Template talk:Incarnations of the Doctor

What's Cho-Je doing here?

Cho-Je wasn't an incarnation of the Doctor. Why is he listed here? 23skidoo 19:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove it. —Wh o uk (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valeyard

Since the Valeyard is identified on screen as being a future incarnation of the Doctor, I wonder if he should be included in the "Other Doctors" section of the template? 23skidoo 05:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so also but whatever.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

per this change - here.

Good idea, but two main problems. Firstly, the characters name is not Doctor Who. Secondly, the Watcher and the Valeyard were in the TV series - but they were "intermediate" versions and not actual regenerations. So I reverted. StuartDD ( t • c ) 13:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mote also that the shalka doctor appears in one of the Past Doctor Adventures books as "unofficial" regeneration. StuartDD ( t • c ) 13:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, "The Doctors" is not an acceptable template name. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The newest proposal by Stuart is fine. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Written By Steve Moffat; The Name of the Doctor the Great Intelligence considers the Valeyard an incarnation.108.246.48.79 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doctors

The Doctors are read horizontally, that's annoying given there's just 2 in a row but 5 in a column. Could someone change it so they read vertically? I think there's a col1= -ish attribute that could be used for this but I'm scared I'll delete Wikipedia or something if I start messing with it. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is there any way to return it to a vertical format as i find the horizontal format confusing and it was only a few days since this was the format —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.117.42 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a section for 'The Curator' in the 'Other Doctors' section, given that he is hinted he could be a future Doctor but it is uncertain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.249.18 (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctors of The Curse of Fatal Death

Though none of these Doctors have articles of their own, or are really likely to do so, they belong in this template. Atkinson was, after all, referred to as the "ninth Doctor" on the cover of Doctor Who Magazine #278 in 1999, while Joanna Lumley (the 13th Doctor) appeared on the cover of issue #328 in 2003. Inside that issue, Andrew Pixley wrote up the story as a part of his ongoing Archives column, a treatment reserved for "proper" episodes of the series. The story was placed on equal footing with other stories of the classic era during the 40th anniversary celebrations on BBC Gold. There, it was broadcast interspersed with "proper" episodes of the series.

Like other "ninth Doctors", Atkinson himself has received at least passing "official" status through press statements and at various points on the BBC website. [1] [2] The story itself was the most "official" production between the television movie and Scream of the Shalka. Parody, it might have been — but parody by the copyright holders.

Perhaps a line at the very bottom of the template could be entered as, The Doctors of The Curse of Fatal Death CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or we can have a link to Doctor Who spoofs, where The Curse of the Fatal Death is mentioned. That way we can refer to it along with all the other Doctors in all the other spoofs. DonQuixote (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could. The only thing that preys at my mind with that idea is that Curse seems different than other spoofs. It's essentially an "official" spoof. It was a deliberately out-of-continuity episode of the series, commissioned, budgeted, and produced by the copyright owners, fully utilizing the signature elements of the series proper. It was then sold by their distribution company to the home market as an otherwise normal part of the numbered catalogue of the parent program. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 15:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then we can have a link for Curse of the Fatal Death and another one for Other Spoofs...or not. Whatever you think is best. DonQuixote (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11th Doctor

I have found no metnion of an 11th Doctor anywhere so i will remove Andrew Lincoln. In fact Tennant is confirmed to star through 2009 so i doubt there will be any news on an 11th doctor for some time S-m-r-t (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Smith.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.254.42 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's a clever boy? </sarcasm> U-Mos (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Layout of Template

Seeing as #11 is a future Doctor, and #10 is still current, is it possible to rearrange the template to give more prominance to #10. Currently it implies that #11 is the current Doctor. 84.70.51.168 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, we list them by number. There is no reason to highlight the current actor, it will just lead to conflicts when to change it... Regards So Why 18:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurndall?

Should we really have Hurndall credited as the First Doctor. He only protrayed him once, during The Five Doctors. By all means have him credited on the First Doctor page, but on the template? By that we'll have to credit Colum Regan for him being the Doctor in Journey's End and perhaps Selvester McCoy as the Sixth Doctor also as well as th Seventh. I think it's only fair to just have William Hartnell on the template. --Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 19:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentatively decided to include him as part of this discussion. I stand by my comments then, as Hurndall played the First Doctor in a completely proper (for want of a better word) episode of Doctor Who. U-Mos (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to add that you wouldnt need to add Sylvester as the Sixth because he was not ment to be the Sixth, and he was covered up by the energy only showing the wig and partial body, and Colum Regan was a body double and only there to save money on cloning effects of David Tennant where as Hurndall is an official actor staring as the First Doctor and not covered up, although not the origional he was still classed as an officail Doctor where as the others were body doubles. i can clearly see your point but i do believe an actor and a standin/body double are very differant. That would be like saying the Harry Potter polyjuice potion doubles in Deathly Hallows are the same as the actors stunt doubles!

Other doctors...

The Doctor Who Confidential that introduced Matt Smith yesterday mentioned Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, T Baker, Davison, C Baker, McCoy, McGann, Eccleston and Tennant. It did not mention The Valeyard or The Watcher or Hurndall, let alone DonnaDoctor or Human Meta-Crisis Doctor. Thus, it seems to me odd that a navigation box about the incarnations of the Doctor should include The Watcher and The Valeyard, or Hurndall. The Watcher wasn't even a speaking part and the actor who played the role so non-notable that he doesn't have a Wikipedia article about him! If you're going to include obscure entries, then why those ones and not others, like for The Curse of the Fatal Death Doctors, the Other or Muldwych[3]?

Let us be encyclopaedic about this, taking into account notability, an out-of-universe perspective and what citable sources say rather than a 'fannish', in-universe perspective. Navigation boxes are summaries, for ease of navigation, not exhaustive lists. I suggest this box should list the incarnations of the Doctor and their actors that most citations give, namely Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, T Baker, Davison, C Baker, McCoy, McGann, Eccleston, Tennant and, now, Smith. No Hurndall (but of course he can be described under the First Doctor article). No Watcher. No Valeyard. Peter Cushing, fair enough, and I'll not argue about the Shalka Doctor. Being bold, I'll make that change now. Bondegezou (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my views on Hurndall in the above section. I stand by them. As for Valeyard and Watcher, I'm for them being in too. However large their parts, they played a version of the Doctor of sorts in the main TV programme. I'd say that's enough for the infobox, for the Valeyard at the very least. As for DoctorDonna and the "other" Doctor from Journey's End, absoultely not. U-Mos (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, and I've read your views on Hurndall. I feel a useful guide here is the Wikipedia manual of style on writing about fiction (WP:WAF). This stresses using a real-world perspective rather than an in-universe one. I feel that your arguments for The Watcher and The Valeyard rest on an in-universe perspective. The manual of style talks of the "Description of fictional characters, places and devices as objects of the narrative". From a real-world perspective, The Valeyard's role in the narrative is not as an incarnation of the Doctor. His connection to the Doctor is a twist within the story, but his narrative role is as the villain, the Doctor's nemesis; one does not look to The Valeyard as an example of who the Doctor is. The Watcher just seems too non-notable to me!

Another way of thinking about this is to consider secondary sources. When secondary sources list the incarnations of the Doctor, they list Hartnell, Troughton, ..., Tennant and now Smith (and sometimes Cushing and maybe occasionally Grant). Show me some citations that bother listing The Watcher and The Valeyard or Hurndall in the same way! This navigation box is always going to be a summary, a simplification. One will always be able to ask why no Trevor Martin, or whoever. It seems to me that it would be more useful, following WP:WAF, to list the Doctors that most secondary sources bother with. Bondegezou (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced Hurndall into the list until we get a consensus here. As I also said above I believe that as Hurndall played the 1st doctor in a fully fledged episode, and not as an alternate doctor that he should appear on this list. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any particular attachment to the Watcher or Valeyard. If it was totally up to me, they'd be there. But you make a very good point and I have no issue in letting them go. As for Hurndall, I still feel he should be in there, as DeadlyAssassin supports above. U-Mos (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You offer an argument based on a criterion of playing the Doctor "in a fully fledged episode", but might I ask where does this criterion come from? I've tried to present an argument based on Wikipedia principles of notability, an out-of-universe perspective and reliable sources. As I said before, show me some citations that list Hurndall in the same way as Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, etc. I can't think of any. Yes, of course, Hurndall played the 1st Doctor in "The Five Doctors" and that is covered in the articles on that story and on the First Doctor, but what we have here is just a briefy summary to aid navigation. Most citations, as far as I can see, list Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Baker, Davison, Baker, McCoy, McGann, Eccleston and Smith (or some subset thereof), so it seems to me sensible to do the same. (Otherwise, why draw the line at Hurndall? Why not have Trevor Martin as an alternate 4th Doctor?) Bondegezou (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template layout

To me this template would look far better if the names were in 'vertical order'. i.e.:

This is far easier to read, rather than worrying about your eyes crossing the large gap when reading horizontally. Anyone else agree? -- Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 19:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I'm afraid. I'd find this very confusing. U-Mos (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the same. It's a horizontal template, and conforms to a standard design of such things. Radagast (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Doctor

Whilst I understand that there is currently no reliable name for this incarnation thus far (presumably to change with the 50th), I feel that the John Hurt Doctor needs to be listed as an 'other Doctor'. I used the name Secret Doctor because 11 refers to him in "The Name of the Doctor" as 'his greatest secret', which is the closest thing to a name/title this incarnation has thus far been given. --Goodsmudge^(Talk) 17:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, any name we give him ourselves will be original to wikipedia, which is against wikipedia policy. We can probably use "Unnamed John Hurt Doctor", but that might be too unwieldy. DonQuixote (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's not really unnamed; we just don't know his name. What about "Unidentified"? --Goodsmudge^(Talk) 17:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold. It'd be useful if we could have the actor's names in brackets to help identify, but that's acrew up the Twelfth Doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodsmudge (talk • contribs) 10:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already have something similar, but it's a different navbox: Template:Doctor Who actors. Maybe they should be merged. —Flax5 14:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, two of us have now tried adding something for the John Hurt Doctor, but both were reverted. The first time MarnetteD said, "we do not yet know anything about him so lets leave this as is until more is revealed". The second time, Edockter said, "Page already linked; do not link to sections." I am unclear how either of those reasons fits Wikipedia policy: perhaps the editors could expand their reasoning further? It seems to me that WP:RS report there is an incarnation of the Doctor played by John Hurt, so this navbox could usefully have some link on the matter. Bondegezou (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get some clarity on WP policy here? If we are using real world perspective, the section marked "incarnations" is incorrect, rather it should be something like "series leads" - these two ideas are not synonymous, and John Hurt was credited on screen with the other 11 actors to play the Doctor during "Day of the Doctor", the show clearly identifies his character as an incarnation of the Doctor - both in universe (Character dialogue) and in the real world (crediting the actor with the role). If we are listing "incarnations" of the Doctor, then the war doctor should be placed between eight and nine - if we are listing lead actors, then it should be correctly labelled as such.Ph 1980 (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That's a good idea. I boldly changed it to Series leads. DonQuixote (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it seems the only logical solution given that the whole Navbox is dedicated to Incarnations of the Doctor anyway. This way there is no dispute as to the nature of the character. He was never a lead, so there is no issue. Ph 1980 (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Series Leads"

If we're excluding The War Doctor from the main list on the basis that he was never a series lead should the Eighth be pulled also? Kie (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McGann was the lead for one episode of the series, and the incumbent Doctor for nine years. Hurt was never the lead or the incumbent Doctor. —Flax5 18:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Special pleading here. McGann was the lead in a one-off TV movie, never in a "series". It took 17½ years for his character to come back. Phil PH (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources say otherwise. It was a backdoor pilot for a series. DonQuixote (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and, like many such pilots, never became a series, instead remaining a one-off. There's no such thing as a series of one. Phil PH (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And? That still doesn't negate the fact that he was cast as series lead. The fact that it wasn't successful is also mentioned in the relevant articles. DonQuixote (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Series leads" should be parsed as "lead actors in the series Doctor Who", not "lead actors in complete seasons of Doctor Who". —Flax5 20:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That begs the question of whether "the series Doctor Who" should really be considered to include a one-off pilot for an alternative vision of the series that never came to fruition, produced in a different country by a different production team. But there's clearly a consensus here, which I won't argue with further. Phil PH (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The production teams for the revived series includes it, and the various publications follow their lead. We follow the sources. DonQuixote (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Valeyard?

The Valeyard seems to have a lot of prominance in this navbox considering that he is never explicitly revealed to be an actual incarnation of the Doctor, just a 'distillation of his darker side', which is not necessarily the same thing. IMO the list should just have 1-12 and War, but since we've decided to differentiate the 'series leads' I think that the 12 leads should be in their section, the War Doctor alone in the 'others' section and the Valeyard (if we have to fit him in somewhere) moved to the 'see also' section. Unless I'm missing something and there is onscreen confirmation that the Valeyard is an actual incarnation.176.253.243.174 (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Valeyard is clearly stated to be the Doctor several times in this scene. It doesn't matter whether he's an "actual incarnation" or "just a distillation", since these are purely in-universe concepts. In reality, almost all of the character's coverage and notability centre on the fact that he's the Doctor in some way – which way that happens to be is more a question for the Tardis wiki. —Flax5 18:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, why aren't the Dream Lord and Watcher included? They're 'the Doctor' at least as much as the Valeyard is. And I don't understand the 'those are just in-universe concepts' argument. Surely you can include or exclude anything based on that?

It's simple, so far as I can see. Time of the Doctor makes it absolutely explicit that to date the Doctor has had 13 incarnations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, War, 9, 10, 11 and 12). The Valeyard is not one of them. The video you posted doesn't contradict this - nowhere does the Master refer to him as 'one of your future incarnations', in fact IIRC that line was originally in the script and JN-T ordered it to be removed, so the editorial intent seems to have specifically been that the Valeyard is NOT a future Doctor, but instead some kind of personification of his 'dark side' which is not the same thing at all. I don't disagree that the Valeyard is relevant to this topic but he's not as noteworthy as 1-12 and War which is why I proposed moving him to the 'see also' section.176.253.243.174 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Dream Lord and the Watcher don't have articles. That's why they were removed. The navbox templates are for navigating between existing articles. DonQuixote (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, Wikipedia is aimed at gathering real-world information. A dedicated Doctor Who wiki might explore the exact mechanics of how the Valeyard fits into canon, and whether he "counts" as a "real incarnation" (whatever we consider those phrases to mean), but from a real-world perspective there's really no distinction to be made.

I agree that he's not as notable as 1 through 12. That's why he's placed in a separate subgroup with the War Doctor, who was also limited to guest appearances in a few episodes of another Doctor's tenure – a meaningful equivalence in real-world terms.

The Great Intelligence also stated that the Eleventh Doctor would be known as "the Valeyard" before his death on Trenzalore, which further muddies the waters from an in-universe perspective. —Flax5 21:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Wikipedia is aimed at 'gathering real world' information, but its also aimed at gathering accurate information and I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that the Valeyard is an incarnation of the Doctor in the same way that the First Doctor and the Sixth Doctor and the War Doctor (for example) are. So far as I know, nowhere is there any source - in-universe or real world - to support that view. If the infobox was titled 'characters who may or may not be the Doctor' fine, but the word 'incarnation' has a very specific meaning both in- and out-of-universe, and I don't think that based on what we know about him the Valeyard meets that definition. However, my spider-sense is telling me that there's not much point arguing this any further so I'll withdraw my objection for now and revisit it in the event that the Valeyard's origins are ever made more clear.176.253.243.174 (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Whittaker

She's just been announced as the Thirteenth. Is it too soon to put her on this box? NP Chilla (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actors

We need to be very careful about adding actors here. WP:PERFNAV is against this, and I believe the only reason we're making an exception is because the main actors are synonymous with the role. I would personally like to remove all the actors from here, but what we should not be doing is including actors like Cushing, Hurt, etc, as the inclusion of the navbox on their pages (well, all of the actors' pages really) puts WP:UNDUE weight to the role of the Doctor over other roles they may have played. Therefore, for now, please restrict the actors to just the main performers, unless we have consensus to remove all of the actors. --wooden superman 09:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a point that I was thinking: if actors are not supposed to be in navboxes should they be removed from this one? --2A00:23C6:ED01:400:8D3A:5A9E:288B:D224 (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. (Also, old post.) -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Tennant is 14 and Ncuti Gatwa is 15

BBC statement confirms it: we'll have to adjust the template. https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2022/doctor-who-david-tennant-14th-doctor/ LinguistiCaralis (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteenth Doctor

Should be listed between the Thirteenth and Fifteeth, as this is meant for navigation of the Doctors, not the actors who played him. 128.151.71.7 (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]