words of a self-professed liar. Fact: I am done arguing with you about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.200.235 (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be "based on facts"...but it's still speculation. Wikipedia is against speculating in its articles. The fact that the Doctor lies is already included in the articles. The fact that there are continuity errors are also included in the articles. The fact that cracks in the universe rewrite history is included in the articles too. Any connection between them is speculation...which is what you're trying to push. DonQuixote (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The Silence and The Question

Under the Doctor Who? section at the bottom it states ""The Wedding of River Song" reveals that the question, "Doctor who?", is the oldest question in the universe, and that the Silence have been seeking the answer to this question." 'Let's Kill Hitler' and 'The Wedding of River Song' taken together, implies that The Silence DON'T want the question answered and are willing to go to great lengths to see that it doesn't get answered. The rest is great, but this comment needs to be removed or edited.

I looked up two reviews just to see if others saw what I did. I found http://www.denofgeek.com/television/1076080/doctor_who_series_6_episode_13_review_the_wedding_of_river_song.html and and http://www.nerdist.com/2011/10/doctor-who-the-wedding-of-river-song-review-spoilers/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murbarb1 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hats & Killing

Not sure how to cite sources for these… if anyone has any suggestions, please let me know (on my talk page). I’ve been watching the old episodes (or their reconstructions) and there are some interesting notes relevant to this page.

First, the Doctor seems to have a few exemptions to his general rule against killing. He is willing to kill Daleks from his very first meeting with them; he and Ian Chesterton, in The Daleks, tell the womenfolk to turn away while they eliminate the biological part of the Dalek they have trapped. He also uses the Time Destructor in “The Destruction of Time” to kill all the Daleks on on Kembel.

Second, the fascination with hats goes back a ways. In The Highlanders, the Doctor twice comments, “I would like a hat like that!” First in response to a tam o’shanter that Ben finds beside a cannon, and later to a sailor’s hat found on the quay.

However, this all constitutes original research on my part from watching the episodes… feel free to cite this post if you want to edit the articles. (-:

— crism (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Doctors Name

Chrístõdavõreendiamondhærtmallõupdracœfiredelúnmiancuimhne de Lœngbærrow This has been confirmed by many of my sources --88.111.125.135 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)--88.111.125.135 (talk)

Thanks. Please cite one. DonQuixote (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This comes from the Fanfiction series "Unfinished Business" http://www.pearsecom.co.uk/ ... it is not cannon. Musikfanuk (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I did not see the first episode, but within the the first series I remember someone asking the doctor his name. I recall he (William Hartnell) replied with a long incomprehensible name. I've often wondered what he said. The person who asked him his name then said "Doctor Who?" and Hartnell said "Yes, that's Right!"

Chrístõdavõreendiamondhærtmallõupdracœfiredelúnmiancuimhne de Lœngbærrow comes from much later in the series, so may not be the same name as announced by William Hartnell.

Who has a copy of the first series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozzark (talk • contribs) 01:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

__________

Hello, I didn't see William Hartnell say thast long name in the first series, and don't think he would have managed it anyway.

In the first Series : When Barbara Wright and Ian Chesterton first meet the Doctor, Ian assumes that Susan's grandfather is "Dr Foreman", as Susan is known as Susan Foreman at the school (and the scrap yard where the TARDIS is parked is Foreman's Yard). This is shown in Episode 2 after being kidnapped and sent back in time Ian asks the Doctor for proof that their situation is real:-

The Doctor : "What concrete evidence would satisfy you? hmm?"

Ian : "Just open the doors Dr Foreman."

The Doctor :"eh? DR Who? What's he talking about?"

So it's clear that although Susan uses Foreman as her last name, Doctor doesn't use Foreman, or at least isn't used to being called it. "DR Who" cearly comes from this remark. I remember Peter Cushing Introdusing himself as "I am Dr Who" in the Hammer TV movies (which were really the same story, with a few alterations). As the origional story continues the kidnapees tend to refere to the Doctor as such, probably as they have no other name to call him by and as he has a time machine would probably be some sort of professor. Susan refers to him as Grandfather so no clues there.

Now I would like to point out another little thing from the first series, the name John Smith which crops up so many times in the Doctor's adventures. This might also come from episode 1 (an unearthly child) where Susan is seen listening to the music of the wonderful John Smith (and what sounds like "the colemen") who have just gone from position 19 to 2 on a small transistor radio. Chris Stubbs

_______ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.39.93 (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

'John Smith' began in The Wheel in Space 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Actors who have played the Doctor in the tv series.

Only 10 actors have played the doctor in the tv series because Paul McGann, who is often credited as the eighth doctor, only played him in the film. I do not really know how to find citations so help in correcting this would be appreciated. Zibart (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC).

The BBC considers the TV movie as part of the TV series and considers Paul McGann as the Eighth Doctor Etron81 (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What about Peter Cushing playing him? He appeared in two films made by AARU Productions, Dr. Who and the Daleks, which was based upon the televised serial The Daleks, and Daleks' Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D., based upon the serial The Dalek Invasion of Earth, in 1965 and 1966

So there must be either 10 or 12 doctors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozzark (talk • contribs) 01:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

quite simple really, the BBC DOES include McGann and the TV movie, but it does NOT include Cushing and the Dalek movies. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

But as far as I know even BBC that there have been 11 Doctors till date(including Matt Smith) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.183.130 (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't find a cite right now but I do remember a Dr Who EU story addresses the films as in-universe fanfic if you will. I think they were written by Ian Chesterton. Anyone remember more? 217.42.21.231 (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I am the Doctor: The Unauthorised Diaries of a Timelord by John Peel has something like that but written by Barbera Wright. DonQuixote (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

But that wouldn't count, because it's in-universe. 137.158.153.203 (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Error in section "Doctor who?"

Section "Doctor who?" "The Third Doctor's car, dubbed 'Bessie', carried the licence plate WHO 1".

Cars in Britain do not have Licence Plates, they have Number Plates that are assigned to the vehicle. Molbrum2 (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Detailed Personality

Even though there is a section on the Doc's personality I think a more detailed section on the personalities of the individual doctors would be useful.I know that its already there on the individual pages, but a small description of each would be enough with links to the full pages.--212.12.183.130 (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Name!

His name is Chrístõdavõreendiamondhærtmallõupdracœfiredelúnmiancuimhne de Lœngbærrow --88.111.125.49 (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that very much. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How about if we ask someone other than the Swedish Chef? 192.31.106.34 (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The name "Chrístõdavõreendiamondhærtmallõupdracœfiredelúnmiancuimhne de Lœngbærrow" (or "Christo" for short!) is a name for the Doctor, but it is confined to fanfiction (particularly the 'Theta Sigma' series) and online speculation and should not as such be present on an encyclopaedia. TARDIS Wiki can have it if they want, but it shouldn't be on here. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Character or string of characters?

"Each doctor is a uniquely different character, and sometimes different doctors even refer to each other as "him"."

I have reverted this edit as each Doctor has a distinct personality, but they are all the same character - this has been confirmed by reliable sources on many occasions. Etron81 (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Modern-day romance

I think that part needs to be rewritten. It jumps around.49.176.35.37 (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Valeyard

Somebody fix the Valeyard link...it's directed to somebody's idea of a prank. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.191.158.114 (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

John Hurt

Since May 18th, a number of editors have inserted Jon Hurt as The Doctor, and others have removed it. My inclination would be to add him in - he is credited as The Doctor in the show itself. However, I'm happy also to support any consensus that develops. It seems, however, that editors have been reverting each other without attempting to discuss this issue.

So - my arguments for including Jon Hurt as a current, unknown incarnation of The Doctor:

• In show and in the credits he is clearly credited as The Doctor
  
• Numerous independent sources describe him as 'The Doctor' or an incarnation of The Doctor (eg here, here, here, here). This seems to fulfill Wikipedia's main criterium of verifiability.
• Pre-Saturday 18th May sources need to be taken with much more of a pinch of salt - by necessity, they include misdirection and attempts to avoid spoilers for the 18th May 2013 episode.

Wikipedia's main criterium is a verifiability, and we appear to have that. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I say wait till we actually find out more ("WP:DEADLINE") - difficult I know, since November is 6 months away - but until we actually know, anything written is basically speculation. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The primary work ID's him on screen as the Doctor (that's irrefutable evidence there) and most RSs commenting on the show accept that, so there's no reason not to include it here. The question is vague on what incarnation he is (the popular two being the 12th or one that preceded the 9th and responsible for the Time War) but we can't speculate as to that, so including John Hurt as a yet-identified reincarnation of the Doctor is completely acceptable. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not discussing earlier, I've been meaning to get round to it. As said above, I agree that there is no problem in mentioning him in the article as someone playing the Doctor, and I agree too that any speculation on his role is just that for the time being and should not be included. I myself wrote one of the mentions in the prose text yesterday. However, I am very much against including him in the infobox. The only reason he should be there is if he eventually succeeds Matt Smith and leads the show as the Doctor. We don't know exactly who he is at the moment, but I would say that whoever he is the infobox should be restricted to the main actors with any others mentioned elsewhere; whether Hurt is pre-1st of pre-9th or between regenerations or whatever, from an out-of-universe perspective he is not one of the primary incarnations of the Doctor. Only the eleven men to have led the series in that role, identified as such by innumerable sources, warrant that. U-Mos (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Valeyard is also "The Doctor" but no one has ever included him AS The Doctor. Even the Great Intelligence mentions the Valeyard in the episode just past, so rather than jump to adding an unknown here, let's simply wait for the series to explain what is actually going on. A very reasonable and proper approach... Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and does not need to be cutting edge. -- Avanu (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The line in "continuity curiosities" seems fine to me for the moment:

"The Name of the Doctor" (2013) introduces John Hurt as a version of the Doctor who "broke the promise" the moniker "Doctor" represents; the Eleventh Doctor thus does not consider him to be "the Doctor", although he does acknowledge him as a version of himself. How this incarnation fits in with the established regeneration sequence has yet to be explained.

It only says what has been revealed, and also states that the exact nature has yet to be established. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with U-Mos's reasoning that he should not be in the infobox. However, should he be in the table in the Changing Faces section (as someone has recently added him)? Bondegezou (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Some interesting perspectives. Might I suggest a pipelinked List of actors who have played the Doctor#Other actors who played the Doctor under the main eleven, with the text Various others? This would have the added benefit of stopping other people from coming and looking to add Hurt (or others) to the list?Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Thanks. DonQuixote (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Gender?

During his current incarnation, the Eleventh Doctor has referred to other Time Lords who have changed apparent physiological gender, from male to female. Would it be possible to refer to this in the main article, along with controversy about the possibility of a female Doctor at some point in the future? Calibanu (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)User Calibanu

if you could provide a source and evidence that it is a noteworthy topic, yes. Goodsmudge^(Talk) 10:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The possibility of a female Doctor is speculative. The Doctor may have been joking. The Corsair may have been naturally transgender in a way not typical of other Time Lords. We do not know. Many, many things are possible. That does not make them worth noting. Dr.Who (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Gaiman has stated pretty clearly that that line was serious and that Time Lords can change their sex during regeneration. [6] I don't see any problem with discussing the prospect of a female Doctor if enough secondary sources are talking about it. —Flax5 16:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that fit better in the main Doctor Who article, or a Timelord one?Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. While the female idea would be interesting in the main Doctor Who article, it would be speculative at best, irrelevant/wrong at worst, to use here. The Doctor has not yet been a female, even if it's possible, so I don't think it should be included here. Vyselink (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The 12th Doctor

Peter Capaldi has been announced as the 12th Doctor in Doctor Who. We need sources ASAP? 2.121.145.49 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What we need is patience and people stopping to use articles to vent their feelings about this announcement. The BBC will soon post sources, I'm sure and then we can add them. Regards SoWhy 18:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

We only have one image of Peter Capaldi and it isn't very good. They are better ones but someone needs to have a Flickr account to contact the copyright holders to change them to an acceptable license. I don't think we should put the lame one in the info box until we are sure we can't get a better one. I will see if I can find his email if someone else wants to try Flickr emails.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture

What is going on with the picture? Peter Capaldi appears in the bottom right corner, which is premature and contradicts the caption, but he is not in the original picture linked to, only in the thumbnail. Mezigue (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

We should probably wait until the costume is announce - alternatively, if we do need to have a pic, shouldn't we use the promo pic from the BBC? Etron81 (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

We can't use copyrighted images unless they are in character articles in costume. I sent one email to BBC and another to a local website near his house. We should know in a few days if they will help.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

His agent might be able to help, too: <redacted> 88.148.249.186 (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I just sent an email with all the OTRS detail.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Cause of the Fifth Doctor's Regeneration

This is worded quite poorly I think. You could say the Doctor was forced to regenerate because of Spectrox Toxaemia or Spectrox poisoning, but surely not Spectrox Toxaemia poisoning. Toxaemia means poisoning, the presence of toxins in the blood. It was the Spectrox that was the cause.

Should this be corrected?

Ph 1980 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Addition of The Dark Doctor

I think that since John Hurt has been confirmed as the doctor during the time war he should be added in between the 8th and 9th from death of unknown causes.

There should be countless sources on bbc.co.uk/doctorwho saying he is the Dark Doctor

I'm removing this for now. Let's wait until the show airs and see where John Hurt fits in. I've seen speculation that he could be anything from a future Doctor to an older Eighth Doctor to a previously unknown Ninth Doctor to a version of the Master. Because Wikipedia can't tell the future, I think it's proper for us to hold off and wait for the episode before updating the article with details about the character John Hurt portrays. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Reword - to include mini-episode featuring Paul McGann - note 5, as the information stored is out of date and not immediately applicable to the content, thus confusing a reader unaware of the mini-episode. JonOberdorfer (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Edit requests need to include the exact text you would like to add in a "please change X to Y" format. Suggestions, like yours, are useful also, since some other editor may choose to take them up, but they do not require a {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Page name

The name of the page is incorrect. He is called The Doctor, not Doctor. 86.154.189.22 (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a guideline for this sort of thing at WP:THE. Since the word "the" has no unusual meaning in this context, and since it isn't capitalised in running text, we don't include it in the article title. —Flax5 13:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, since the character is variously credited as "Doctor Who" (i.e., "Doctor" reads as his first name, since he is not actually a doctor) and "The Doctor", so "Doctor" is understood in both senses. —sroc 💬 01:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this assessment. WP:THE also states that using "The" in a title can be condititionally used in a situation where "The" is known as "another official or commonly used proper name" is used (such examples given are The Hague and The Crown). There is certainly enough evidence that "The Doctor" falls under that condition. (Also, I would argue similarly for Star Trek: Voyager's own "The Doctor.") --hmich176 10:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, he's not any old doctor, and he's not claiming to be a physician type doctor. "The Doctor" is generally his referred name. 217.44.214.229 (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that it should be 'The Doctor'. I think the title 'Doctor Who?' is a response to someone referring to him. This is the doctor. "Doctor who?" He isn't any run of the mill doctor either. He is the doctor of time, space, and the entire universe; including all races and species contained therein. If anyone deserves the honorific 'The' then it should be him. We should also discuss whether it should be 'The' or just 'the'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• I would agree with changing the title to "The Doctor" capital "T". "the Doctor" isn't correct to me because that could be anybody, and "The Doctor" is his title. Vyselink (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with changing the title of the article. He's consistently referred to in the show and supporting material as The Doctor, because that is his given name rather than an honorific (although he does have degrees as well. It's also used in-show to differentiate him from other, more conventional doctors. I'd say it should also be capped in running text. Mister Six (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)#

"The Doctor" is his name. As in, THE Doctor. It's a name and a title both. I don't think it makes a huge amount of difference to the accuracy of the article, though.31.50.83.165 (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Thirteenth Doctor"

Currently, the lead says:

On 4 August 2013, it was announced that Peter Capaldi would play the Doctor's twelfth incarnation (thirteenth doctor, as he identifies himself in The Day of the Doctor).

The parenthetical remark is somewhat inaccurate, as Capaldi's character does not identify himself as the Thirteenth Doctor. The dialogue is:

• "All twelve of them."
• "No, sir! All thirteen!"

It's unclear whether the last line was given by Capaldi's character, as it doesn't sound anything like his voice in The Thick of It and he is not seen on-screen until a few seconds later. Even if it is him, he doesn't actually identify as being thirteenth in the sequence, only that there are thirteen of them in that scene. —sroc 💬 06:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I've amended this to say:

On 4 August 2013, it was announced that Peter Capaldi would play the Doctor's twelfth incarnation (he briefly appeared as one of thirteen Doctors in The Day of the Doctor).

—sroc 💬 06:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• I support this. It is ambiguous and uncertain whether Capaldi's voice is actually heard. Published media reports and reviews do say it is, but other reports say it is not. Until it is indicated specifically by a reputable source (Doctor Who Magazine is the most likely place where this will happen), we should hedge our bets. The chart of Doctors later in the article needs to be amended to reflect Capaldi's debut, however. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If its all right could I add to this discussion? At the end of the episode John Hurt's name and character portrayed is positioned inbetween McGann and Ecceltson. By this and the comment in the episode, is that Capaldi will be the 13th. Its just that the media and BBC marketing is out of sync as it was heavily prompted without letting it slip in public. --86.159.183.108 (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Technically, it's still inaccurate to say he's playing the "twelfth incarnation." He's still the thirteenth incarnation of the character, just the twelfth to identify himself as "The Doctor."31.50.83.165 (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The incarnation's name is Twelfth Doctor even though he is the thirteenth incarnation. To avoid confusing newcomers who aren't steeped in Who mythology, editors have adopted the phrasing "The Twelfth Doctor is an incarnation of the protagonist..."Zythe (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Saying he's "the Twelfth Doctor, and the thirteenth incarnation of the character overall" may seem confusing to newcomers, but at least it's accurate. If you're concerned about that, simply clarify it elsewhere in the article.31.50.83.165 (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The other wording is 1) just as correct, 2) avoids being unnecessarily confusing and fannish. We write these articles for people who are not familiar with the programme. For that reason, we avoid going into strange in-show concepts until they have been properly introduced. We can go into the subtleties of numbering the Doctors in a relevant part of the article, with a source, for those Doctors for whom it is even relevant. (Often it's not even important - the name of the character has real world value, but for many incarnations, like the Tenth, expounding on a precise fictional numbering would be a bit like including his fictional date of birth.)Zythe (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that's true, but omitting John Hurt's portrayal from the main "canon" of actors seems misleading rather than a matter of practicality. His incarnation is undeniably significant to the show's ongoing plot arc. The articles should at the very least reflect the Eighth Doctor>War Doctor>Ninth Doctor transition.31.50.83.165 (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I see what you're saying. But that's not important to explaining in as few words as possible who the Twelfth Doctor is, in that article's first sentence. It is certainly important when explaining the War Doctor.Zythe (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Matt Smith is technically the Thirteenth Doctor?

According to a recent media leak, the Doctor actually used up one of his regenerations in "Journey's End", and thus can't regenerate again. Technically, the "clone" Doctor is the 11th Doctor, and with the revelations regarding the "War Doctor" being the "true" 9th Doctor, Matt Smith is supposedly the 13th and last incarnation. The Christmas episode will revolve around his character's "death", and his acquiring an entirely new set of regenerations, allowing Peter Capaldi to take over. What this means for the numbering of Doctors in the future, I have no idea.31.50.83.165 (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Article here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/doctor-who-christmas-spoilers-matt-284750931.50.83.165 (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

better srticle here: at the Radio Times Etron81 (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)