Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions about Doctor Who. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Analysis of the series to prepare for the Twelfth Doctor's era

http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/new-who-the-story-thus-far-series-1-episodes-1-6-57645.htm --Danniesen (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary article

I am of the opinion that the contemporary series of Doctor Who is a separate series to the classic series. From a production perspective, there is no continuity of staff between the classic series and the reboot. There are obvious structural and narrative changes between the series. The two series have had quite different impacts on society and are particular to the time in which they were produced. Separate articles would be able to accurately reflect this difference rather than combining their characteristics and impacts into one. The new series should be seen as a sequel series similar to the 1995 series of Get Smart, which kept the premise of the original series but is different enough to warrant a separate article from its parent series.

I propose a split into three articles: Doctor Who (1963 TV series), Doctor Who (2005 TV series) and a third article titled Doctor Who, exploring the entire franchise including the two series and all spin-off material. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually there have been several people who worked on both series including writers and actors. I am sure that @Redrose64: or @DonQuixote: can give you some names. Structural and narrative changes occur all the time with long running series. There were numerous changes in the classic series and there have been changes between Russell T and Moffat have handled the series. The continuity between the series is quite clear as can be seen in numerous episodes. The is no real comparison to the versions of Get Smart. Now some of the items you bring up could have their own articles but I see no need to split this one up in the process. MarnetteD | Talk 03:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There may be some writers and actors who have worked on both series but my point is that they are he exception and not the rule. There is a big difference between having to replace a few members of the crew after RTD left and having to start a show essentially from scratch when the new series started. If the new series was intended to be a direct continuation of the classic series, why didn't they stylize Series 1 as season 27? There is a comparison with Get Smart. The only difference between the new series of Doctor Who and things like the Knight Rider reboot and Star Trek: The Next Generation is that the Doctor Who universe allows for a change in actor without a change in characters. These series also make a shared continuity apparent. Get Smart is even more comparable because the characters and actors did not change. The continuity between the series is quite clear and can be seen in a number of episodes. I can see little cause for the Get Smart series to require its own article more than Doctor Who. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This article doesn't need to be split up because it's more about the franchise than any particular series (compare this to List of Doctor Who serials). We can always start articles on the 1963 series and the 2005 series respectively. DonQuixote (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, the production teams of the current series have always maintained that it is a continuation of the original series, not a new series. In production terms, there is a distinction: the classic series was produced at BBC Television Centre, while the 21st century series is made in Cardiff. But for our purposes, there are more similarities than differences between the 20th and 21st century versions of the programme. I don't think that the article would benefit from a split, as there is so much that would be duplicated. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what the production teams say, and it can be argued either way. What matters is that the sources consider it to be continuous far more often than they consider them distinct. This cannot be said for any of the examples given above. We go with the sources. Rubiscous (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be rewritten (I've got a plan for this, but not the time or resources, though anyone is welcome to help), but splitting it up would lose the evolution between the classic series, the TV movie, and the new series. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Changes of appearance

This table should be edited to reflect that "The Night of the Doctor" was Paul McGann's final episode. 2013 should be listed after 1996 with a comma as opposed to a dash, as done with the Seventh Doctor for the Television Movie. After all, this was not a guest appearance, since he was the sole star of the episode. G S Palmer (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Sole star of the episode? It was a short webisode, it's hardly the same thing. Bondegezou (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Star of the webisode, then. He is listed as the star on the Wikipedia page. G S Palmer (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

9 missing found

You might find this interesting: http://m.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctor-who/news/a550988/doctor-who-missing-episodes-for-marathon-screening.html?rss --Danniesen (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks D. Actually this is old news by now. The nine episodes are from Enemy of the World amd The Web of Fear and the appropriate wiki-articles have already been updated. MarnetteD | Talk 18:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yeah... I found out after I posted this link. --Danniesen (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Doctor Who: The Ultimate Gui...

212.159.45.2 posted this comment on 1 January 2014 (view all feedback).

Doctor Who: The Ultimate Guide Doctor Who: Revisited

Any thoughts?

Sufyanbgs (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's an anonymous user leaving irrelevant garbage on a comment page! That's what I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 14:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Error needs to be corrected

The article states that Series 2 and 3 of the 2005 revival were funded in part by the CBC, for which they received co-producer credit. The CBC did the same for Series 1, and receives on-screen credit as co-producer (verifiable by checking any of the 2005 episodes). Indeed much of the so-called "seed money" was for the 2005 season, not so much the second and third. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

series name; violence; change in style

A quick browse of the article does not reveal the origin of the series' title -- Doctor Who. If I recall correctly, Chesterton calls him "Doctor Foreman" (assuming he has the same name as his granddaughter), and The Doctor responds "Doctor who?".

It was a remarkably violent program. In an early episode, the first Doctor is about to murder an alien, by crushing his head with a rock, before he's stopped. This should be mentioned.

There's a useful distinction between the original series and the reboot. The original is basically a melodrama in which The Doctor is the deus ex TARDIS who steps in to resolve the story's central issue. The reboot pays more attention to a story's dramatic elements -- motivations, character interactions, etc. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

New Missing Episodes found rumours

This is only a rumour for now, but it is possible that they have found the four episodes of The Smugglers: http://www.kasterborous.com/2014/03/missing-doctor-smugglers-found/ --94.191.184.189 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Until the BBC make a statement themselves, we must discount all rumours. There are several a year, and most turn out to be completely unfounded. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Until reliable sources make a statement, we must discount non-reliable sources. However, Wikipedia policy does not support privileging the BBC as the only relevant source. Bondegezou (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the missing episode recoveries there are no reliable sources other than the BBC. In the event that there are more episodes recovered the BBC would embargo the announcement to a specific time. This would stop any reliable sources before the official announcement by the BBC (but not after as the announcement will be reported widely). The BBC wont get privileged treatment but it'll be the starting point from which the everything else is reported. Take the last recovery (of the web of fear and the enemy of the world) the Radio Times reported the discovery the Sunday before the official announcement but no changes could be made as it was the only source. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No. That position would appear to be in contradiction to basic Wikipedia policy. I suggest you review WP:RS, WP:V and WP:PRIMARY. We do not get to change policy for Doctor Who (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS).

We are, I think, in agreement that Kasterborous.com is not a reliable source (as defined by Wikipedia). However, if we get reliable sources reporting found episodes, we can report those (although obviously we can discuss articles on a case-by-case basis, taking into account what they report, how many sources are reporting the same thing, whether we are giving due coverage -- see WP:UNDUE). We absolutely do not have to wait for a BBC statement (although obviously we would want to report what the BBC say). Bondegezou (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes we do. We have had times of true reliable sources typically reporting based on rumors that publication such a Daily Mail that there were found episodes and they proved useless. The only reliable source for recovery of missing episodes is the BBC as they are going to be the ones told about it first and will reveal once they assess the recovered film's quality. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

We should follow Wikipedia policy. If you would care to explain how your position is consistent with Wikipedia policy, that would be most useful. It is appropriate for us to use some judgement in terms of what citations to report and I have nothing against not reporting articles that are dubious and in less reliable newspapers. The choice to not include a rumour in the Daily Mail is consistent with WP:RS, WP:V and related policies.

However, we absolutely cannot say that, "The only reliable source for recovery of missing episodes is the BBC". If we had multiple reports in trustworthy newspapers and the BBC had, for whatever reason, not said anything, we should not wait for the BBC. Bondegezou (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What Masem et al are trying to say is that the reliable sources have only been able to say "the rumours are", etc and that the only source not to have reported rumours was the BBC itself. That is to say, it's against policy to write about rumours, even rumours from reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

And to expand on that more, at Doctor Who missing episodes, in mentioning the most recent finds (Web of Fear), we do note that there were rumors of episodes being found, but we don't include what those claims are (some claimed 50some epis in Ethopia I believe) just that the BBC were fighting coverage from those claims. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

How about:

According to The Daily Telegraph, several episodes that had been considered missing, were slated to be returned to the BBC archives in October 2013.^[1]

Chunk5Darth (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I am happy with DonQuixote's perspective, which reflects mine as well and respects Wikipedia policy. Should it happen that multiple reliable sources start reporting firmer news, then it would appear to me appropriate to reflect that in the article, notwithstanding a lack of confirmation from the BBC. One vague Daily Telegraph article does not seem to reach that hurdle to me. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

DonQuixote is wrong about Wikipedia's stance on reporting rumors. As long as there is coverage by multiple RS, and we clearly state that those are rumors, it is still notable. The DT article is worth a short sentence, but I'm not going to fight over it. Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources talking about rumors give validity that there are rumors, but gives no validation to the information in those rumors. This is presently what is done in the Missing episodes article, noting they exist but give no weight to whether they were true beyond that they shortly preceeded the BBC's official announcement. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

So what is final? Is it a reliable source or is BBC the only one? --94.191.186.38 (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

it depends on what is being reported and how much evidence is provided. If there are videos and/or pictures which aren't known to exist already then yes it is worth including the appearance of the new pictures/videos and that the whole episodes are reported as being found. If there are multiple reliable sources independently reporting that something has been found then it can be included with the caveat "it has been reported that...". If there's only one reliable source and no actual evidence then I'd be wary of including it. It's not that the BBC is the only reliable source it's just that they will always provide evidence to their claim. Plus they will be reported by other reliable sources. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are demonstratably different when it comes to missing episodes. Remember the find of Enemy and Web? - newspapers were saying things like "90 found" or "106 found" when in fact it was 9. 149.254.181.129 (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Plus the two (EotW ep. 3 & TWoF ep. 1) that were found with those nine but which the BBC already held, hence the reports of 11. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dr. Who!

FYI. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: what does that have to do with this article's subject? Chunk5Darth (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation issues. The song is also called, and was released on CD as Dr. Who. See also Doctor Who (disambiguation) In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

But it still has absolutely nothing to do with discussing the TV series. This is what the dab page is for. It's an unrelated solicitation. Chunk5Darth (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:Disambiguation and WP:TITLE. Wikipedia already has an extensive list of songs called "Dr. Who" and "Doctor Who", at Doctor Who theme music of which probably Dr. Who (Bongo Hermann song) 1969 is the most significant cover of Ron Grainer's tune. Leaving aside Dr Who!, the same RM will necessarily have to discuss whether Dr. Who (song) redirects to Ron Grainer, Bongo Hermann or to the German DJs, and that is something that some editors of the various TV Doctor Who articles including Doctor Who theme tune may wish to be aware is happening. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional Reference to Doctor Who in Pop Culture, etc.

On the show "Leverage" during the episode "The Frame Up Job", characters Sophie Devereaux (played by Gina Bellman) and James Sterling (played by Mark Sheppard, who guest starred in DW episodes "The Impossible Astronaut" and "Day of the Moon" as Special Agent Canton Everett Delaware III) introduce themselves as "Agents Tennant and Smith". Also, during the same episode, Sophie Devereaux is heard exclaiming "Spoilers!" in reference to one Mrs. River Song.

204.111.85.29 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Crouton976 April 23rd, 2014

Find a couple of secondary reliable sources for this claim and you might be able to add it to the Leverage (TV series) article. It still doesn't belong here, though. Chunk5Darth (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

imagemap

I see that this page is locked. However, I would like to propose the following edit.

The media file, File:Versions_of_the_Doctor.jpg, is a composite of twelve images of the Dr. Who characters. I would like to wrap that media file with imagemap tags so that each image could serve as a link to the wikipedia page of the corresponding Dr. Who.

Wp mirror (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem there is that it's a non-free image, and therefore, clicking the image must take you to the file description page, so that the attribution, FUR and copyright status may be viewed. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What about the War Doctor? Physicsandwhiskey (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What about him? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, I incorrectly assumed the image was made by an editor. Physicsandwhiskey (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It used to be an image map. And the FUR requirements is met by way of the blue info icon; nowhere does it say that a click on the entire image must be to the description page. — Edokter (talk) — 21:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

War Doctor

Should the War Doctor from the 50th Anniversary special be added to the list of Doctors? He was one of them afterall.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

See various discussions at Talk:List of actors who have played the Doctor, Talk:War Doctor, and Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who) to get an idea of what you just put your foot into. G S Palmer (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Who events in North American cinemas

Several Doctor Who-themed cinema events have taken place across the United States in 2013 and 2014. In celebration of the show’s 50th anniversary, eleven theatres in different cities across the States presented a 3D global simulcast of “The Day of the Doctor” on 23 November 2013. Over 300 additional theatres showed the special on 25 November 2013. The cinema showings included exclusive behind-the-scenes footage, including interviews with David Tennant, Matt Smith, Billie Piper, John Hurt, Jenna Coleman and Steven Moffat. The event was put on by BBC America and NCM Fathom Events . In a two-night celebration June 16-17, 2014, fans in over 620 theatres across the States came together to honor the tenth Doctor David Tennant and his acting endeavors after Doctor Who. On Monday “The Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel” episodes were shown back-to-back, ending with an exclusive Tennant interview about his time shooting those two episodes and his time as the Doctor. On Tuesday “Wings 3D,” a documentary narrated by Tennant, was shown. Fans purchased one ticket for entrance to both showings. The Tennant event was put on by BBC Worldwide North America and Fathom Events "BBC Worldwide and Fathom Events Celebrate David Tennant by Bringing Doctor Who and the Premiere of BBC Earth's Wings 3D to the Big Screen".

References

"'Doctor Who' 50th Anniversary: BBC AMERICA Announces 3d Screening Events", BBC America Staff (24 October 2013), Retrieved 16 June 2014. http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2013/10/doctor-50th-anniversary-special-bbc-america-announces-3d-screening-events/
"BBC Worldwide and Fathom Events Celebrate David Tennant by Bringing Doctor Who and the Premiere of BBC Earth's Wings 3D to the Big Screen", Business Wire (14 May 2014), Retrieved 16 June 2014. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140514005342/en/BBC-Worldwide-Fathom-Events-Celebrate-David-Tennant#.U5_JABbyBg0

--LeslieGayle (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)LeslieGayle 17 June 2014--LeslieGayle (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The 50th anniversary cinema showings were all over the news. The single occasion of an old episode being shown is not notable in itself. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Starring... incorrect dates!

In the right-hand column under "Starring" it reads "As of 2014 Peter Capaldi" and "As of 2014 Jenna Coleman". This is incorrect. It should read "As of 2013 Peter Capaldi" and "As of 2012 Jenna Coleman." Jenna Coleman has been appearing as Clara since 2012 alongside Matt Smith since the story "Asylum of the Daleks" and Peter Capaldi appeared as the Doctor in "The Day of the Doctor" and became officially incumbent at the end of the 2013 Christmas special "The Time of the Doctor". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SickyHampton (talk • contribs) 03:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

None of these earlier appearances are official acoording to the WP:RS sources. They are at best guest appearances. MarnetteD|Talk 04:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The phrase is "as of 2014" as in "as of today". DonQuixote (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"As of" means the date something began/started. Neither Peter Capaldi and Jenna Coleman began work on Doctor Who in 2014, nor did Steven Moffat and Brian Minchin. Equally confusing is Murray Gold having "as of 2005" (which is obviously correct, but not in keeping with the ridiculous logic of having everyone else starting 'as of 2014'). Just looks messy and unprofessional. Surely a 'currently' or 'presently' as we had before would be more sensible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.236.47 (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not what "as of" means in this context. "Currently" is to be avoided on Wikipedia because a reader will have no way of knowing if the information is out of date. Mezigue (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Simple Correction

Sorry I don't exactly know what I'm doing but civilizations is misspelled in the final sentence of the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E39:B440:F893:7A64:35ED:7A57 (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. Please read WP:ENGVAR. The spelling is correct for an article about a British TV show. MarnetteD|Talk 21:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

External link found

petercapaldi.info Your page is broken again. The encyclopedia anybody can edit can't be edited. Sigh. This place never works. It's never accurate either. No wonder your boss is always begging the public for money. Clearly this place is a scam. Well you can add it because I'm not wasting any more time on this joke of a dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.17.70.53 (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I found a Dr.Who wiki :: http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Doctor_Who_Wiki . I have inserted a link to it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There was already a link to that at the top of the section. Click "TARDIS Data Core, an external wiki" in the reference websites section. --KnightMiner ^(t|c) 17:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Dubbing?

Although I didn't find this information in the article, I see from this archived post (Talk:Doctor_Who/Archive_8#Would_it_be_relevent_to_add_this_to_the_viewship_section?) that the show is dubbed, at least in Japan. Is it dubbed in other non-English-language-predominant countries as well? If so, have any of the voice actors been notable? There are many notable non-English actors, after all. They should be mentioned. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Some episodes of the classic series were dubbed into Arabic, because at least one of the episodes that was returned to the BBC was found to have an Arabic soundtrack. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Dubbing shows is routine and non-notable. Mezigue (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

However there has been controversy regarding Series 8 in that German dubbing was delayed due to the episode leaks that befell the season. This received a fair bit of press coverage. And to expand upon Wordreader's comments, the voice actors in several regions have become celebrities in their own right specifically due to their work on Doctor Who. This is rather unique in western television (though it is common with regards to anime for voicedub actors to become notable celebrities in their own right). So I dispute the statement that dubbing is non-notable, at least in the case of Doctor Who. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Who citation available

The serials The Deadly Assassin and Mawdryn Undead and the 1996 TV film would later establish that a Time Lord can only regenerate 12 times, for a total of 13 incarnations. This line has stuck in the public consciousness despite not often being repeated, and was recognised by producers of the show as a plot obstacle for when the show finally had to regenerate the Doctor a thirteenth time.[84][85] The episode "The Time of the Doctor" depicted the Doctor acquiring a new cycle of regenerations, starting from the Twelfth Doctor, due to the Eleventh Doctor being the product of the Doctor's twelfth regeneration from his original set.[citation needed]

I am unable to edit this paragraph and add the citation to the end, but it's simple. The Doctor tells Clara during "The Time of the Doctor" that he's reached his regeneration limit and how it happened. 64.22.234.2 (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

But what is your citation? If it's a website, we need to know the URL; if a magazine, we need the name of the mag, plus date and page; if a book, we need title, author, and page. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Such citations are unnecessary for a TV series if information is provided in an episode, as citing episodes is just as valid per Wiki policy. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Oceania

Can someone please fix the Oceania section? The article currently states that Doctor Who was/is popular in Oceania, and then has several oddly placed sentences about the show's broadcast history in Canada. Canada isn't a part of Oceania, obviously. I can't fix it myself because the article is locked. Thank you. 67.1.97.222 (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello? 67.1.97.222 (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I moved the paragraph into the North America section; I also tagged a number of paragraph with fact tags as they were unreferenced. Edgepedia (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a strange, out-of-place sentence in the "North America" section that states "Series three began broadcasting on BBC One in the United Kingdom on 31 March 2007." It's as if someone broke the paragraphs into regions, but was pretty careless about making sure the right sentences went into the right sections. Can someone please fix? IPs can't edit the page. 67.1.100.49 (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the sentence which states "Series three began broadcasting on BBC One in the United Kingdom on 31 March 2007." This sentence is out of place in a section about the broadcast history in North America. Some material in this part of the article was clearly reworked, but was left pretty messy. 67.1.100.49 (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Stickee. 67.1.100.49 (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Date

This edit request to Doctor Who has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Although most people say it started in 1963 23rd Nov it started on the 22nd and was cancelled halfway through, then put on the next day. 202.158.223.209 (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done - You will most certainly need to provide a reliable source for such a claim. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not sure where you got this idea but it is incorrect. It is well documented, in numerous sources, that it aired at 5:15 pm and 23 November 1963. There is no reason to change the date in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 02:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Dates for Capaldi and Coleman

Capaldi appeared as The Doctor in the 2013 Xmas special. Coleman made her first appearance as early as 2012, and joined as the companion after Gillan's departure in the latest Weeping Angels episode. Why are the years listed 2014 for both? Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As of this year, 2014, the leads of the series are Capaldi and Coleman. DonQuixote (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but they joined in previous years. Capaldi's appearance is somewhat more arguable, as he was only in the episode's conclusion; however, Coleman was Smith's official companion for a while, at least since 2013. Moreover, per WP:CURRENT, the current year is irrelevant. Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but within context, it's saying as of 2014 the current leads are...etc. DonQuixote (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case, do we change that every year then? Chunk5Darth (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No need now. I added the CURRENTYEAR template. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. It should state the year they started as lead. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

We had this discussion only a few months ago. "As of" means "at the current time", not "since". Mezigue (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Then it should be "since", because "as of" is confusing as hell, and is just another word for "currently". -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The idea of using as of is to avoid articles containing outdated statements and so the reader knows the article is up to date. There is no urgency to that, I suppose, with any Doctor Who-related articles where impatient editors have to be stopped from jumping the gun obsesssively six months ahead of a change... Mezigue (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is just 'currentism', which should be avoided according to MOS:TV. State the year they started or leave it out; there is absolutely no chance here that someone will 'forget' to update the infobox. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to an old version of MOS:TV because I can't find a statement to that effect there currently? Rubiscous (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I found it somewhere... under MOS:FICTION. Can't remember where though. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Fan site link added?

Is the recent addition of "D50W" http://d50w.weebly.com/ to the "External Links: Official Websites" an error? It seems to me that it's a fan blog with pixelated photos, some trivia questions, all-caps text, and some grammatically poor and misspelled titles. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though. Keep or revert? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that the IP who added it also deleted it while I was looking at the "D50W" site. Yours, Wordreader (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding Twelve's companions

So under the Companion section, it mentioned the different Doctor's companions. It lists Clara as Eleven's, but now that she's done an entire series with Twelve, I think that should be added. Also, Mickey was included as a companion, so if he's considered one, than Danny should be one too.. TaylorLane^{bore me} 23:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The WP:OR about who is and is not a companion can go on forever - and it is a fun discussion in the proper forum like a chat room. For Wikipedia purposes the only thing that matters is what can be reliably sourced. So, yes Clara should be added to the 12th Dr's list. As to Danny if a source can be provided (remember that Mickey was specifically stated to be a companion for three stories in series 2) that Moffat et al made him a companion then he can be added otherwise he is a recurring character. MarnetteD|Talk 00:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I go by what the Wikipedia episode articles give. Rise of the Cybermen has Mickey as a companion, The Caretaker does not have Danny as a companion. As well a referencing, the simple fact is that Danny barely traveled in the TARDIS, so from a fan's perspective, he's nt a companion. But yes, referencing too. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Add John Hurt!!

Though he didn't consider himself as a part of the Doctor's regeneration's, he needs to be included as an actor! I think he should be put down as John Hurt--War Doctor. Or as the ninth Doctor and the others upped one number. (Christopher Eccleston--Tenth (Im so sorry David!!) David Tennant--Eleventh (I am so sorry Matt!!) Matt Smith-- Twelfth Peter Capaldi--Thirteenth.) Sorry, big Whovian and couldn't help commenting. XXBrOkEnSmiLeXx (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the paragraph after the list of doctor actors table in the section Changes of appearance? It listed the War Doctor as a special guest Doctor. We do not list him as one of the main actors of the Doctor, as he never played the lead role of the doctor, only a supporting Doctor in two episodes. –KnightMiner ^(t|c) 22:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't change the numbers for the regenerations after the War Doctor, because he is apart, not quite the Doctor. But, he is important and should be included. 50.100.128.229 (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The War Doctor used a regeneration (as well as the Tenth's hand), so he could count as actor playing the Doctor, even though he only is shown in two episodes. IMBD counts John Hurt as a Doctor Who actor. Frmorrison (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

He's already counted as an actor who played the Doctor. See List of actors who have played the Doctor. And you do realise that you linked to user generated content at imdb, right? DonQuixote (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the BBC treat the War Doctor as a fully fledged Doctor now; see here. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Does not matter. He's still only a supporting Doctor, and never played the Doctor as a lead role. Read the above arguments. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"Never played the Doctor as a lead role": Was "Day of the Doctor" in my head, then? Hurt, Tennant, and Smith were all given lead billing in publicity. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned multiple times in this thread, he was a supporting Doctor. In TDoTD, Smith was the leading Doctor (since he was still the incumbent Doctor at the time), and Tennant and Hurt were supporting Doctors. Hurt has never played the Doctor as a lead role in his own season/series. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither had Paul McGann, arguably: he was the lead role in one movie that was 90 minutes long. BBC publicity for Day didn't shunt Hurt onto the side, he was given top billing along with Smith and Tennant. Post-Day publicity has fully integrated Hurt too. Given the BBC's attitude to Hurt, there's no reason other than fanwankery to not include him, really. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually Hurt was billed fifth in the episode. —Flax5 17:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And he's already included in the articles. DonQuixote (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Wonderfully mature response, glad to see you talking about this like a grown up. Paul McGann was the incumbent Doctor in the movie. Hurt was not the incumbent Doctor in the 50th Anniversary episode. It's really simply. It's not about who was credited when and who was given billing where (taking into note Flax5's observation there), it's about who was the incumbent Doctor. John Hurt has never been the incumbent Doctor. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Odd that nobody wants Richard Hurndall in there despite being in basically the same situation. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And what situation is that? Richard Hurndall was another actor for an already-played Doctor. John Hurt is a first actor for a new Doctor. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter if he's playing a new incarnation or not – what's important is that he's another actor unambiguously playing the Doctor is a substantial screen role. I've suggested Hurndall be included in the past, but was overruled as Hurt's inclusion is "just a compromise made because of his notability" or something to that effect. —Flax5 15:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There's documentation that Peter Davison was series lead in 1983. There's documentation that Paul McGann was series lead in 1996. There's documentation that Matt Smith was series lead in 2013. And series leads are important in describing the history of a programme. That's why they're the main focus of all the actors who played variations of the character. This does not exclude the mention of other actors who played versions of the character, though. Richard Hurndall and John Hurt are mentioned in just about every possible place that doesn't specifically discuss series leads. DonQuixote (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The only real difference between the Hurndall and Hurt situations is an in-universe one and infoboxes are presenting info from an out of universe perspective. Otherwise they were both cases of one-off castings for anniversaries, not ongoing lead roles. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Great

Do you think you could add more about Sarah Jane smith Massy56778 (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There's already a bunch here. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 14:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Please title your discussions/requests accordingly, not with random words. This page is about the Doctor Who series - there is information elsewhere about what you are looking for. This is not the place for one companion to be paraded above the rest - we are an encyclopedia here. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Unbalanced Intro

I wish to complain about the apparently unbalanced intro section to this article. It is very puzzling and annoying that the section basically says little more about the classic series than "it existed," and then goes on to detail every director and actor to be in the new series. We need to be balanced people, at least reference Hartnell for god sakes. OttselSpy25 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

request edit

Chronology and Canonicity

Discussion missing

British English and The Doctor

I resent the term BRITISH when describing Doctor Who (and other series). When Doctor Who was first created, we were ENGLISH, not British. Doctor Who is an ENGLISH series, and should not be re-classified by the new term "British", as coined by Americans and other members of the UN. English is English, and British was a word that died out years ago, and has recently been re-introduced, albeit in a slightly insulting way. Also, there is no such thing as British English. British English is apparently the language spoken in England...this is English. British English is an incorrect clarification, caused by the creation and use of American English (by Americans, who are descended from mainly English settlers).

Secondly, why is there so much secrecy about the NAME of The Doctor? Even on a Wikipedia page, which is meant to be about FACTS, there is no mention of what The Doctor's REAL name is. Any idiot with half a brain can FIND the name online, so why omit this information from a reference website ABOUT the character and series? That's like writing a page about Knight Rider and forgetting to say that it is Michael Knight...or KITT...

Can someone please correct these? I know they're pretty MINOR things, and one is a mild annoyance. But the LATTER definitely needs fixing! For those who dont know, The Doctor's REAL name is: Theta Sigma. This name was given by the original creator of the programme...so you can't really argue with that.

"When the Doctor's final incarnation died for good during the first battle of the War, his coffin — which came to be known as the Relic — had the symbols for "Theta" and "Sigma" on it.

In an alternative timeline in which Rassilon failed to finish the Eye of Harmony before his death, the Doctor never left Gallifrey and became a commentator rather than a renegade Time Lord. He was known as Commentator Theta Sigma." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.180.158 (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah there are so many problems with this that it would take to long to go into it. I will cover one though. The use of "Theta Sigma" first occurred in The Armageddon Factor which was aired in 1979. As Drax states it was the Doctors nickname at the Academy. It had never been used before. The creators of the progamme, nearly 16 years earlier, did not use - or even imagine using, the term. You are also conflating storylines from the books and audio productions with those that have taken place onscreen. That is not how the articles are handled. BTW personal attacks are not a good way to make your point. MarnetteD|Talk 16:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Facebook.com/PeterCapaldi

Wikipedia is broken again. Just added todays story in Kasterborous about Doctor Who having the number 2 ranking at Wikipedia under 'Television Shows' and noticed the current Doctor's official facebook page still hasn't been added. So I tried to add it and was told by the dumb autothingy that it wasn't a real link or something like that. Please fix Wikipedia so this sort of silly nonsense doesn't keep repeating. Either that or build a new encyclopedia that actually works. I feel like I'm forced to use Wikipedia now its taken over the search engines. But if its going to be innacurate or missing vital data then what's the use of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.32.122 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

First Wikipedia is not broken. Next see WP:NOTFACEBOOK as to the reason that is ranking there is immaterial here. Next, you are aware that its ranking there is just a fan vote which is of no encyclopedic value. you are aware that its ranking will change as the days, weeks, months and years go by. Last please feel free to go and build an encyclopedia that works for you elsewhere on the web. MarnetteD|Talk 01:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you fixed it yet? Just let me know when your code is corrected and the site is finally working right. This constantly having to report glitches is getting tiresome. You are aware that most visitors are only coming here to discover social media sites right. It wasn't just a ranking. It was a news story about Wikipedia and Doctor Who. About as relevant as material online can be to this wikipage. If you can't handle it then pass the buck to someone more capable or stop wasting time with your inane banter. 202.86.32.122 (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's on the blacklist link list, that's why you can't add it. You will have to propose its removal here. Though considering it appears to be an average fanclub site, and not officially sanctioned by the BBC or anything, that's not really likely. Good luck with that. Maybe you can do something about the AnnastaciaPalaszczuk site too, whilst you're at it. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 01:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, you are free to build your own encyclopaedia, if this one doesn't meet your standards. It wouldn't be the first time. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 01:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

the number of series of new who should be added to the season numbers

Cult following?

External links modified

K-12 students study Doctor Who in Anchorage, Alaska

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015

Most recent episode

This page still lack a prominent link - ideally in the infobox - the the most recent episode. We should add one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Why? We're not a TV guide. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Straw man - my comment has nothing to do with us being a TV guide. We should include such a link because it's a relevant fact about the brand; and to help readers who, when about to watch, or having watched, the episode, type "dr who" into a search engine, end up at this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Prominently displaying the latest episode is the function of a TV guide. An encyclopaedia is about every episode and no single episode is given undue weight. DonQuixote (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above two opposing views. Your comment has everything to do with us being a TV guide - being able to come to the article and look up the most recent episode(s) is exactly that. We have a link to the list of serials and episodes already - is it so hard to scroll to the bottom of that? Your request for a link to the most recent episode is completely unfounded and based on no necessary or beneficial requirements without providing clutter against policy. Alex|The|Whovian 01:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again: this has nothing to do with us being a TV guide. TV guides don't habitually list the last episode of a series, even after the series ends, but rather a forthcoming episode, if any, with the time of broadcast, in chronological list of programmes, sorted by channel and by day. I suggest nothing of the kind. And yes, it is much harder to find the most recent episode by finding a link to the list of episodes, following it, waiting for it to load, scrolling to the bottom, and then working backwards because the most recent episode is not the last one listed there; than it would be to to find and follow the kind of link I propose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not needed. Per WP:NOTDIR Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide. There are plenty of other ways for a reader to get to an article for each episode including typing its name in the search box. MarnetteD|Talk 17:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

And again: this has nothing to do with us being a programme guide. You suppose that the reader will know the episode title. There is no basis for making such an assumption. Indeed, the reader may be looking for that information. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

And again it does ask the infobox to become a programme guide which is not what it is designed for. Perhaps you missed the part of my sentence "plenty of other ways" including using the search box. List of Doctor Who serials is easily available. Wikipedia is not the only place to search for the most recent episode - or the one before that - or one from last year for that matter. Since things are not "broken" in this situation I see no reason to implement this alleged "fix." MarnetteD|Talk 17:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

<reduce indent> I'd support this. We list the most recent occurrence of sports events in infoboxes (eg FIFA World Cup; Davis Cup, Tour de France). It doesn't have to be any more prominent than it is on those articles, but I can see how it would be useful to some editors who want to discover more about a programme by founding out where it is currently at. I don't think that this contravenes WP:NOTDIR. That states that

Wikipedia articles are not... Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc.

This proposal is not about listing anything as a feature of the page - it's providing a discreet link to one article, in the infobox or somewhere similar.Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This article (Doctor Who) is not the place for such a thing. The place for such a thing is in the most recent series, currently Doctor Who (series 9), or, where a special is newer than the most recent episode in a series, in List of Doctor Who serials. Since the structure of both the "series #" articles and the page List of Doctor Who serials already makes it very easy to find the most recent episode (assuming you know what day today is), there is nothing more that needs to be done. Having said that, it would be marginally useful to add parameters to the infobox for each of the "season" article's infoboxes that listed the title and date of the first and most recently aired episodes. However if there is already a precedent for not putting this info in "season" infoboxes then it should not be added to the Doctor Who "season" infoboxes without a general discussion in the relevant "Television" or "Entertainment" WikiProjects. I did not check to see if there is any consistency with having this info in "season" infoboxes or if it's inconsistent enough that we can make a "local decision." If there is no Wiki-wide consistency then I won't add the info myself but I won't object to someone else adding it as long as it "looks good" and it's kept up to date. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

New Season

A typo that needs correcting

Bias in opening paragraphs

The opening paragraphs of this page are notably biased towards the more recent ten years of the program for unclear reasons. While this has been where the show has gained the move global success, it seems odd that the most that can be said about the Classic series here is that it once existed, "from 1963 to 1989." The paragraph then goes on to describe nearly every casting change which occurred on the show between 2005 and 2013, from companions to Doctors.

I'm not asking for much here -- I get that to the average viewer and editor, every Doctor in the classic series is not necessarily noteworthy. Despite this, I don't think that it would be much to have the discussion of the first twenty five years of the show to at least pan more than one sentence -- it would be best to at least discuss the start of the show, the original cast and producers, before going on to discuss the changes brought by at least Troughton and Tom Baker. If we're not going to do that, we should trim the header down to contain less specific details about the 2005-2015 run. OttselSpy25 (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's been precisely fifteen days since I posted this. If there is no controversy on the issue by the 25th I will add two or so sentences to the page. OttselSpy25 (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If Davies and Eccleston are mentioned in the lead section then Newman, Lambert and Hartnell certainly should be. —Flax5 08:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the issue identified, but I don't think the solution is to only add content - leads need to be concise. I'd remove the sentences "The first series of the 21st century featured Christopher Eccleston in the title role and was produced by the BBC. Series two and three had some development money contributed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which was credited as a co-producer". I'd then add a note on Newman and Lambert as creators. I'd avoid adding mentions of any doctors, other than the incumbent. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 28 Nov. 2015

Template:Infobox Doctor Who doctor

Can someone explain why usages of {{Infobox Doctor Who doctor}} for "Preceded/Succeeded by" are listed as (for example) "Matt Smith (Eleventh Doctor)" instead of "Eleventh Doctor (Matt Smith)"? The template lists the in-universe content of the Doctor in question, with both the header and the page itself titled "(The) Twelfth Doctor", and then "Portrayed by Peter Capaldi". The Twelfth Doctor was not preceded by Matt Smith, he was preceded by the Eleventh Doctor who was played by Matt Smith. Alex|The|Whovian 13:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That's how it used to be. The editor who made the change said it was to keep to a "real-worl perspective" or something along those lines. I think it made more sense the way it was. —Flax5 13:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

From a real world perspective, if you have a character like, say Indiana Jones, you would say:

Indiana Jones (teen) portrayed by River Phoenix

preceded by Harrison Ford (adult)

succeeded by Corey Carrier (child)

DonQuixote (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The above is concerning who portrays the characters. But in this case, the focal point is the character. The infobox is for summarizing the character (the real-world content already exists further down in each article), hence a "real-world" perspective does not apply to the infobox, so the character should come first in the preceded/succeeded sections, then the actor. Alex|The|Whovian

Preceding and succeeding are real world related terms. We don't say that Indiana Jones (teen) preceded Indian Jones (child) and was succeeded by Indiana Jones (young adult). The actors, in this case, are more important than the character incarnations. DonQuixote (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That is because those are the same character with no differences. Doctor Who, however, does not follow this as the preceded/succeeded by are of different characters. The Twelfth Doctor was not preceded by Matt Smith. Alex|The|Whovian 23:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources treat them as different incarnations of the same character. DonQuixote (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Same point applies. The infobox is to list the incarnation in question, hence the incarnation is preceded/succeeded by other incarnations. Alex|The|Whovian 01:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You're just going around in circles. Preceding and succeeding in terms of incarnations of a character, as opposed to actual character succession (for example, Robin of Loxley succeeded by Robin of Huntingdon in Robin of Sherwood or de la Vega Zorro succeeded by Murrieta Zorro in The Mask of Zorro), is always in terms of the actor. I think the confusion might lie in the fact that the article for one character, The Doctor, has been broken down into twelve articles. There is no preceding or succeeding character in terms of a single article--there are only preceding and succeeding actors. However, because of all the real world information (50+ years worth), it is necessary to break a single article into twelve. DonQuixote (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Then why is the infobox not titled "Peter Capaldi (Twelfth Doctor)" if the preceded back is "Matt Smith (Eleventh Doctor)", and if the infobox must be real-world information, as you've stated? You state that "Preceding and succeeding in terms of incarnations of a character ... is always in terms of the actor". Why? Is this supported by a solid policy, or is it just a guideline or standard practice? The article was split twelve (technically thirteen) ways because each incarnation has its own production, casting, etc. info and requires such pages. Alex|The|Whovian 03:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the infobox should look something like this:

The Doctor (Twelfth Doctor)

Portrayed by Peter Capaldi

Preceded by Matt Smith (Eleventh Doctor)

But I'm not too pedantic about the title part because it's a little bit redundant. DonQuixote (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

As for why, it's simply applying the same rule for every character. That is, the above infobox is the exact same as:

Indiana Jones (teen)

Portrayed by River Phoenix

Preceded by Harrison Ford (adult)

So...why should the fictional character of the Doctor be treated differently? DonQuixote (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Errors

The opening paragraph states that the show started in 1963 (or whenever) and continues to this day. That is not true. The series was cancelled in 1989 and they restarted it in 2005. There was a movie in the 1990s which I think aired on Fox. I would correct this but cannot. --24.177.0.156 (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If you read beyond the first paragraph you will find that everything you mention is covered in the rest of the article - mostly here Doctor Who#History. Also, it does not say the show ran "continuously from 63 to today" only that "it began in 63 and continues today" which is correct. MarnetteD|Talk 04:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The list of portrayals of The Doctor (section 4.1.1) should be altered to increase the incarnation number for Christopher Eccleston (9 -> 10), David Tennant (10 -> 11), Matt Smith (11 -> 12), and Peter Capaldi (12 -> 13). This would be the proper numbering of incarnations, as revealed in the The Day of the Doctor. It also makes sense from the point-of-view of the section, which covers the character/being "The Doctor"; even if he has chosen to forget/deny the John Hurt-portrayed incarnation, it was a true regeneration of the same being which took place between the incarnations portrayed by McGann and Eccleston. If the list is titled to the effect of Primary or Series Recurring Portrayls of the Doctor (something to define the list only shows actors who play the doctor over at least a series), then we wouldn't need to add to the list John Hurt (9th incarnation of The Doctor, aka "The War Doctor"). Otherwise, I think the list should be re-worked to also include the 9th incarnation. Ruscal (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. As is, that table does seem dedicated to listing the "series leads", which John Hurt's Doctor never was. That said, though, the section it's within is about all the changes of appearance that the Doctor has undergone, so I think it's odd to omit an incarnation.

Eccleston's Doctor continues to be known as the "Ninth Doctor", Tennant's as the "Tenth Doctor", Smith's as the "Eleventh Doctor", and Capaldi's as the "Twelfth Doctor", regardless of the fact that this is out of step with the actual incarnation count, so we need to follow suit. That being the case, I suggest we simply insert a line for Hurt's Doctor and give his incarnation as "War Doctor". We then might also change the header of the first column from "Series lead" to something like "Actor" or "Portrayed by". ╠╣uw [talk] 15:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The table is compiled from a real world perspective. If you read the section carefully, Producers introduced the concept of regeneration to permit the recasting of the main character...In addition to those actors who have headlined the series, others have portrayed versions of the Doctor in guest roles. DonQuixote (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems like we're dealing with two different things that call for two different tables: 1) an ordered list of the real-world actors who've led the series, and 2) an ordered list of the regenerations/incarnations of the fictional character. Those are not the same thing, but as it stands it seems like we're trying to shoehorn the latter into the former, which simply leads to confusion and debate. Why not just add a second table? ╠╣uw [talk] 18:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Third Doctor & Eighth Doctor Logos

Series Leads?

External links modified

Doctor montage image

Before this edit war out of hand: "Non-free content should only be used once in the project. The section does link to The Doctor's article, where the image is available." is not necessarily true. The same piece of non-free can be used in multiple articles, as long as it can be rationalized in each article (and a NFCC rationale is provided for each use, which is the case here). In this situation, while obviously the image is best suited on the page about the character, it is reasonably fair to denote one of the biggest facts attached to DW, that the Doctor regenerates, and that each of the Doctor actors have brought their own personality to the character and that they have been renown because of that. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec)I entirely disagree with this removal. There is a need to have illustrative images of the described changes in appearance. There is also no requirement that a fair-use image can only be used in a single article on Wikipedia. That isn't how fair use works. Rmhermen (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It was actually brought to my attention on Template talk:Infobox character were I reported the extraneous markup (pinging AussieLegend in this discussion). There is a section about The Doctor in this page, which then has a {{main}} link to The Doctor (Doctor Who) article itself, where this image is available. Adding it here when it is available in the correct article elsewhere does not add further information. This article is specifically about the series, not the character. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Except, part of the draw/notability of the series is its longevity, which is, in part, the ability of the Doctor to regenerate/the ability of the show runners to replace a departing actor. As well as that these actors are cultural icons in the UK and elsewhere. It can be fairly argued inclusion is appropriate here as well as at the Doctor page. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is explained sufficiently in the article's prose. Especially in the "Changes of appearance" section, and with the table further down explaining just that and listing the actors. One image isn't going to add much more. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Dresken, you really shouldn't revert, say "let's discuss this", and then not discuss. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I haven't been very internet accessible at the moment. Although the issue appears to be slightly different to what I thought anyway. I thought the info box picture had been changed, but now realise that's another article. Now that I've worked that out, I'm personally indifferent to its inclusion here or not. However I will note rule 3a seems to be about the twelve individual images being used at all rather than their inclusion in this article. To me the rule says don't use more images when less will convey the same information. Dresken (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There were plenty of images released for the 50th anniversary which would convey pretty much the same information in one non-free image. The only problem is they don't include Capaldi, which I would be fine with but, considering the drama we had over excluding John Hurt, would get many a knicker in a number of twists. Rubiscous (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The image in question seems to be an end-run around WP:NFCC#3a - "They can't say we're using multiple images if we combine them all into one!" Does this constitute a derivative work? I'd say yes. This sort of thing used to be looked at by WP:NFCR but the only option now is FFD. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who/Archive 27
Original release
Release	present

Related Articles