Talk:The Doctor/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

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)

The Doctor's age (Peter Crushing)

Several times, the paragraph describing Peter Crushing's Doctor in the "age" section has been deleted, on the basis that the Peter Crushing Doctor has his own article; this has been reverted on the fact that the user that does these edits is a Sockpuppet.

I argue that it is justified. Does Crushing's warrant mention here? I don't think so. Anything about him should go in his article.

1) The actor was called Cushing, not Crushing. 2) the paragraph that you deleted repeatedly was in the "name" section, not age. 3) And how will readers know he is a separate character with his own article if you don't mention it? Mezigue (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Mezique is correct on all counts. The films are a tangential part of the shows history and a brief mention here is appropriate. M I think Peter did "crush" Dracula a few films :-) MarnetteD|Talk 14:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

He was a great actor, though Doctor-Who-Sort-Of-Not-Really was probably not his finest hour. I enjoy telling Whovians Peter Cushing was my favourite Doctor every now and then, but it's a sociopathic lie really. ;) Mezigue (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That is great M. I will text the Happy Birthday song to friends on Nov 23rd (oops I mean 23 Nov) and I always add "and Peter Cushing too" at the end of the ever lengthening list of names. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

How do we solve the age disputes though? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Which disputes? Mezigue (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The age section. Could we perhaps split it into classic who and new who? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a dispute but I see a section that is too long. It would make more sense to state that numerous ages have been given in various stories and detail the most recent examples. Mezigue (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Seasons V Series

A recent editors correction of "seasons" to "series" brings up a point that I've been thinking about for a while. The US uses "season" for each individual TV year that a show is on (Season 1, Season 2 etc) and uses "series" when talking about a show overall. The UK uses "series" for both. This creates a bit of a problem when "seasons" gets changed to "series", as is the case with the latest edit, at least for US readers. The line currently reads "Martha eventually quits as the Doctor's full-time companion in the series finale "Last of the Time Lords" because she is in love with the Doctor..." etc. As an American reader, the term "series finale" indicates that the entire show ended after that episode, that there were no more new episodes after that. It would read "Martha eventually quits as the Doctor's full-time companion in the season finale..." etc, which at least for American readers is more accurate, as it indicates that there were future episodes/seasons after that one. After having lived in the UK for the past year, and in talking with my UK friends, they need no translation if I say a show is in "Season #". They understand what the means perfectly, with no translation required. Therefore I propose that we use "season" instead of "series" when talking about individual TV years. Thoughts? Vyselink (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an article about a British show, hence British English must be used - that is, the word "series" over "seasons" when it comes to the revived series (note: the Classics are referred to as Seasons, the Revived is referred to as Series). There's no discussion over that. Wikipedia is not solely for American users. Alex|The|Whovian 23:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The specific example you raise could be clarified by referring to it as the "series 3 finale".--Trystan (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I noticed some instances of "season" had crept into the article and was getting ready to change them when I found WP:WHO/MOS had the following guideline:

Season

A year's worth of episode broadcasts from the classic series. Although against UK convention, the term "season" is accepted usage for the classic series. Its first usage in an "official" tie-in appears to have been in the first Programme Guide in 1981; prior to that there appears to have been no particular convention. In the new series, they changed to use "series" and reset the numbering.

Series

A year's worth of episode broadcasts from the new series. Note that this can also be used to refer to the show as a whole, though this may occasionally be confusing to readers. In these cases, use instead either "show" or "programme."

So if there are no objections, I'll go with that in my copyedit. Oh, and I'll use "programme" for the show as a whole. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyedit

This article was put up on the Guild of Copy Editors' Requests page on October 28 by Emir of Wikipedia, for general copyedit. The GOCE doesn't usually do requests on articles which have maintenance tags, as they like to save copyedit for a final polish before review. So copyedit might be premature. I don't mind taking a couple passes at it (I could use the practice) but please keep in mind that it may need additional copyedit after the maintenance issues (citations, original research, cleanup, etc) are dealt with. Due to the length of the article, it will probably take me a few days to get through it. Please feel free to post questions and comments here. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: The requester here. I do know that their maintenance tags present in this article, but they are only for specific sections and not the whole article. I thought the guideline only applied if the maintenance tag was for the whole article, but I would still be grateful for any work you can do on the article. It is understandable that additional copyedit may be needed after the maintenance issues have been dealt with, but I'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Also understandable that this will take days, but their no rush so take your time. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I often do a bit of cleanup and layout while copyediting, I'll offer my personal recommendations when I finish the ce. Any concerned editors reading this, please see my note at Seasons V Series, above. - Reidgreg (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Taking a break, about one-third done. BarrelProof, for the most part, I believe those commas I was taking out were serial commas. You can have serial commas or not, it's a choice of style, but MOS says it should be consistent throughout the article. I made an assessment that most of the article was not using serial commas, so I was removing those I came across unless there were clarity issues. Other style choices in this article are British English, day-month-year dates, and spaced en dashes instead of unspaced em dashes (I counted them!). I've got no issues if you want to change them back, though, it was a fairly arbitrary choice. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Sorry if my brief intervention caused a hiccup in your cleanup. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Is "series" not used in BrE? —BarrelProof (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: Please take a look at Seasons V Series. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's no problem; I've been trying to go section by section, so if you're following after me (fixing my mistakes) there shouldn't be an edit conflict. I hope I'm not causing too much disruption in the regular flow of editing. (Also, very sorry that a "recognize" slipped in there.) I was trying to use terminology from the end of WP:WHO/MOS which, oddly enough, recommends "season" for years of the classic series. Because there are so many instances of "series" I thought it best to use "programme" for the show (classic, new or as a whole). I could have used "show" but that word is often used in the article as a verb, so for clarity I chose "programme" and have tried to use it consistently. On the other hand, I haven't been using the recommended adjectives "classic" and "new". Before I started editing, "original" and "revived" were more prominent in this article, including section headings, so I was mostly using those terms. I'll make a note about that when I finish. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I just thought that "programme" is somewhat lacking in WP:COMMONALITY, but if there is a good reason to use it, I don't object. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for your patience.
To summarize my copyedit, it was mostly consistency, punctuation, markup and a little clarity. In keeping with the overall style of the article, I removed serial commas, applied consistent terminology (episode/serial/season/series/programme), and wikified italic/quote issues, punctuation around quotation marks and references, and other MOS. I removed some redundant language, overlinking, and rephrased a few awkward sentences. I added a some "main article" links (see note 3 below).
I appreciate the opportunity to work on this article, I know I'm just a random editor who stepped in. The editors here are more committed to the article and more aware of its particular needs, so I don't mind if there's a decision to revert or rollback my edits, which were mostly stylistic. Now, for what it's worth, my notes:

1. One thing that perplexed me was from #Alias The Doctor: "and a message is related from the Tenth Doctor in "Utopia" (2007)" I'm not sure why that's there or what information it's trying to convey, it looks like a fragment that was misplaced or corrupted.
2. Sometimes "Children in Need" is italicized and sometimes it isn't. When used as the name of a corporation or charity, it shouldn't be. When used as (part of) the title of a series of TV specials it could be – but the article Children in Need only italicizes it in the title and first mention in the lead, which is weird. I would tend to remove the italics to clarify that it's a real-world organisation and not a fictional work.
3. The elephant in the room is article size. WP:LENGTH suggests 10,000 words as the upper threshold, based on average reading speeds and concentration spans. This article is roughly double that (~19,700 words). I understand the desire to have all the information in one place, but it might be worth discussing whether some information could be shifted into sub-articles or existing articles. I've linked as "main articles" or "see also" articles Time War (Doctor Who) (4500 words), Regeneration (Doctor Who) (8800 words), Time Lord (9600 words), and History of Doctor Who (10k words) to relevant sections. The size guidelines, like the MOS, are just recommendations though; you should treat this article as a unique case.
4. The lead is surprisingly small considering the article size. MOS:LEAD suggests up to 4 paragraphs and WP:WHO/MOS says 3-5 paragraphs. So that could be expanded to better summarize all the sections of the article. I might suggest adding: the kinds of changes the character has undergone over the decades; the revival; and his personality, morality and the types of adventures he undertakes. Make sure it demonstrates notability.
5. I changed about 45-50 instances of "series" to "programme". As a newcomer to the article, I was initially a bit fuzzy between use of "season" and "series", and felt it added unnecessary confusion to also use "series" to refer to the show at a whole. "Show" had some issues as the word is often used as a verb in the article, thus the change to programme (an alternative term endorsed by WP:WHO/MOS when series would be confusing). I thought this was a decent enough solution or at least easier than disambiguating from other uses of "series" or "show". There have been concerns about this being too much of a British term. Interestingly, though, I found that Television show and Television series each redirect to Television program. Anyways, there may need to be some discussion about whether to keep or revert these changes. (It's easy enough to change back from programme, which isn't used in any other context.) Also, whether "classic" and "new" should be applied to it (as per WP:WHO/MOS), replacing the instances of "original" and "revived" presently in the article.
6. There is one paragraph with ambiguity about "series" I didn't resolve. It is in Changing faces#Transitions starting "The 2005 series began". Uses of "the new series" and "the series" which follow in that paragraph could refer to the 2005 series (which is new in the context of the paragraph) or to the revived programme. I left it as-is, perhaps an editor more familiar with the material and sources could disambiguate it.
7. Section headers may need a little work. Depending on discussion of note 5, the sections "Original series" and "Revived series" may need to be changed. Also, "Changing faces" seems a little unclear or poetic for a section header. Please consider alternatives that more plainly describe the contents of that section. (Please also take care not to break links from other Dr Who articles which may be set to the current section names.)
8. Layout/Organisation: At the end of "Changing faces#Regenerations" there are three sub-sub-sections (Inconsistencies, Multi-Doctor stories, and Reprising the role) with content which don't really fit under that, hierarchically. Consideration should be given to reorganising the content of these three sub-sub-sections, perhaps moving it to existing sections (eg: Physiology, Discontinuities, etc.), promoting the sub-sub-sections to sub-sections, and/or making a new sub-section (something like "Casting" or "Actors") to fit the material. (There are a couple other places where similar material is repeated – reorganising and eliminating the redundancies might take a couple thousand words off the article size without sacrificing content.)
9. There are a few places (in Physiology, for example) where episodes or novels are referenced in parenthesis, usually at the end of sentences. I believe reviewers like to see these converted into references in cite episode or cite book templates.
10. Overlinking is a bit of an issue. I feel with an article of this size, linking on first mention in each section or sub-section is warranted (as opposed to the MOS:LINKING rule of thumb to link only first occurrence in the body). But this should wait until other issues are resolved.

Thanks for bearing with me. I'll keep this article on my watchlist for at least a couple weeks and try to be available for follow-up. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead not sufficient

The lead section really doesn't summarize the article enough. The fact he is a Time Lord from Gallifrey and that the War Doctor was rejected by later incarnations should be mentioned at least — Iadmc♫^talk  07:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to expand the lead, but it is definitely not too short. It doesn't need expansion to the point of how "the War Doctor was rejected by later incarnations", as that is article specific-content that wouldn't make sense to be included in the lead. A brief mention of the War Doctor, sure. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Basil

@AlexTheWhovian and Anaxial: I provided a citation for him being called Basil. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: This isn't his real name. It was intended as a joke. His name isn't actually Basil. The source you added even states: "It’s probably not Basil, if we’re honest." Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I know, which is why I added the worded "jokingly" to the original edit. If you feel that is not worthy of inclusion even with the source and the mention of a fact that it is a joke I have no qualms with you removing it. I only added it back as I thought the initial editor may have reverted it due to a lack of sourcing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Using the word "jokingly" does not mean that this WP:SYNTH merits inclusion in the article - with or without the source used. He has had other "joking" names over the years. MarnetteD|Talk 17:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I totally accept that. As stated above I only reintroduced the content as I believed the reverter may have not been aware it was a genuine comment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thin Ice & Age

Is it worth mentioning that, though Steven Moffat claims the Doctor remembers his 4.5 billion years in the Confession Dial, the character has since reiterated his age as "over 2000 years"? Specifically in the episode 'Thin Ice'? I don't know how to edit properly so I won't do it myself, but a suggestion.

How could he remember it when he never experienced most of it? The millions/billions of Doctors that did all died and left little trace that they were there before, so it sounds like nonsense. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four of these: ~ Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Moffat explains how in the DWM interview, which is cited in this article. If it's nonsense, it's still nonsense that comes directly from the head writer of Doctor Who. Even if Thin Ice contradicted Heaven Sent, that wouldn't be a reason to privilege one over the other. —Flax5 20:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely. I just mean that, regardless of what Steven Moffat has said, the character still regards his own age as 2000 years old and not 4.5 billion and something.—Dunno 23:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.146.102 (talk)

Funnily enough i've found the Radio Times interview with Moffatt and not once does it state that the Doctor remembers anything his past selves did. It does state that he left clues to speed things up, but that's all. Reference here. I think you may have misread it anonymous poster. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The Radio Times article is an abridged version of the interview. The original in Doctor Who Magazine does contains Moffat's explanation of how the Doctor remembers. —Flax5 10:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, though I didn't add the reference to the Radio Times interview nor is it relevant to my point. In fact, I'm suggesting to ignore it entirely and point out that the characters refers to his age as 2000 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.116.136 (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

DOH! Peter Capaldi,9 series?

Dunno how it got messed up, but Capaldi @ 9 series in the info box is obviously wrong.
Peter Capaldi || Twelfth Doctor || 9 ||
I'd fix it myself but *edit constraints*

-) --OBloodyHell (talk) 05

24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed -- Alex^TW 05:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

JODIE Whittaker takes role in 2017, should be added to actors box

. Scotty Prough (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe right now we're sticking to waiting until she makes an appearance proper before listing her. Still, a new actor (or actress) is fairly key information, even now, and I think infobox worthy. And since the regeneration isn't going to happen for a bit, I wouldn't be opposed to listing her as "Jodie Whittaker (upcoming)" or some other alternative for the time being. Though right now we might have problems putting any specific image until we have more news on what exactly her general Doctor costume will be. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It's standard practice for any TV related show to not include any information that has not yet actually aired - such as a new actor, a new episode, etc. TV schedules can change, so until something airs and makes the information concrete, we avoid that inclusion. It's fine to include in the lede, of course. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is pro forma. She'll be listed once she takes the series lead, same as Capaldi and Smith. No agenda here beyond just standard practice with such things, no problem listing her in the body as having been cast as Number 13... -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Twelfth Doctor Episodes

Capaldi has appeared in 39 episodes, not 38 :) Will be 40 come Christmas. Story number is correct. 86.185.224.254 (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed -- Alex^TW 23:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Incoming pronoun situation

Now that a woman has been identified as the successor, how should we address pronouns in this article? Should we continue to use "he" and "him" when referring specifically to male versions of the Doctor? Should we use "they" and "their" in all other cases? Should we use "his or her"? I suppose we shouldn't waste any time in getting started on this conversation. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 15:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Writing about fiction from a real world perspective implies that we leave everything as-is and just worry about any new material added, in which case we refer to the character as "she" because that's what the sources (primary and secondary) are doing. DonQuixote (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Though, say if there's a new broad statement about the Doctor as a character, but not specifically on Whittaker's version. I would recommend that in such cases, we still with "he/him/his" only because that's broadly how the character has been considered. Anything specific to Whittaker's version can be "she". --MASEM (t) 16:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

We are writing about the character, and as it has now been firmly established that the Doctor can be any gender, calling them 'he' is incorrect. They/them/theirs would be the appropriate pronouns. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, Masem, that's a bit strange - it's not Whittaker's "version" of the Doctor, Whittaker IS the Doctor. Which means they are as much a part of the canon as Capaldi or Hartnell. So her appearance makes it clear that the Doctor is not inherently male. Thus the pronouns have to change or our article is simply factually incorrect. What you are advocating would separate off Whittaker as a unique case - as if she is irrelevant to the rest of Who. Clearly that's not the case. This changes everything. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

We didn't make any massive change when Missy was introduced. If we are broadly relating to any version of "The Master", we have kept with "he". If we are referring to a specific version, we use the pronoun appropriate to that version (eg for "The Doctor Falls"). To change every case of referring to the Doctor as "they" would be a massive undertaking, and thus it makes sense to leave well-enough alone. Also consider the in-universe in that they are born a certain gender, which is how they generally consider themselves throughout. The Doctor will remain a "Time Lord" (not a "Time Lady") for example. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, it's putting undue weight on a recent event (out of 50+ years of history). Most sources still refer to the character as "he". Encyclopaedias reflect the sources with due weight and proportion. DonQuixote (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, a few things. Firstly, you don't know that the Doctor will remain a 'Time Lord', but that's the name of the RACE, not a title. Secondly, there's no canonical consensus on how Time lords are born, and assuming that they're born just like humans and assigned a gender that sticks with them forever is just your own personal view. As for "which is how they generally consider themselves throughout" there's no evidence to back that up as Missy showed.

As for 'undue weight' it's the biggest change to the character in 54 years of existence, so yes, I urge it to be given its actual focus and not just swept under the carpet. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Undue weight" means giving a brand new revelation more importance than 50 years of establish canoned is inappropriate. We're not ignoring that Whittaker's version will be referred to as "she/her" when appropriate, but the character is still broadly considered a male one for the show's 50+ years. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources can become outdated by later events, at which point they cease to have much weight. That's not recentism; it's accuracy. Referring to a character that has both male and female incarnations with male pronouns strikes me as odd and confusing, not to mention unduly dismissive of the latest portrayal.--Trystan (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

In regards to this, sources are talking about works of fiction. Most sources we have are talking about the works in relation to the years they were published/broadcast. Recent works can also be discussed but in proportion to the entire body of work. So, not really a case of "outdated" sources. We just need to keep in mind the serial nature of this work of fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think it would be giving Whittaker undue weight to implement a singular they across the board. The Doctor – as in, the current one, the only one that people are talking about, and the one who'll be starring in all episodes for the foreseeable future – is unambiguously a woman, so sentences like "The Doctor travels in his TARDIS" are simply no longer accurate. How many female Doctors need to be cast before we switch to gender-neutral pronouns? Might as well just do it now. (To be clear, I don't think anyone is suggesting we eliminate every instance of "he", "him" and "his" in relation to the Doctor – just the ones in this article. All other incarnation articles, episode pages, etc can be left unchanged.) —Flax5 17:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Trystan is right. It's going to look even more utterly ridiculous when she takes over the part fully. People will log on to read about the Doctor to see a woman in the image box and the article using male pronouns. It's just silly and stubborn. 'They' pronouns is the way. Change happened. We change with it. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The simple fact is; as much as some seem to have difficulty recognising this, the Doctor is a woman now. Refusing to acknowledge this baffles me. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That's an in-universe perspective. From a real world perspective, the character will be portrayed as a woman from 2017 onwards. We're not refusing to acknowledge that the character will be a woman, we're refusing to write from an in-universe perspective. DonQuixote (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: "He/she" confusion, it won't be confusing because 1) It's a well-known character and 2) we can fully explain the situation in prose. DonQuixote (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, for example, Anansi is a male character that originated amongst the Akan people. When talking of the origin of the character or the character in general, we say "he". When we talk about the male incarnation we say "he" and when we talk about the female incarnation we say "she". It's that simple. There's no confusion there either. (Although, why and how Anansi because Aunt Nancy has been lost to the mists of time.) DonQuixote (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That is a folktale character with different versions. This is the SAME character with a different gender. It is not a different 'version' or 'incarnation' - it is the same character, which the article outlines very clearly. In light of this, referring to a female character as 'he' is just utterly ridiculous. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Not getting into whether it should change in this article or not. But noticing that english sometimes sucks a bit. "They/them" is really the worst choice for a singular pronoun - I wish there was a better choice. If you think its confusing being "he" when the doctor is a woman - but I think sentences like this would be more confusing: a "respiratory bypass system" that allows them to go without air and When asked to which group they belonged, they replied, "Oh, the ones that ran away; I never stopped!". "It" is actually probably the better technical choice of neutered pronoun - but it probably sounds offensive in this situation. Dresken (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

In-universe (and by necessity out-of-universe), each reincarnation of the Doctor is considered a different personality. It is the same biological entity, but they have distinct personalities. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The point is that it isn't confusing to use "him" or "her" when used in context. Also, each actor's performance is a version of the character--even the same fictional incarnation, and they all coexist with each other. Hartnell's 1963 version of the character coexists with Hurndall's 1983 version of the character and with Bradley's 2017 version of the character. All of them also coexists with Whittaker's version. To say that Whittaker's version is the only version is undue weight and in-universe. DonQuixote (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, DonQuixote, that this is about context. However, the context I think you're looking for is when talking about each individual regeneration of the Doctor. That is the appropriate time to use him or her, since it regards a specific actor's portrayal of the character. As a whole, the Doctor cannot be said to be either male or female, and thus we should not use gender specific pronouns to refer to them on the whole. UaineSean (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You're straying into original research and in-universe. As a whole, the Doctor can be said to be anything the writers say he (or she) is. And, I'll admit, that if the majority of the reliable sources starts referring to the character as "they", then that's what we should do too. DonQuixote (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Time Lords aren't genderless creatures, but rather beings that change their gender occasionally, sometimes. We shouldn't make a big deal out of this. Always refer to the Thirteenth Doctor with "she/her", to 1-12 with "he/him", and to the character overall with some appropriate version of "they/them", "his or her". In an article like this one, it shouldn't be too tricky to include in the lead for maximum clarity that "The Doctor has been played by male actors for most of the show's run, using the plot device of regeneration to extend the longevity of the show and allowing a new lead actor to bring a fresh portrayal to the character. The first woman to take the role, Jodie Whitaker, was introduced in 2017 as the Doctor's first female incarnation."Zythe (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Would it be of any benefit to avoid using pronouns to refer to the Doctor's incarnations in general, rather than a specific incarnation, if possible? TedEdwards 13:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That can be done to a point, but saying "The Doctor" over and over again instead of a pronoun will become wary to the reader.

The other problem that comes up is that we frequently talk about the Doctor and companions, so "they" will also become confusing if there's not enough context.

An opinion is to wait and see how the BBC handles it come after the Christmas special, how do they chose to write about the character broadly. Right now, we shouldn't rush to change anything overall because Whittaker hasn't officially taken the rule, for our purposes (eg see the section below about the infobox), but after that point, then we can see how the BBC or other sources approach it. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

We can also use "the character". But, yeah, wait for how the sources deal with the issue. DonQuixote (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Or one possiblity could be to use the pronoun for the present incarnation's sex when talking about the Doctor in general, but use "he" when talking about a specific Doctor (other than when talking about the Thirteenth obviously). TedEdwards 21:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair possibility as well, though it extends to other pages too (eg Doctor Who, Dalek, etc.), and I'm trying to think how that could make sense there. For example, here and on Doctor Who, we have the luxury that we can be clear at the lede that: "The Doctor is currently played by actress Whittaker...", so that every subsequent "she" in reference to the Doctor's character overall makes sense. But if we do the same logic to an article like Dalek, where we are likely not going to call out Whittaker like that, the "she" in reference to the Doctor's character in general might be very confusing. (Obviously, if talking specifically the 13th Doctor, that's fine). I think we really need to see how BBC themselves write this after the Christmas episode airs. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: Fair point. Still, we've got over five months to work this out, so plenty of time to sort this out. TedEdwards 21:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The Doctor will be played by a female actor but do we actually have an authoritative source that the character will use female pronouns in the show? She could play the Doctor as trans or non-binary. They could go anywhere with this. Rubiscous (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the general consensus, both in-universe and in reality, is that each incarnation should use pronouns relevant to their gender (e.g. the Doctor saying "she was my first man-crush" re: Missy). I'm ambivalent to pronouns in the general, but given that Time Lord culture is non-binary ("moved beyond human obsessions with gender and its associated stereotypes"), you can't go wrong with singular they when talking about the character in the general sense. Sceptre (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2017

To include the new 13th doctor: Jodie Whittaker she goes from 2017 - ??? unknown to how long she's running for. 2001:8003:800A:8000:64C2:AE09:ACD6:C363 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done She hasn't appeared in any episodes yet. Besides, her tenure as series lead will most probably be 2018 - present. DonQuixote (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2017

Category:Fictional characters who have attempted suicide 90.202.208.183 (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please cite a reliable source that says that this is a defining characteristic. DonQuixote (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2017

Please add in the section physiology that the doctor is also able to transfer memories into the heads of the as shown in the episode, "the lodger" Will37 (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The Doctor's name

"This ontological paradox was proposed by Moffat on Usenet 16 years before "A Good Man Goes to War":[23]

Here's a particularly stupid theory. If we take "The Doctor" to be the Doctor's name – even if it is in the form of a title no doubt meaning something deep and Gallifreyan – perhaps our earthly use of the word "doctor" meaning healer or wise man is direct result of the Doctor's multiple interventions in our history as a healer and wise man. In other words, we got it from him. This is a very silly idea and I'm consequently rather proud of it."

This is not an ontological paradox. An ontological paradox is when a thing becomes its own cause. All this theory is proposing is that the word 'Doctor' comes from the Doctor himself rather than the other way around. It would only be an ontological paradox if it were BOTH ways around, but the quote by Moffat does not necessarily imply that. Somebody kindly fix it. 81.106.25.114 (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

John Hurt and Jodie Whittaker

Why aren't their images also presented on the right-hand side box? --173.170.159.16 (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

John Hurt wasn't a series lead and Jodie Whittaker hasn't appeared in costume yet. DonQuixote (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Whittaker makes sense (Well...an argument can be made that she IS in costume, albeit 12's), but John Hurt most definitely was a series lead - he headlined the canonical War Doctor audio dramas. AND as he has appeared in the show itself, he definitely belongs on there. Simple as that. Just because he's a retroactive addition doesn't rob him of the status. --173.170.159.16 (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is that Hurt wasn't the lead of the television programme--Matt Smith was the series lead at the time. DonQuixote (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

May I see it? May I see the consensus? --173.170.159.16 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course you can! The links to the archives of this talk page are at the top of the page; peruse them as much as you want. -- Alex^TW 04:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

John Hurt/War Doctor

This is becoming utterly needlessly complicated. Just pick one. --173.170.159.16 (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Whilst this is a current hot topic, could somebody please provide me with a link to the "consensus" about John Hurt's War Doctor not being including in the infobox about the faces of the Doctor (which should display the faces of the Doctor's incarnations - not just the series leads considering this is a page about the Doctor)? I can't seem to find it and I'm aware my argument will of course go nowhere. Thanks. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The talk page was absolutely packed with John Hurt debates after the 50th aired, but they seem to have settled on excluding him around here, two weeks later. Everyone cools off after that, but I don't think there was ever a final decision handed down by an admin or anything like that.

Not too sure about that collage, AlexTheWhovian. Comparing the garish red and yellows behind 9, 10, and 11 with the majestic galaxy behind 12, it really doesn't seem like these were meant to go together. Different numbers of Doctors on different rows is a good way to eliminate whitespace, but I don't know if shrinking the older ones is a worthwhile trade-off. Neither are gigantic problems, so I guess we just have to choose one to accept. Also, bear in mind that the whole collage will be shrunk further by the infobox - combined with the shrinkage of 1 through 5, some Doctors will be quite difficult to see in useful detail (and certainly if we zoom out to show more of their costumes like this). It may also be ahistorical to represent the older Doctors with recently-composited images, even if they are official - at least the current ones are all from contemporary photoshoots.

It seems to me that what we really need is some sort of widget to let users cycle between a large number of images in one place, but I don't think that's possible on this site yet. One thing's for sure though: we do need a new picture of Capaldi, because that stark white background is never going to look right. —Flax5 20:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is most definitely the place where arguments go nowhere. This isn't for logic or rational thought! As an example, I ask people to just pick a collage....and now we're talking about composite photoshoots and eye colorings. --173.170.159.16 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not up to us on what backgrounds were used, this is what the BBC decided on. And again, it's barely shrinking them... 30px less in width, yes, but same height and the character is still dislayed in full. If you know how to nicely put 13 together without whitespace and with the same widths, then shoot, I'm all ears. And many of the recent Doctors' looks were refined through their tenure, so having newer pictures for them rather than what looks like their first publicity pictures, it seems like a much better idea. @173.170.159.16 So true. So true. -- Alex^TW 22:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I did that actually. But you guys are dead-set against John Hurt's inclusion, so oh fuck it. --173.170.159.16 (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Take a read of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IDHT. You're welcome. -- Alex^TW 23:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

As someone else mentioned it, an actual consensus WASN'T fully reached - you simply decided it was. And to that, just no. But it's plain obvious that I'd get have more success teaching a gerbil string theory than getting anywhere with you on this. --173.170.159.16 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

And that's your opinion, simply because you don't like it. Also, I never decided it was, I'm not sure I even participated in the discussions. But I understand the policies of Wikipedia and follow them. Keep attacking editors, see which administrative board it ends you up on. -- Alex^TW 07:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

173.170.159.16's earlier attempt with symmetrical whitespace on either side of the third row actually looks quite good to me. I guess I just think the whitespace (a mild aesthetic compromise with no ideological content) is preferable to unequal image sizes (a mild aesthetic compromise which could be seen as marginalising or privileging certain eras). As for the backgrounds, I wasn't suggesting that each Doctor should be represented by the earliest photo available - just one authentic to their era. The current backgrounds reflect the lighting, production, and promotion choices that actually marked each Doctor's tenure, and that's better than a photoshop knocked together by someone in the BBC's online media department in 2017. —Flax5 17:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's funny you say that, because the Eighth through Thirteenth Doctors in that collage are represented by Photoshops knocked together by someone in the BBC's online media department. Give them credit, at least, for doing a pretty good job on lighting the Eighth and Thirteenth. Not so much the Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth, who are clearly standing in front of a greenscreen. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's only seen as "marginalising or privileging certain eras" to those who are trying hard to see it that way. To the rest of us, a difference of thirty or so pixels is a method in which to present the image neatly. If we were trying to fit ten Doctors on one row and three on the other, then yes, I'd see where you're coming from. Wikipedia has always tried to reduce whitespace in articles where possible. Given that this is an article related to television, I'd recommend alerting the Television WikiProject to this discussion, and asking for their thoughts on the whitespace. -- Alex^TW 22:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Actors vs. characters

I'd say that the images in the separate incarnation articles should also be updated. Now, as for the linking of the image... If these images are of the separate incarnation of the character, and this article comprises the entire character, then why are the images linked to the actors and not the articles for the separate incarnations of the Doctor? And the same for the succeeded/preceded links in the separate articles. -- Alex^TW 05:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to be neutral on the image links because I can see it being used both ways, but as for the infoboxes, they're using the convention

Character (version) portrayed by Actor, preceded by Actor (version), succeeded by Actor (version).

For example

Indiana Jones (teen) portrayed by River Phoenix, preceded by Harrison Ford (adult), succeeded by Corey Carrier (child) or

Darren Stevens (1969–1972) portrayed by Dick Sargent, preceded by Dick York (1964–1969) or

Doctor Who (Twelfth Doctor) portrayed by Peter Capaldi, preceded by Matt Smith (Eleventh Doctor), succeeded by Jodie Whittaker (Thirteenth Doctor).

DonQuixote (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you link me to these usages? I'm curious to see them. -- Alex^TW 13:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

From Bewitched: It...starred...Dick York (1964–1969)...Dick Sargent replaced an ill York for the final three seasons (1969–1972).

From Indiana Jones: Jones is most famously portrayed by Harrison Ford and has also been portrayed by River Phoenix (as the young Jones in The Last Crusade) and in the television series The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles by Corey Carrier, Sean Patrick Flanery, and George Hall.

From Fagin: In December 2008, Oliver! was revived at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, London with Rowan Atkinson playing the character. This role was taken over by Omid Djalili in July 2009. Griff Rhys Jones took over the role from Omid Djalili in December 2009. He was succeeded by Russ Abbot in June 2010.

Truth be told, you probably won't find an infobox example on wikipedia as virtually no other character has as many serial incarnations (as opposed to different, unrelated incarnations such as Dracula or Sherlock Holmes). But the point is that whether in the text or in the infobox, the convention is that actors precede and succeed other actors. DonQuixote (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, written text as opposed to an infobox format: “Doctor Who” was first made in 1963, but its current incarnation dates back to a 2005, when Christopher Eccleston took the title role. He was succeeded by David Tennant.[1]. DonQuixote (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your examples. However, with every one of these, when concerning preceding/succeeding/other actors, they are all referring to the actors who portrayed the character, not the character in question. This is important given the fact that the infoboxes summarize the character of each Doctor, and not the actor - i.e. the Ninth Doctor's article's infobox is about the Ninth Doctor, not Christopher Eccelston. Within the series, the Twelfth Doctor was not preceded by Matt Smith, he was preceded by the Eleventh Doctor. -- Alex^TW 14:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, actors are the real-world information. Reading top-to-bottom, the Ninth Doctor's infobox reads The Doctor (Ninth Doctor) portrayed by Christopher Eccelston. Preceding and succeeding are for the actors because there is only one character, the Doctor. The Ninth Doctor is the version of the character portrayed by Eccelston, etc.

Also, play it out with the other characters. That is, teen can't succeed adult. DonQuixote (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If it was one definitive character, it would only be one article, but it is not. If the preceded/succeeded information was directly after the portrayal information, and all of the real-world information was listed in the first section, then yes, it would make sense to link the actors. But the rest of the information concerns when he appeared (first, last, series), how long for (tenure, stories, episodes), his companions, etc. So, it makes no sense to list the only real-world information separately in the infobox, especially when the infobox is titled "The Doctor (The Ninth Doctor)", so it clearly concerns the character. Also, no, but adult can succeed teen. And again, the examples given was directed towards the actor, not the character. -- Alex^TW 14:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If it was one definitive character, it would only be one article, but it is not.

See The Master (Doctor Who).

But the rest of the information concerns when he appeared...

All that is real-world information for the character, yes, which includes the real-world information for the actors. In this article all the actors are listed under Portrayal, which makes it clear who preceded whom and who succeeded whom. The infoboxes for the individual versions of the character breaks that list down into Succeeded by and Preceded by.

Also, no, but adult can succeed teen.

That's neither here-nor-there in the context of this discussion.

And again, the examples given was directed towards the actor, not the character.

Which is the point. Characters coexist--the Fifth Doctor is a version of the Doctor and not was a version. Young Sherlock Holmes is a character that appears in Young Sherlock Holmes. Actors precede and succeed each other in portrayals of series leads. DonQuixote (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, to be a little clearer, saying Teen preceded by Adult doesn't make sense without context. DonQuixote (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Fifth Doctor is a version of the Doctor and not was a version, Actors precede and succeed each other in portrayals of series leads I agree, and in the case of this series, each numbered Doctor also precede and succeed each other. Looking at Ninth Doctor, we can read it of thus: The Ninth Doctor first appeared in "Rose", the Ninth Doctor last appeared in "The Parting of the Ways", the Ninth Doctor was portrayed by Christopher Eccleston, the Ninth Doctor appeared in 10 stories (13 episodes), the Ninth Doctor's companions were Rose Tyler, Adam Mitchell and Jack Harkness, etc, etc. Until: the Ninth Doctor was preceded by Paul McGann and succeeded by David Tennant. No. Christopher Eccleston was preceded by Paul McGann and succeeded by David Tennant, the Ninth Doctor was preceded by the Eighth Doctor and succeeded by the Tenth Doctor. If it is an innfobox solely for the actor, then why is it effectively {{Infobox character}} and a picture of the character rather than the actor given? -- Alex^TW 22:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Characters don't precede or succeed other characters in the real world. They're not real people. They only succeed or precede each other in terms of the narrative--that is, in-universe. Characters appear in things, yes, so that can be mentioned, but characters don't have real-world tenures--series leads do. Appearances and companions are character related info but tenures and preceded by are actor related info. DonQuixote (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The infobox is not summarizing a real-world thing though, it's summarizing a character in a fictional series. If this is false, then why is the infobox and article not titled Christopher Eccleston (Ninth Doctor)? Then it would be real-world, and describing the actor within the role. -- Alex^TW 07:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Fictional characters are real-world thing. Characters appear in books, films, plays, etc. And as such, when describing fictional characters, they should be described with respect to real-world information. The Ninth Doctor is the ninth version of the leading character the Doctor. He was portrayed by Christopher Eccleston. The role was taken over by David Tennant who portrayed the tenth version of the leading character. The Ninth Doctor first appears in "Rose" and appears throughout Series 1. Christopher Eccelston's tenure was 2005. Etc. DonQuixote (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Alex, and have raised this before at Talk:Eleventh_Doctor#Eleventh_Doctor_Preceded_by_David_Tennant and Talk:Eighth_Doctor#Inclusion_of_both_Timelines. As I said in the second of those discussions, we should be including the primary actors for companions in the infobox, but having "Character (Actor)" and "Actor (Character)" in the same infobox would be very confusing.

Characters don't precede or succeed other characters in the real world. There's nothing confusing or inappropriate about saying that the main character of the television show Doctor Who prior to the Twelfth Doctor was the Eleventh Doctor, and the series lead prior to Peter Capaldi was Matt Smith. What the infobox currently says is that the main character of the television show Doctor Who prior to the Twelfth Doctor was Matt Smith. That conflates the real and the fictional in an inappropriate and confusing way.--Trystan (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what I am trying to say. Thank you. We cannot say that the Ninth Doctor (in-universe) had Rose as a companion (in-universe, no actor mentioned) and was succeeded by David Tennant (real-world), within the same location. -- Alex^TW 07:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

What the infobox currently says is that the main character of the television show Doctor Who prior to the Twelfth Doctor was Matt Smith.

If you read that out of context, perhaps. But no one will read it like that unless you're trying really hard to make it in-universe.

As for the companions, sources have made them a real-world focus of the programme (there's at least two books about the subject). And that's as far as I'll go into that area...I'll remain neutral otherwise. DonQuixote (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, I only care about the real-world vs in-universe aspect. "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" apply to real-world people and not characters. However, if you change the phrase to "Previous version" and "Next version", I'll be fine with that. DonQuixote (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, upon further reflection, that attempt at a compromise is needlessly complicated as the infobox is fine as-is and there's no urgent reason to change it. DonQuixote (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with splitting them. Preceded/succeeded by after portrayal, then previous/next version at the bottom. -- Alex^TW 22:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

That'll be fine. DonQuixote (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from filling the infobox with in-universe perspective. If it comes down to it, it would be preferable to just list the succeeding and preceding actors with the versions they portray next to them in parentheses cos it keeps it within a real-world perspective. DonQuixote (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Arguments have already been presented that support this stance, and you are the only editor thus far that disagrees with it. WP:INUNIVERSE is only a guideline, where no policy has been presented, and in the unique case of Doctor Who, I believe that WP:IAR is acceptable here as it makes sense to list it in such a way. Even on this main article for the Doctor, the War Doctor is included in the list of incarnations in the same order. -- Alex^TW 00:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

If you check the edit histories of Ninth Doctor and Eighth Doctor (and War Doctor for the reverse), the War Doctor was removed from the infobox because placing him would violate MOS:INUNIVERSE. And from WP:IAR? "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is not a carte blanche. Rule-breakers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus. DonQuixote (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That was before the template was updated to support the new parameters; the consensus in this discussion is clear, as only one editor is disagreeing and per WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. And thank you for reading to me what I know, but I do believe that this is justifiable, so copying it makes as little sense as this situation. -- Alex^TW 00:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

And...there's hasn't been much time for a consensus on the new template. Aside from that, there's no consensus to stray into in-universe--the argument above was about including Previous and Next versions of the character in a non-confusing way. Thanks for changing the goal post. And, if you read the above, Rule-breakers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged, so "believing" that your actions are justifiable is different from "justifying" your actions. So, I put to you, how would adding in-universe links to the infobox improve the encyclopaedic nature of the respective articles? DonQuixote (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Consensus does not have a time limit; if it is clearly that the majority of editors that have contributed to the discussion agree on it, then... consensus. And I already have explained myself. But to clarify further for the sake of discussion, it would improve the encyclopedia by matching the order given in very this article. It is more detrimental to the Doctor Who project to list the incarnations of the Doctor in a manner here and then at the same time orphan the War Doctor article away into some dark corner by not including it in the consecutive list of previous/next links. There is no basis for not including it, while in the article itself you link the Tenth and Eleventh Doctors, especially given that he did not appear after the Tenth and before the Eleventh - can you clarify that? He appeared during the Eleventh Doctor's tenure. -- Alex^TW 01:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Consensus does not have a time limit

...but you need to give people time to react to it. You can't claim consensus when virtual no-one knows about it.

Also, the War Doctor isn't in some dark corner. He's listed in this article, his own article, articles about actors who played the Doctor, articles about the audio plays, articles about the episodes he's appeared in. And the "Next version" of the character, from a real-world perspective, after the Eighth Doctor was the Ninth Doctor. 2013 is not inbetween 1996 and 2005. The infobox is supposed to be short summary of real-world information. If you want to describe the in-universe aspects of the narrative, then it's fine to do it in the main body of the article(s)--which is already being done.

And the War Doctor was created after the Eleventh Doctor--it's well documented. However, I must confess that I don't know if the Moffet created the War Doctor before or after the Twelfth Doctor--that's why I removed my own assertions from the infobox. Again, real-world perspective is preferred when writing about fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of people that know about this discussion. A good number have contributed to multiple discussions on this talk page over the past couple of days since Whittaker's costume announcement, and I've received thanks in my notifications box from editors for contributions to this discussion that haven't taken part in it. Out of all of those editors, it still remains that only one disagrees.

My concern is the lack of linking to the articles that actually matter; the main articles, this article, the articles of the Doctors that relate to him, etc. Dissecting your comment... He's listed in this article - yes, and that's exactly what I'm talking about, how he is listed in the correct order in this article's infobox, which has stood for mnonths (years?) and you don't seem to have a problem with; his own article - hardly relevant, I'm talking about linking to his article, not the existence of it; articles about actors who played the Doctor - again, shuffled off to some dark corner under "Other" near the bottom of the table in List of actors who have played the Doctor; articles about the audio plays - I'm still talking about his main appearances in the television series, not the audio plays; articles about the episodes he's appeared in - this is one episode, barring a cameo and a mini-episode, so that barely counts as being linked.

Yes, you are correct that that is the order from a real-world perspective. However, that's not what I am arguing - I am suggesting that a mere two links in the infobox take on an in-universe perspective and link them in the correct order. I even applied a real-world perspective when adding the links to the Eighth and Ninth Doctor articles, as I included both War/Nine on the Eighth article, and Eight/War on the Ninth article, which confirms with your statement that the "Next version" of the character, from a real-world perspective, after the Eighth Doctor was the Ninth Doctor.

My apologies for the mistake there; I read it as Tenth/Eleventh Doctor that you linked, but I see that you actually linked Eleventh/Twelfth. -- Alex^TW 01:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, the current consensus was to not list the War Doctor in the respective infoboxes because it was in-universe. As for the character itself, even the discussions on this page mention that he was played by a guest actor and therefore not as important as the series leads. That's why he's not in the image map, and that's why it's not that important that he's not mentioned in more infoboxes. Again, real-world trumps in-universe. DonQuixote (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Much of what you replied with your last post skirted pretty much everything I replied. Anyways. Consensues can be overturned, and I believe that this is exactly what is happening at the moment. Remember, consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. You're stating all of this consensus not to list him in the infoboxes, and yet you still haven't commented on the fact (after I've mentioned it a multitude of times) that he is listed in this article's infobox, right between the Eighth and Ninth Doctors - an in-universe style. And the caption is for the series leads, yes, that's why he is not included in the main image of this infobox. You believe that "real-world trumps in-universe", but I also still believe that WP:IAR is applicable here, in that listing the content for this one case in an in-universe style would be more beneficial to the encyclopedia than the way that it is current set up.

And commenting further on my previous post (as soon as I posted, I remembered I'd been meaning to do this, but you replied first), there is clearly a severely underlinkage to the War Doctor's article. Listing the counts gives us this: First Doctor: 393. Second Doctor: 384. Third Doctor: 416. Fourth Doctor: 494. Fifth Doctor: 403. Sixth Doctor: 418. Seventh Doctor: 492. Eighth Doctor: 460. War Doctor: 180. Ninth Doctor: 281. Tenth Doctor: 486. Eleventh Doctor: 440. Twelfth Doctor: 280. This is an issue that clearly needs to be recitified. -- Alex^TW 01:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Much of what you replied with your last post skirted pretty much everything I replied.

Much of what you wrote was about how the War Doctor is important, in your opinion. I replied by saying that he's not as important as you might think.

Consensues can be overturned, and I believe that this is exactly what is happening at the moment. Remember, consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity.

Yes, but consensus means more that one person. Again, you just now changed the discussion from "Previous/Next" to "include the War Doctor".

You believe that "real-world trumps in-universe"

The manual of style says that real-world trumps in-universe.

there is clearly a severely underlinkage to the War Doctor's article.

That's your opinion. Again, the War Doctor might not be as important as you think.

listing the content for this one case in an in-universe style would be more beneficial to the encyclopedia than the way that it is current set up.

Again, "believing" something is beneficial is different than "justifying" something as beneficial. DonQuixote (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the War Doctor is important, that is sort of why I'm arguing this point. He is an iteration of the Doctor, supported by the canon given by BBC and the showrunners, and he's being pushed off to some corner on this website - this is displayed and proven by the stats given above for the number of incoming links to each of the Doctor's articles, and not simply my opinion, as you like to state. This is not good enough, simply because certain editor(s) don't want to accept that he is an integral part of the series.

And yet again, other editors have contributed, whether directly or indirectly, and yet again, one editor remains who disagrees. The discussion was always about adopting an in-universe style to certain areas of the articles; yes, it started out concerning infobox, which ended up being agreed upon, and then the discussion evolved to including the War Doctor or not when I made the updates to the infoboxes after the previous agreeance. Discussions evolve, that's how things get sorted around here.

Manuals of Style are not the be-all-end-all, and they do not dictate how material is laid out on the website. They serve only to act as a guide as to how the majority of content should and could be laid out. Manuals of Style are not policies in the way that every editor has to comply with every line given in it; they exist to be adapted, to be molded to fit the article as it required. So, you are incorrect - the Manual of Style does not state that real-world trumps in-universe, it simply suggests it should be considered first.

I have justified it, over multiple replies. You simply have your own beliefs that everything said here is incorrect because you, one editor, do not like it. And still no comment about the long-standing in-universe-sorted list of iterations in this article's infobox... Do you have anything else to contribute that is not a one-sentence reply? -- Alex^TW 02:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Since the discussion has evolved to something new, then there hasn't been a consensus on the new thing because it's just been created. That was my point. And, yes, manuals of style aren't the be-all-end-all, but it trumps your opinion. That's why you need to build a consensus rather than throwing around IAR by yourself. And, no, you haven't justified it. So, I put to you, how is the War Doctor important to the general reader that elevates the character above, say, the Valeyard (or some-such)? And, please, use a reason that applies to a general reader and not a hard-core fan. DonQuixote (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

And yet, I have justified my opinion, whether you like it or not, so no, it doesn't trump it at all. I'm still waiting for you to justify your own stance. And anything could be considered "throwing around" - you're throwing around the MOS, and I'm using an actual policy. To answer your question, it is because the War Doctor is a BBC-declared iteration of the Doctor, whereas the Valeyard is a completely separate character. Now a question for you: What about the long-standing in-universe-sorted list of iterations in this article's infobox? -- Alex^TW 03:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no, stating your opinion isn't the same thing as justifying it. It's your opinion that the War Doctor is important enough to be listed as such in the individual infoboxes. Unless you build a consensus that this is important enough to override the manual of style, you're abusing IAR: However, many people seem to misunderstand the spirit of the rule, and think it's a convenient excuse to ignore anything they disagree with...Ideally, read the relevant policies and cite WP:IAR explaining the reasons why, despite the policy also acknowledging that this isn't always possible due to the sheer breadth of policy, guidelines and bureaucracy. The current consensus for the individual infoboxes is to leave the War Doctor out. You would need to build a consensus, other than your own, to ignore the MOS put him in. As for the infobox on this page, check the talk page archives for this page. It was a different consensus to keep him on this page.

And the MOS is based on consensus of multiple editors, as well as being based on pre-existing protocols. They're the rules that you're trying so hard to ignore. So, I'm not throwing it around like you're doing with IAR. The default action is to follow the MOS. If you want to ignore the MOS and implement IAR, then the burden is on you. DonQuixote (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)