Jump to content

Talk:The Doctor/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Should Hurndall, Hurt, and Jayston be added to the "portrayed by" section in the side-bar?

Richard Hurndall canonically played the 1st Doctor in the 20th Anniversary special "The Five Doctors" and is credited as such. John Hurt just played the War Doctor in the recent 50th Anniversary special "The Day of the Doctor" and is credited as such. In this capacity, they both have the same number of full television stories to their name as Paul McGann, and possibly more screen-time to boot.

Michael Jayston played the Valeyard, a later incarnation of the Doctor, and appeared in 14 contiguous episodes over the course of a full season, giving him more episodes under his belt in the role than McGann or Eccleston.

Over in The Master article, the "Portrayed By" section lists Gordon Tipple, even though he is on-screen for all of a minute, with his face covered, and his voice-over work was cut from the final production. The rationale behind his inclusion is that he is credited as 'The Master' in the on-screen credits. Using this same justification, would it not be acceptable to list Hurndall, Jayston, and Hurt under the 'Portrayed By" section on The Doctor article, given they all of them have much more screen presence?

Cousin zagreus (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the approach used by the James Bond article, which lists film, spoof, TV show and audio actors together (in alphabetical order, no less). It's worth discussing, though the infobox could get nightmarishly oversized if we don't keep it under control. —Flax5 23:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it's perfectly acceptable to have spoof, audio, etc actors who have played the role, such as those who played the Doctor in the Unbounds, or the Curse of Fatal Death Doctors, to appear in the "Other Actors" page, but Hurndall, Jayston, and Hurt play the role (and are credited as such) in the main television show itself. As has been pointed out elsewhere in the talk page, Hurt actually has more screen-time than McGann! Cousin zagreus (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The infobox? No. It's intended to be a very brief summary of the most basic, essential facts you need to know about a subject. Stuff that is complicated or subject to contradictions, justifications or long explanations is best dealt with in the prose of an article.Zythe (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
James Bond is originally a literary character, so all portrayals of him are by definition secondary to the original medium. By contrast, Doctor Who is a TV show, so portrayal of the leading role in the show is more relevant than in derived works. Mezigue (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hurndall played the same doctor as Hartnell and was playing a different doctor. Hurt should be with the other actors to have played the doctor. If Hurt doesn't count as a main actor because he only featured in one episode and a webisode then surely McGann shouldn't be on the main list either. user uncredited
Precisely! Hurt has had just as much on-screen presence as McGann. He, at the very least, having played a legitimate incarnation of the Doctor, and being credited as such in multiple productions, should be listed. I believe Hurndall should also be included, for similar reasons.
I can certainly see the argument against Jayston being included, as he's credited as "The Valeyard" as opposed to being credited as "The Doctor", but other than that, he's got more episodes under his belt than Eccleston does, so that particular argument doesn't really hold water for him. Cousin zagreus (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Not precisely at all. McCoy handed over the role to McGann, and McGann was de facto the Doctor until 2005 - the series lead, albeit of an aborted series, though the franchise still officially revolved around him despite the show's hiatus. Then the Ninth Doctor was cast. John Hurt doesn't have a tenure - he was a special guest star, not a series lead. McGann was the Doctor of his day; John Hurt was a guest star in a Matt Smith era Doctor Who episode. If we had a series of John Hurt stories between Smith's departure and Capaldi taking up the role, it would be a very different story.Zythe (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what having a tenure has to do with being listed in the "Portrayed by" section of an infobox. Over on the Master article, Gordon Tipple is listed. He was silent, in a mask, on screen for less than a minute, and he's listed in "portray by" for The Master. John Hurt and Richard Hurndall both played the character of The Doctor and were credited as such in feature length episodes of the program. They should be added to the 'Portray by' list in the infobox. Cousin zagreus (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The infobox is for quick information about the show. The most important actors are the series leads, who had tenures. Guest actors who played the part can be mentioned in the article proper. DonQuixote (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hurt should be listed as he was playing an incarnation of the doctor that has been played by no other actor and is listed with the doctors on the official website as well as being credited as the doctor. Hurndall was playing the first doctor but not his own incarnation and so he should not be listed. Jayston was playing the vale yard not the doctor and is never credited as the doctor. There is also no conformation that the vale yard came to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drwho16 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Read the rest of the discussion. It's not about whether he's a real Doctor or not - of course he is.Zythe (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly so why isn't he added? Drwho16 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

First of it is to do with if he played the doctor because this is what the article is about. Therefore if you are admitting John Hurt played the Doctor then why shouldn't he be listed with other actors to play the doctor. He should be added to list and his face should also feature in the picture. In official BbBC pictures Hurt is with the rest of the doctors, he is listed with the doctors on the BBC website and Moffat has said that his carnation is legitimate. Playing a lead in the fiftieth anniversary also makes him an important part of the history of the show, and so he should be added. Pacman464 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with decentralised discussions is the need for repetition of arguments across multiple pages. Anyway, the above is an in-universe argument and is also a POV. The neutral POV is to constrain the list to series leads and provide links for the other actors (which is what's in the current infobox). From a real-world perspective, Hurt is a guest star and isn't as prominent as series leads. DonQuixote (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Noreverts:, @Flax5:: Can you quit edit warring and bring your discussion here? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I can see a clear argument for not mentioning Peter Cushing as he didn't play "The Doctor" (in the same way that Heath Ledger's appearance in 10 Things... doesn't mean that he played "Petruchio"), Michael Jayston is a grey area, but Richard Hurndall is not. Hurndall played the Doctor every bit as much as John Hurt did, we shouldn't use the WP:INUNIVERSE reasoning that he didn't play his own distinct "incarnation" to exclude him. It is WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT to single out Hurt's portrayal as any more notable. Rubiscous (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
My gut feeling is that it should be limited to series leads (and yes that does include Paul McGann as there was an option for a series staring him even though it wasn't taken up). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 10:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
A complete list is obviously out of the question, considering the wealth of audio plays and other spin-off material, but I think a list of actors who have played the Doctor in the primary medium, television, would be informative. Adrian Gibbs, Michael Jayston, Geoffrey Hughes and Toby Jones are not credited as the Doctor, but are identified as being the Doctor in an abstract or ambiguous sense – their inclusion is a grey area. John Guilor played the Doctor, but only in a minor voice role. The only non-lead actors who unambiguously played the Doctor in a remotely notable sense are Richard Hurndall and John Hurt. I think that including those two, at least, would give the reader a somewhat better understanding of the history of the character's portrayal without taking up much space.
Come to think of it, a case could probably be made for Rowan Atkinson and/or Richard E Grant, but I'd rather not jump into that at the moment! —Flax5 15:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of {small} in infobox

Do NOT use {{small}} inside the infobox; it reduces the font size to an illegible size; the infobox already uses a small fontsize and using {small} withing will make the text unreadable. I am dead serious about this. The next one to do so may be blocked. I deal with accessability issues all the time and will fix any fontsize dropping below 11px without hesitation. And before you ask; I use everything default size on my PC, so there is nothing wrong with my setup. If you are using a bigger default font on your PC, then think twice about how your change will look on any other PC. — Edokter (talk) — 17:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't make silly threats unless you can back yourself up with policy or at the very least guidelines. I don't care how "serious" you are. Stop being uncivil and edit-warring. Rubiscous (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I take accessability very seriously, perhaps too much. But I cannot stand someone proclaiming their personal preferences over accessability. Those people always forget there are millions of readers who do not have their screens set to big fonts. Go read some text at 9px and tell me it is readable wihtout squinting. — Edokter (talk) — 18:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I can read text at 9px easily on this monitor (I can even read 7px without problems. 6px I struggle with), however on my smartphone's retina screen I obviously can't read unzoomed 9px without holding it an inch away from my eye. So pixels aren't really what we should be using to judge this. Readability at low px also varies wildly depending on which typeface you're using. Rubiscous (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It's an abuse of power to threaten to block someone just because they have a different opinion to you. This matter needs to be discussed properly. I don't see any problem with having it small and I can read it fine. In other info boxes certain information is made smaller. If several users agree it should be kept small and you disagree with this you can't block them. If every user on wikipedia disagreed with you would you block them all. Keeping he dates small makes the info box look tidier.Mumbojumbo1000 (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Edocter on this; {{infobox}} already uses the infobox style sheet from common.css, which is set at an 88% font size; the {{small}} tag then applies an additional 85% font adjustment, which results in a combined 75% font-size within the infobox.
While I personally can read fonts of that size, it's not easily readable - and all my browser settings are at default zoom levels (ie: none). I would also never get away with using that small of a font on any communications or presentations at work without it resulting in complaints from managers, coworkers, or customers. Accessibility is a real concern, and we need to take that into account for the mass viewership of Wikipedia articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It's supposed to be less easily readable. Any differing of font size calls attention to the larger text. The article's main body of text is less readable than the titles and headings. Any text formatting can cause accessibility issues, drawing a line at 75% seems arbitrary. If a line is to be set, it needs the attention of greater expertise than is to be found at Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who). Rubiscous (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
That is like saying a car isn't supposed to start all the time. I really cannot get my head around that reasoning. — Edokter (talk) — 19:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not, it's like saying a car isn't supposed to drive at 60mph all the time. If our aim was to cater for the most-impaired-common-denominator then we would be writing everything in large print, wouldn't we? The whole of Wikipedia apart from the headings is "too small and unreadable" to some. Rubiscous (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The aim is to cater for the largest common denominator, which is desktops with a default of 96dpi. 120dpi is not far behind, but they have no problems with smaller font sizes. Yet it is without exception the 120dpi users that force even smaller font sizes on those at 96dpi, making the text unreadable for them (and me). Go look at your screen setting; you have your screen set at 120dpi, which means that what you call 9px is actually 11px. — Edokter (talk) — 11:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Have a look at User:Edokter/fonttest#Using CSS px. If the output on the left shows in a larger then the image on the right, you will see my point. What you perceive as readable, may be completely illegible for others. THAT is why I am so adament about the issue. — Edokter (talk) — 11:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
They're the same size. (well, same height, this linux typeface renders slightly wider). 9px on that image becomes illegible to me at a distance of about 6 feet from my 19 inch monitor. If I take my contact lenses out the entire screen is a blurred mess even at "normal" viewing distance and it'd take a lot more than banning {{small}} inside infoboxes to help me with that. I'm not superhuman, I have less than perfect vision, yet {{small}} inside an infobox is well within the bounds of readable. Some people are incapable of viewing images, do we ban images from articles? No, we try to make sure that there is a suitable alt text description. Accessibility is all about allowing those who need to make adjustments to make the adjustments they need without problems, it's not about forcing those adjustments upon those who don't need them. Barring editors from employing a useful formatting option is not the ideal solution to this problem. Rubiscous (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
You got that all wrong; accessability is about allowing all readers to comfortably read Wikipedia, not just the disabled ones. Small font sizes is an accessabiliy issue for may readers, and they do complain about it ("use zoom" is not an acceptable answer here). What is so wrong about enforcing a minimum font-size that is readable by all instead of most? Again, I don't wnat to ban {small}, but I do want to ban {small} inside {small}. — Edokter (talk) — 13:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with having a minimum, but where should the minimum lie? There will be people out there who struggle to read {small} on its own, people out there who struggle to read infobox text, and even people out there who struggle to read standard unformatted text. Why draw the line at {small} inside {small}? Is it completely arbitrary or is there any kind of recognised standard you can use to back yourself up? Rubiscous (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I see no need to use {{small}} in this case. The dates look - at least on my PC - equally fine with and without {{small}}, so I'd argue - to ensure the best possible readability for any reader - that {{small}} shouldn't be used. That said, edit-warring over it is absolutely unacceptable and there will be consequences if anyone does it again. Especially you, Edokter, should know better as an admin than to threaten to block people you are disagreeing with. Regards SoWhy 19:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Making text unreadable repeatedly is vandalism. That is a blockable offence. This is no matter of preference. I am willing to defend that principle if so desired. — Edokter (talk) — 19:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Even if it were vandalism, you would be forbidden to act upon it according to WP:INVOLVED. The only exception to that rule are cases of "blatant vandalism", i.e. where any other admin would have done the same thing. As an admin myself, I have to say that this is not one of these cases and I would be very surprised if I were the only one thinking that. So if you notice similar behavior continuing, I strongly advice you request an uninvolved admin's assistance via WP:ANEW. Regards SoWhy 20:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Even if such edits were against some policy or guideline, they would explicitly fall under WP:NOTVAND. The only blockable offence I can see is 4 reverts within 24 hours [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]]. Rubiscous (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that violation, do not worry, But WP:BLOCK says that a block is not justified if "the actions have since ceased" which is the case. Further mentioning of this is counter-productive for this discussion, so let's just discuss the issue instead. Regards SoWhy 14:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Info box

I think the info box would read better and make more sense if the list of actors to play the doctor was split into two lists; series leads and movie leads. Therefore Hurt and McGann could be put into the info box and it would be more informative. For example, a reader may wonder why only twelve actors play the Doctor and yet there are only thirteen incarnations listed. It could be argued that Hurt was not the main character in the Movie although the plot did centre on him and he was the key figure in the episode.Noreverts (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hurt definitely wasn't the lead actor in The Day of the Doctor, he's billed fifth, and it wasn't a movie in the first place. The only movie leads in Doctor Who history are Cushing and McGann, and equating them in any way would be terribly confusing considering their vastly different statuses in the history of the show. I think the current series leads/other actors setup is as good as we're going to get. —Flax5 19:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If the reader notices that there have been 12 series leads but 13 incarnations then that is a good thing, we have communicated the facts well. Rubiscous (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Correct!Zythe (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2013

John Hurt should be in this image, he played the lead role in at least one episode, just like McGann, and plus he is cannon to the Doctor's incarnations.He should laso be on the other Doctor who wikipedia page too 86.173.238.138 (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see where consensus has been reached for this change in the section #Should John Hurt be added to the info box, a few threads above this one. I believe it would be better to open a full RfC for this issue to try to attract attention to it, so we can get input from additional members in the Wikipedia community. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Barek; an RfC seems the most economical use of our time at this point; those parties for exclusion and those for inclusion make equally valid points and don't seem to be budging. Who wants to do the honors? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Stfg (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote previously, I think we should simply replace the image with one of either the first or current Doctor. Then we should have a group image later within the article showcasing the in-universe sequential ordering of the Doctor's. That way we clean up the article while also avoiding a no-win scenario. Fact is, including the War Doctor in order is potentially misleading and excluding the War Doctor is potentially misleading.Stamfordbminus (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I simply don't understand that reasoning, Stamfordbminus. Hurt is an incarnation of the Doctor - we have explicit citation as to that fact, as well as the War Doctor being part of the rota. None of the references cited within the article or presented here have argued that any other characters are part of the incarnation series of Doctors. Yes, Peter Cushing and others played them in movies. yes, different folk portrayed them in audio books, or radio series and countless fanfic. That said, only 13 have portrayed the character in the parent series; only thirteen.There are precisely zero reasons to exclude Hurt from the infobox imagery. This isn't a win-lose category. There is only correct and incorrect. It is incorrect to argue against Hurt's inclusion, apart from personal preference. It is encyclopedic and correct to include him. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm just offering it up as a compromise. I agree with your side of things, but half the editors never will. Why not limit the image to the current(or original) actor and include a complete 13 Doctor image in the body of the article? It appeases both sides.Stamfordbminus (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this approach. Up until the War Doctor was shoehorned into the series, the montage of Doctors was a creative, uncontroversial way of providing a primary illustration for this topic. No longer. The real-world list of series leads is no longer consistent with the in-universe progression of incarnations and people are getting their panties in a twist. It's just exacerbating issues, it should go. Furthermore, replacing it with an image of the first or incumbent Doctor allows for a far shorter image description which would be favourable with regards to infobox brevity. Rubiscous (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree as well. Let's make it Peter Capaldi after Christmas, or William Hartnell sooner. Problem then solved?Zythe (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
"I am right, I just am!" is not much of an argument. There clearly *are* reasons: they are detailed in the discussion above. Mezigue (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
You misread my comment, Mezigue; I did not say I was right. Right and wrong are inconsequential qualities within Wikipedia (or should be). What I was talking about was what was provably accurate. This article is about the character. The notable current authors of the subject of this article say that Hurt is a Doctor, which trumps every little comment to the contrary. I've read the wall of text above, and have seen nothing - absolutely nothing - to contradict that. If you've read something else between the lines, I would ask that you present it. I'm just not seeing any argument beyond idli. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
You're muddying the waters by mentioning the actor's name. John Hurt isn't the Doctor, he is an actor who has played the Doctor, whose portrayal of the Doctor was not as series lead therefore is less notable than the portrayals by the other actors in the image, and particularly doesn't belong in an image described as "The Doctor as portrayed by the series leads". The War Doctor was an incarnation of the Doctor therefore certainly belongs in a list of incarnations of the Doctor. It depends what we are listing. Note that when I reworked the infobox as I described above I purposefully included War Doctor and Twelfth Doctor as incarnations but excluded John Hurt and Peter Capaldi in "portrayed by". Note that this has so far proved uncontroversial. Rubiscous (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
If you choose to read my streamlining comment as instead an in-universe "muddying", then I'd suggest that you might have missed the thrust of the argument and focused on a straw-man argument of your own creation.
Hurt portrays the Doctor within the series. This is not a fact in dispute. His portrayal is recognized as a legitimate incarnation by every reliable source. As to the "less notable nature" argument, I'll point out that an evaluation of such would only be made by a fan seeking to impose their personal viewpoint on the article. To that, I say, nonsense. Have other actors portrayed the Doctor in other media? Yes. Have they been such within the series (hereafter identified as such as the Parent Series)? No. In short, they are secondary portrayals, and not characterizations of the Doctor within the series. Of course, using that argument, McGann wouldn't be in the list either. But there he is. And I am not going to address any more nonsense as to whether Capaldi should be in the infobox list yet. Despite the deluge of sources noting him as such, we aren't inclusing him because he hasn't portrayed the character in the series as of yet. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
It's important we make the distinction between John Hurt the actor and the War Doctor the character (or more precisely incarnation of the character). I can see that the War Doctor is recognised as a legitimate incarnation in the sources, but that absolutely does not automatically make John Hurt as significant an actor in the series as Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Baker, Davison, Baker, McCoy, McGann, Eccleston, Tennant and Smith are. To suggest it does is to take the in-universe importance of the War Doctor and impose it upon the real-world actor. Now that would be "fannish". Rubiscous (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No one is confusing the two. Hurt is an actor in the real world. The War Doctor is a character. We are not making in-universe assessments; we are simply following the sources. "Significance" comparisons are entirely original research. The War Doctor incarnation followed that of McGann's portrayal and preceded Eccleston's portrayal. We are not here to decide which actor is important/significant or not: this article is about the character, and noting who has portrayed him in the Parent Material seems prudent and encyclopedic to do so. It wouldn't matter if Hurt's characterization lasted one episode or one hundred. He was cast as the Doctor, and so he shall be listed int he infobox as such.

Seriously, I am getting some serious deja vü about this discussion, akin to what we went through with McGann's film portrayal and allowing it here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

He is listed in the infobox, under Other actors who played the Doctor. MOS:INFOBOX states When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. As such, we do not list every actor to have played the Doctor, as there are dozens. We selectively include the most notable, and include a link to the others. To do so we must have a clear real-world inclusion criterion. Series lead is such a criterion. I can't see any real-world criterion that allows a list of Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Baker, Davison, Baker, McCoy, McGann, Hurt, Eccleston, Tennant, Smith. Only the in-universe one of listing actors who have played a "legitimate" incarnation. This is inappropriate as a basis for a real-world list. Rubiscous (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that the montage is free from the infobox's requirement to convey real-world information concisely, are we agreed that it should be reworked to include John Hurt in a more accurate account of the character's fictional history? The "Transitions" section seems like the ideal place for a more inclusive montage, since it already takes an in-universe perspective and acknowledges the McGann-to-Hurt and Hurt-to-Eccleston transitions. I'd do it myself if I had the technical know-how. —Flax5 21:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. A good publicity still of Peter Capaldi would make an excellent "main" image for the article, in the meantime.Zythe (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Image Debate

Moving this to it's own section as the topic has mostly been buried. There has been some debate over the page image. Should the John Hurt Doctor be included? If so, should he be in-between McGann and Eccleston according to in-universe continuity or after Matt Smith in keeping with real world performance order. As this has been a topic of some heated debate, my suggestion is we simply show only the current Doctor (or the original Doctor) in the image box. We can move the in-universe multiple Doctor image (with Hurt in-between McGann and Eccleston) to a less contentious place within the body of the article.Stamfordbminus (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the BBC currently have Hurt's picture inserted between Eccleston's and Tennant's on this composite produced to celebrate the show's 50th Anniversary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-25466389. Seems like good evidence that they consider him a 'true' Doctor. Catiline63 (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
This has already been said and acknowledged. The debate is 0% about whether Hurt is a legitimate Doctor within the fictional story.Zythe (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that official multiple Doctor image is what we should use within the body of the article. For the main page image, is anyone objecting to the use of a single Doctor image?Stamfordbminus (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the "current/First Doctor" compromise makes sense. I don't know what the Fair Use would be on a promo image in the article.Zythe (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Besides, that promo image is already out of date. I suggest an image of Twelfth Doctor for infobox as soon as a suitable one emerges. I can't see anybody arguing to keep the composite there. Rubiscous (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Yup. I think the problem was everyone trying to make the new situation "make sense" in terms of the old parameters. I think we could probably also revise the Doctor incarnations template so there's no "chronology," as now that in-universe and out-of-universe meanings of that term have radically diverged it is no longer a useful parameter.Zythe (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The issue I have with Template:Doctorwhodoctor is that real-world and in-universe are mixed. "Companions" should be moved below the (retitled) separator, and "series" should be moved above it. I've no problem with including key fictional elements as long as they take a back seat and are clearly signposted. Rubiscous (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I do formally object (just to satisfy those who think edit summaries are there to be ignored). As the article applies to all Doctors, the infobox should reflect this, so the multi-Doctor image should be in the infobox. Moving it down and replacing the image in the infobox with a poorly made screenshot also results inoveruse of non-free images on this page, which should be kept to a minimum. There will be a suitable image for the 12th Doctor soon enough, which can then be included in the multi-Doctor image. Until then, there is no reason to force Capaldi in there one way or the other, just for the sake of having an image in there. Wikipedia has no deadline. — Edokter (talk) — 09:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Nobody's ignoring edit summaries, but one edit summary doesn't overrule talk page consensus. As the subject had been discussed for weeks, with no objection thus far, the move was not bold, making your move back the bold edit to be discussed ;) The choice of image to replace the montage is a separate issue to whether the montage should be replaced. If the current image of Capaldi is unsuitable then we can use another image of a single Doctor, such as one of Hartnell as has already been suggested. The article applies to the Doctor, which is a single character. We don't need to display all of his incarnations, and as recent arguments have shown, choosing which incarnations to include/exclude is an issue too contentious for the infobox. Infoboxes should be kept simple, all we need is a simple depiction of the character. I agree that the current Capaldi image is far from ideal, ideally he would have his sonic screwdriver etc. It's not necessary to show each actor visually, the infobox clearly states that the role has been played by multiple actors, highlighting series leads, and then goes on to list his incarnations in full. The montage adds little, goes against MOS infobox brevity, and causes editorial issues. Rubiscous (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it is important to retain the composite image as the main image. This article has the challenge of describing the complex (real world) history of a fictional character who has been portrayed in a rather unique way. Showing the different portrayals of the Doctor right off the bat is one of the most effective ways to do that in a visual way for the reader to do that. Showing the current Doctor is simply recentism; he isn't any more significant than any other Doctor from our perspective.--Trystan (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The real world progression of actors playing a character is far from unique. Only the plot device is unique. Showing a composite of actors in character may have meaning to those already well familiar with the show but it doesn't describe this unique aspect of the Doctor to the uninitiated. You could do the same with James Bond actors, it's meaningless. The best way of visually describing the fact that the Doctor regenerates would be to depict him mid-regeneration. And is portraying regeneration, which only rears its head occasionally, more important than depicting other unique aspects such as the tardis which appears in almost every episode? I feel that rather than highlighting the differences between portrayals, we should focus on trying to communicate the elements that are universal to all. Rubiscous (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lead provides a good intro to both the history of the portrayal of the character and the related plot device of regeneration. To have a single actor's image accompany that text would strike me as conspicuously lacking.--Trystan (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
To a lot of readers, the current image is conspicuously lacking John Hurt. Until we are able to source a suitable image of Peter Capaldi, it is conspicuously lacking him. Can you think of a way of communicating this aspect of the Doctor's character graphically without the expectation for the image to be exhaustive? It's only going to get worse as years go on. Rubiscous (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we could use an actual multi-Doctor photo like this or this for the infobox? It would quickly convey the idea of multiple distinct incarnations co-existing in the same fiction, along with the idea that each Doctor has a unique look and costume. It would never have to be updated, it wouldn't swell the infobox too badly, and the fact that it's a group photograph makes it immediately clear to the reader that it's non-exhaustive, so people won't attempt to edit John Hurt into the middle of it this time (well, one can hope!). It also has the added bonus of featuring the vitally important William Hartnell. —Flax5 00:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I have restored the composite image in the infobox, for reasons stated above, PLUS the added reason that any replacement image lacks any fair use rationale for THIS article. Please respect our rules for use of non-free images and do not replace it with any other images that do not have a fair use rationale for this article. Thank you. — Edokter (talk) — 23:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, no, surely you've restored it PURELY due to fair use rationale concerns, and nothing to do with your reasons stated above, as otherwise that would put you at risk of having broken 3RR wouldn't it? ;) Rubiscous (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Consensus seems to have changed as well; I am not the only one objecting this change. And fair use rationale is a very valid argument. The burden on providing one falls to the editors wanting to include any other images. — Edokter (talk) — 21:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying lack of fair use rationale isn't a valid argument for removing an image from an article, I'm just suggesting that when making such a revert as your 4th revert within 24 hours you should take care to distance your reason for the revert from your reasons for the previous 3, so that nobody is in any doubt that you're claiming exemption under point 5 of WP:3RRNO. I may disagree with you on this issue but certainly have no desire to see you blocked. Rubiscous (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

So here we are still with no solution. Hurt is not included in the image. Capaldi is not included in the image. We have not switched to a single Doctor image. The image (as is) represents a non-linear in-universe progression of the character - Long story short, from an encyclopedic point of view this is a failure. There is no real way to satisfy both the in-universe perspective and the character lead perspective with a sequential series of images. To be clear, I would prefer Hurt in the main image in-between McGann and Eccleston, but that direction only satisfies one half of the equation. That leaves us a single choice. One Doctor. As for the idea that the article applies to "All Doctors" - differing faces aside, there is only one Doctor. The fact that he has been portrayed by multiple actors is covered well enough in list form and the (suggested) existence of a multiple Doctor image elsewhere in the article.Stamfordbminus (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What's the rush? There is no deadline. Fact is, there is no suitable image for the 12th, yet. Nothing we can do about that; we have to wait if we want to comply with policy. — Edokter (talk) — 22:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no rush. But there is also no need to wait. Matt Smith is still the most recent actor to star in an episode. Alternately we can also simply use an image of Hartnell.Stamfordbminus (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Collage removed again

So Stamfordbminus unilaterally decides there is a consensus by the fact I "dropped out of the conversation"? His sense of consensus seems to be that if you hammer your opinion enough that other editors are worn out opposing him, you have somehow reached "consensus". I have read this entire page three times now, and I cannot find the consensus to remove the collage. Please point me to where this conclusion was reached. — Edokter (talk) — 22:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If it is the fact that the long-established 11-image version doesn't happen to include Hurt (who was never lead-credited as the Doctor) or Capaldi (who had yet to be lead-credited as the Doctor) is the reason to change to the single image ... that's bogus. As said above, there is no deadline; when Capaldi's episodes start airing, or we get a good BBC promo image of him in costume (remember the original Matt Smith one out of costume???? hahaha), we don't have to rush to have him present. And I see no reason to include Hurt, as otherwise the same logic says we have to include the Valeyard (which we aren't). --MASEM (t) 23:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Edokter - If you had more to add then you were free to add it. You never responded. So yes, you dropped out of the conversation. That's just simple fact. And no, I certainly did not "unilaterally decide" anything. the discussion transpired over several weeks.

Seriously... You need to learn what consensus really means. It does not mean "the absense of repeated opposals". The fact I no longer post does not in any way imply that I agree with you, nor does it mean that my opinion is no longer valid; it only means I do not like to repeat myself. Several editors have rebutted your reasoning (and your "conclusions") and you choose to ignore them. Whatever the reason you think the image should be removed is not there; it exists only in your mind. Again: simply waiting for opposing views to die out doesn not constitute a consensus. — Edokter (talk) — 23:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I repeatedly said "previous" consensus. And qualified that it was reached "before" your participation. So think about that, and reread what you wrote above. I think you will see your misunderstanding. Regardless, I have no problem with you weighing and discussing your opinions, but you never addressed most of the points made for the change. So what should I do in a vacuum? You have strong feelings on this matter? Weigh in! But if you drop out without addressing the full topic...Stamfordbminus (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
(See reply below) — Edokter (talk) — 01:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Masem - The reasons are well outlined above. But to summarize, the image is either an in-universe consecutive image of the show's lead character or a consecutive image of the lead actor. Either way, the image is potentially misleading. After much arguing and edit warring over the two options, I proposed a third. A single Doctor image while creating an in-universe multi-Doctor image to elsewhere in the article. There was a general consensus on this topic before Edokter joined the conversation. As for the deadline issue that Edokter mentioned: Not an issue. The original actor is sufficient, or Matt Smith, who is still the most recent actor to lead the show. We can switch to Capaldi after his episodes begin airing.Stamfordbminus (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless the multidoctor image is a collage created by the BBC, this would be excessive non-free use. And the present 11-pic version is accurate, as there have been 11 lead Doctor characters to date, no more, no less. The deadline is that you can wait to change it until consensus is determined and given that last week was a major holiday week for most people, it doesn't make sense to consider the discussion closed because one person didn't respond. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you have your timelines confused. This dialog went on for weeks, and Edokter stopped responding after the holidays while still responding elsewhere. He checked out, which is fine. And if I recall correctly (as this dialog has gone on elsewhere) there is a BBC official multi-Doctor image. Even then, are you saying we have to have one that is official? All I'm saying is we incorporate Hurt into the pre-existing one and place it in a more relevant space in the article.Stamfordbminus (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
My read of the timelines does not show enough time to pass to assure 1) consensus was clear to change and 2) eDokter dropped out, when assuming good faith. In regards to the image, the point is if you use a single doctor image in the infobox and later the current 11-image montage that is constructed from several different stills, that's a violation of NFC as you dont need the extra single image of the doctor (The 11 image montage is counted as 11 NFC items but necessary to showcase all the main iterations here). On the other hand, if there is a good collage of all the Doctors made by the BBC, then that 11-image version can be replaced by the single image, and that would likely reduce non-free to a level that a single image of the doctor could be fine for the infobox. But of the collage images I've seen from the BBC so far, none of them are a really good replacement for the 11-image version we have so far. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
There was an agreement between three editors, and an opposing view from two others (me included). Next to this not-to-be-confused-with-consensus-disagreement, we now have again an image that does not have a fair-use rationale for this page. That is all the reason enough to revert you. But I'll give you a chance first to do so first. (I will remove the first doctor image in order to make the article comply with WP:NFCC.) — Edokter (talk) — 23:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, there were more editors involved as this was not the first location for this discussion. As for removal - Wikipedia encourages boldness. I have given you plenty of time to participate in a discussion that majority had weighed in on. If you want to change it, start a new discussion. As you've seen over the last few days, the attempt to include Hurt and Capaldi continues, as does the divide on how the collage should be assembled. If you have an alternative that will help mett people in the middle, I am more than happy to hear it. As for "fair Use rationale", I admit I am unfamiliar with some of the logistics. this is an image from the First Doctor page so we have some legitimate claim to use it and it was already on this page within the collage. If there is a small amount of paperwork to be done to legitimize it further, point me in the correct direction and I will take care of it.Stamfordbminus (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a weak sort of consensus to rely on that only exists for a few days until the editors who disagree show up. As I said above, I think some form of multi-Doctor image is important for the article, if we are renewing our objections.--Trystan (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it was a borne from intense debate over a longer period of time between parties that were in disagreement. The single image solution was offered up to help reach an accord between divided factions. So you want the collage? Great! But which one. Because as it is in your latest post, you're not quite addressing the issue.166.137.191.41 (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "previous" consensus; consensus must always be current. What should be done when there is no agreement is to let things stand as they are. Change needs consensus. And that does not mean rehashing the same argument ove and over again until others grow too tired to respond; people must actually agree with you. I already said I don't like to repeat myself (even if you do). I have given my opinion, and it stands until I retract them, not until you decide I haven't responded long enough. Agreement is the key to consensus, not a popularity vote, or some self-enforced compromise.
About fair use, go read WP:NFC, which explains all you need to know about our image use policies. — Edokter (talk) — 01:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and I have barely exchanged any words here. Where is this "rehashing" you keep mentioning? Perhaps I missed it, but you have yet to address the argument as I made it for the single image. Your rationale seems to be "I don't like it!" - okay, so how would you address the fact that the collage is potentially misleading with Hurt included and potentially misleading with Hurt excluded? This is an issue with the quality of this article that should be properly addressed, whether you want to participate or not.166.137.191.34 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, you know quite well that I have not been alone in the opinion if this change. You continue to load your posts with an extremely negative personal tone that borders on the attack. I'm beginning to think that you are to close to this topic and that perhaps you feel some form of ownership or need to "protect" this page. I'm happy to discuss these changes with you, but again, if you check out of the process that's on you. The single Doctor solution was borne out of several editors in disagreement talking about their issues - not splt digging their heels in and shutting down the discussion.166.137.191.15 (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. The way I'm reading WP:NFCC, specifically 3a - Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information, I take it that if a single official collage of Doctors exists then we must use it in place of one bodged together by an editor out of multiple non-free images? That the existence of the image suggested by Catiline63 in the above discussion [5] means that it should be used instead, and trumps any editorial concerns over the inclusion of John Hurt? Or if that still isn't suitable then Flax5's suggestion of an actual multi-Doctor photo like this or this? Does use of the current collage instead of any alternative single image significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, enough to satisfy WP:NFCC's point 8? Rubiscous (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your interpretation of NFCC, that a single non-free image collage should be used over one we make ourselves out of multiple non-free images. I don't think a single, non-collage image can convey the equivalent information, but the existence of a BBC composite makes that question moot, as far as NFCC is concerned.
I think the BBC 50th anniversary collage one is good; we just need a caption along the lines of, "A composite of 12 actors to play the Doctor, released by the BBC as part of the 50th Anniversary Special." Clarifying that the picture isn't one we made ourselves, and is from a particular point in time in the history of the show, helps defuse concerns about who exactly is shown.--Trystan (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I have seen that BBC image (as well as I think one that had Capaldi) at the end, but I do not believe that serves well to identify the Doctor character to those unfamiliar who whom the Doctor is - fans, yes; newbies, no. Further as soon as Capaldi leaves for the next actor, we'll need to redo our image in the first place, and we can't be sure the BBC will provide this. In terms of NFCC in considering why we should character images, per NFCC#8, the past user-made 11 image mosiac is the best solution than this BBC montage. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's better. It would be a rare occurance that an image that has been custom built for a purpose isn't better at serving that purpose than an image appropriated from elsewhere. The question is whether or not it is significantly better. The improvement has to pass a threshold. Consider that if we use only one non-free image in the infobox instead of eleven then we could include a further ten non-free images elsewhere in the article and still have the same total number of non-free images. Is the improvement made by choosing the user-made montage over the BBC one really greater than the improvement to the article that could be brought by a different ten non-free images? Rubiscous (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Transitions

The War Doctor is not the Ninth Doctor and should therefore not be numbered 9. in the list under this headline. Arms Jones (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

He's not being listed as the 9th doctor, he's clearly labelled the "War Doctor". The number at the start appears to be indicating the transition number. But, that is problematic as well for other reasons.
Actually, I would argue that the auto-number scheme should be removed entirely from that section. The text label of the doctor number is adequate, so the number isn't really serving a purpose here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is a completely pointless edit war where people are choosing to interpret the numbers differently. Mezigue (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. That sounds like a reasonable compromise. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 21:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, removing the numbers is a good idea. (Thanks for finally agreeing to discuss this, Ebyabe.) Arms Jones (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Would there be any complaints about changing the layout of this section? Instead of just a list... a table of the regeneration cycles showing all doctors, the actor who played them and any other important info with footnotes for how they actually died and regenerated? Lupercus (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Unless the show portrays second-cycle Doctors as in some way distinct from the first-cycle ones then we should not make any effort to separate them. We can give due mention to regeneration cycles in the prose. Rubiscous (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. We should make our emphasis the real world terms (the change of actor, the plot device called regeneration, etc. etc.) and internal fictive details should be addressed in prose, albeit not at run-on length.Zythe (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a table on the Doctor Who page showing the transitions between the Actors only... I propose this type of table here to show the chain of regenerations. I doubt there will be any actual difference between 1st-cycle/2nd-cycle doctors, however I would still recommend the table be split to show who was 1st cycle and who was 2nd to keep it consistent with the 12 regenerations rule. Lupercus (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a Doctor Who fansite!Zythe (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Add adding this type of table turns it into a fansite? What is so wrong with a simple table showing some basic info in a nice clean fashion? Lupercus (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
It's unencyclopaedic info. It's already mentioned in prose in an encyclopaedic tone. Building a table around it is unnecessary and fannish. DonQuixote (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you should review "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Unencyclopedic" instead of just throwing out a word to make you look like a big shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.252.132 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Er...perhaps you should review it. But to the point, as has been pointed out, it is precisely unencyclopaedic because it focuses on an in-universe perspective which contravenes the academic protocols for writing about fiction. So no, I'm not throwing words around, you're failing to understand or unwilling to understand how to write about fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Am I lost or is this not for an article about an in-universe character and would therefore include in-universe info? Lupercus (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
This is an article about a fictional character written from a real world perspective in a real world tone with real world info. You can read WP:WAF for more information (which you're failing to do). DonQuixote (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Even if we were writing from an in-universe perspective this proposal would be daft. What answers are we supposed to glean from such a table? Which regeneration cycle was the First Doctor? Oh, I see, the first. Which regeneration cycle was the Second Doctor? Oh, I see, the first. Which regeneration cycle was the Third Doctor? Oh, I see, the first. Which regeneration cycle was the Fourth Doctor? Oh, I see, the first. In 1982 there was the incident with the pigeon. Which regeneration cycle was the Sixth Doctor? Oh, I see, the first. Which regeneration cycle was the Seventh Doctor? Oh, I see, the first. Which regeneration cycle was the Eighth Doctor? Oh, I see, the first. Which regeneration cycle was the Ninth... I mean, I could go on. Rubiscous (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Do go on... "Which regeneration cycle was the Twelfth Doctor? Oh, I see... uh... actually, I don't see. Hmm, weird." Lupercus (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I would have fallen asleep by that point. Rubiscous (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding something

I don't know if you would count this as Original Research or whatever but anyways, since you state on the page under the Accent section that although David Tennant is Scottish they asked him to speak with a British accent, I have something to add on to that, in the 50th anniversary special (I believe its called "Day of the Doctor" the "of the Doctor" titles are confusing me as to which one is which a bit) when Tennant (as the 10th Doctor) is speaking to Elizabeth I she says something to the effect of "you are a great British Man" (I'm not actually sure if thats the quote cause I've only seen the Special twice, and don't remember the line very well) and Tennant replies with "I'm not British", I feel that since it's stated in universe that something should be added into that section mentioning that. also I just remembered something else. in the section that mentions the Doctors Wives (forgive me for not remembering the title you put on it) you have the quote from the 10th Doctor that refers to Elizabeth I stating "Virgin Queen, not anymore" or something to that effect, well in the 50th Anniversary special, something similar is said "so much for the Virgin Queen" after she kisses the Doctor, I'm not sure if you are wanting to add that or not but whatever, just thought I would let you guys know of these things so it can be updated and such a bit more than it already is. 98.154.187.240 (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The actors are going have to speak in some accent and the programme is British.. There's no point in my opinion adding what you say as it is, frankly confusing and adds nothing to the article. They didn't want the Scottish accent because they didn't want Who to be regional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcs2050wiki (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Actually, not true. First, Sylvester McCoy was allowed to keep his Scottish accent. Second, Christopher Eccleston not only kept his Northern accent, it was mentioned in dialogue with the immortal "Lots of planets have a North" line. What happened was Russell T Davies, producer at the time, didn't want a regional accent right after Eccleston, hence the decision to have Tennant execute "received pronunciation" (if the article uses the phrase "British accent" it's wrong because there are 100 British accents, including Welsh, Northern, Scottish etc). With Tennant and Smith now behind us, the door has opened for a regional accent again, hence the (confirmed by the BBC) decision to have Capaldi keep his accent. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Official first shot of Capaldi's outfit

[6]. Shame there's no BG but now we can talk about modifying the core image. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

I know it's an obvious point, but the infobox image needs to be updated to include the War Doctor and Twelfth Doctor. As I recall, Smith's image was added within about an hour of his regeneration airing back in 2010. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The BCC released a suitable image soon after Smith's regeneration. No image for Capaldi yet. Also, Hurt was not a lead. — Edokter (talk) — 20:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Should the portions of the picture link to the Doctors or to the Actors? It's been bounced back and forth lately, it seems. I just reverted the last change because it broke the link somehow (and I don't really understand how), but it does seem as though it should link to the parts since the actor list is just below in link form. Mezigue (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
He was most certainly a lead. If you're arguing that he isn't the lead in a series then your argument also rules out Paul McGann for inclusion in the infobox. I think we should include John Hurt in chronological position in the infobox image (between Mcgann and Eccleston (It's awkward not to)). Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
No, he guest-starred. McGann starred in the film, which is part of the series. Mezigue (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
How is the Day of the Doctor not part of the series then? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
It's part of the series, but as in the credits for it, Hurt is not a lead actor, he is a guest actor. Regardless how canon his incarnation his, his limit of being "guest star" does not qualify him to be included in the montage of "lead actors that have played the Doctor". --MASEM (t) 15:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a technicality. Call the infobox image the "actors to have played the Doctor" and it solves everything. Otherwise it's nitpicking. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Or leave it as it is and there is nothing to solve - even better! Mezigue (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not a technicality, it's history. Hurt is not part of the main cast. Similar to how Tony Todd will never be listed as series cast of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine even though he played an older version of Jake Sisko. So no. Please take the time to learn about writing about fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The Doctor doesn't work by the same rules as other characters. As long as he's in the infobox, I'm happy, and he is. I won't push for an image of Hurt because it would mess up the formatting and everything is neat and tidy. But the record shows that John Hurt appeared as the Doctor in three episodes of the series; McGann appeared in two, so he as just as much right to be there as McGann does. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
"Rights" have nothing to do with it. Mezigue (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I appear to be in the minority, but it still strikes me as odd that Hurt is not included. McGann has 1 film and 1 mini appearance under his belt. Hurt has a tv special and 2 other appearances. Why the favouritism towards McGann and refusal to recognise Hurt? Both or none, fair enough, but one and not the other mystifies me. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
McGann was the lead for two episodes, and was the current Doctor for nine years. Hurt was a guest star for three episodes, and was never the current Doctor. In real-world terms it's a major distinction. —Flax5 15:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
No one's refusing to recognise Hurt's incarnation as legitimate within the fiction. But context is key.Zythe (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move to "The Doctor"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


Doctor (Doctor Who) → The Doctor (Doctor Who) – I've been watching all of the seasons of the remake of this show, and "The Doctor" is the primary term. Even the article itself starts as "The Doctor is the title character and main protagonist in the long-running BBC science fiction television series Doctor Who..." — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"Name, rank, and purpose?" "Doctor, doctor, fun." DonQuixote (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake. That illustrates the importance of checking and re-checking sources. DonQuixote (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
He self-identifies as The Master: quote "I am the Master, and you will obey me", often heard during seasons 8, 9 and 10. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The general rule at WP:THE is "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not." Since we would not write "In the series, "The Doctor" is the alias..." or "Within the fictional narrative, The Doctor is a Time Lord...", we should not include "The" in the article's title. This case seems to me roughly equivalent to Joker (comics), which is one of the examples listed here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not usually a supporter of definite articles in article titles, but I think in this case it is justified for the reasons given by the proposer. "The" usually is capitalised in the running text in this instance. He is not "the doctor", but "The Doctor". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Not in every episode. He's also listed as "Doctor Who". DonQuixote (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
In the classic series, he's credited as "Doctor Who" from the start until Season 18, and as "The Doctor" from Season 19 to the end. In the new series, he's "Doctor Who" from "Rose" to "The Parting of the Ways" and also in "The Next Doctor"; and as "The Doctor" from "The Christmas Invasion" onwards, except in "The Next Doctor". --Redrose64 (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
That's original research. You need some sources to back up that assertion. DonQuixote (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, neither one of those sources says that his name is "The Doctor". They only refer to the character of "the Doctor". DonQuixote (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think it meets either test at WP:THE. In running text, it's the Doctor, not The Doctor. And the the is dropped when people are addressing him, so I don't think it is really integral to his name in the sense of the examples given for the other test. I think this case is more like Joker (comics).--Trystan (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit-warring

Not sure why Jack Sebastian has taken it upon himself to revert my edits today that have added sourced, supported, and relevant information about the Twelfth Doctor taken from recent interviews and yesterday's episode, "Deep Breath", but maybe he'd like to offer an explanation for his editing behavior here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

See the section below, and you are going to find me a friendly fellow to collaborate with, unless you bring that tone to the discussion. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Too much uncited information

I've reverted out some information added via several edits, wherein certain deductive (and therefore original research) leaps are made. In at least one instance, the episode was cited, and in another, the Huffington Post was cited in the section about 'Clara's boyfriend' that actually wan't in the referenced link.
The issue here is not the breadth of the information; several books have been written about the Doctor. We have to cite them, and cannot make those connections ourselves. If there is discussion to be had about this, let's have it. I don't feel the information should return without secondary sources explicitly making those deductions for us. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jack's assessment - some of the sourcing is very weak, and the information is very tentative. Additionally we do not have to breakdown every episode to fit it into this article - it should be a broad overview and less focused on specifics of the Doctor's personality and only bring up examples that secondary sources not as key or exceptional examples. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you can explain what is "deductive" about the information you stripped out of the article regarding Matt Smith's appearance in "Deep Breath". Was I jumping to conclusions by noticing that the Eleventh Doctor was in the episode? Was it original research on my part to add it to the section about other actors/Doctors appearing in stories where another Doctor is the incumbent? I'm interested in hearing your explanation of why that edit was somehow beyond the pale. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
You recall me noting in the section above that you might want to cool your jets a little bit? Being snarky isn't going to work with me, so calm down and I'll explain why each removal was made. Starting from the last batch reverted:
'(1) "In the Twelfth Doctor's debut story, "Deep Breath", it is left deliberately ambiguous whether the Doctor pushed the leader of a group of androids harvesting human body parts in Victorian England to his death or persuaded him to commit suicide."' - the problem here is that you are assuming that it was left deliberately ambiguous. You have no reference to support that. As well, the bit about the post-regeneration trauma seemed entirely something that you reasoned out - what I call Sherlocking. Our opinions are not notable enough for inclusion. I admit that the bit about the fashion was maybe a hasty call, but it all seems a bit...crufty.
"The Twelfth Doctor says in his first full episode, "Deep Breath", that he has lived for more than 2,000 years, squaring with the notion that he spent about nine centuries defending Trenzalore." - Squaring? Sounds an awful lot like deductive work going on there. We don't give credence to notions, unless they are explicitly cited.
(2) - citing to the primary source while making overt claims. You need a notable secondary reference to back that up, not your own observations of the episode.
(3) - same problem as #2.
(4) - same problem as #2.
(5) - this is the edit I referred to as not being supported by the Huffington Post source.
(6) - I admit, I might have made an error in this, as it looks to be actually good information for the section. I'll put that back in. Put back in!
I hope that explains my revert. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate you restoring part of the information. But I don't see how, for instance, the bit about the Twelfth Doctor discussing his accent is in any way different than the (actually unsourced) notes about the Eighth and Ninth Doctors' accents. (EDIT: I see this information has also been restored. Thank you.) There is a lot of stuff in this article that rests entirely on primary sources, e.g. the episodes themselves (which doesn't seem terribly inappropriate for an article about a character from the TV show), and your removal of new information in a similar vein about the current Doctor strikes me as very arbitrary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry that you feel that i singled you out for reversion, Kudzu1; it wasn't my intention. The article is a hot mess, and you just happened to post what I felt was more of the same sort of problem. Please feel free to cull some of these issues from the article; I think the article would really improve drastically from even a bit of attention. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I was only looking at the change + removal. This article needs a good purge, and focus on details that can be provided by secondary sources, with explicitly that between the 50th anniversary and the new season specials that are aimed to introduce the character of the Doctor to new viewers, we should be able to follow to the level of summary they use here. It's very easy, for example, to showcase examples and have that expand out to be every single instance (like the "brushes with greatness" of historical figures the Doctor is claimed to have encountered). We should be able to have the bulk of this article sourced to third-party and secondary sources and avoid using primary sources, specifically the episodes, to make this better. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Dates

Does a line and a half really make the difference between starting in 2013 and 2014? or in January or April, or what have you. 174.17.231.41 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Richard Hurndall (who portrayed the first Doctor in 'The five Doctors') should be listed in the infobox as 'Other actors who have played the Doctor'. The only actor to be listed here is John Hurt who portrayed an incarnation of the Doctor in 2013, however he was merley a guest star and never had a full tenure as Doctor. Richard Hurndall also portrayed an official incarnation of the Doctor (the first) and was also a mere guest star. I believe that both Hurndall and hart are the most prominent actors to play the Doctor, outside of the main twelve actors to do so. The article 'Other actors who have played the Doctor', to which there is a link in the infbox, talks a lot about spin-off or parodies wheras Hurndall played the part officially.

Please give your views on whether Richard Hurndall should appear in the infobox alongside John Hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.175.222 (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they should be either both included or both excluded. In previous discussions about this, there seem to have been very few arguing for one but not the other, so I'm not sure how that's where the article ended up.--Trystan (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason that Hurt is mentioned over others like Hurndall is that he played a specific, new version of the Doctor, compared to Hurndall that did a great job of capturing Hartnell's version of the Doctor. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand this line of thinking at all. The parameter is "Portrayed by", not "Portrayed as distinct incarnations within the fictional continuity of the series by". Hurndall played the Doctor every bit as much as Hurt did. —Flax5 20:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The First Doctor has a singular portrayer that set what his mannerisms and style were, and that was Hartnell. Hurndall's shot at the role in the Five Doctors did the best to capture how Hartnell portrayed the doctor, and did not try to establish a new version. Hurt portrayed the War Doctor in the same fashion. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Masem, if you're are only saying that new, seperate incarnations of the Doctor should be in the infobox (which is riddiculus), then by all means Micheal Jayston should appear. He played the Valeyard in 1986, a future incarnation of the Doctor. Also, I agree with Flax5. - Anon 21:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.175.222 (talk)
Valeyard's connection to the Doctor is tenacious by one throwaway line in an episode, compared to how they went back and forth to assure the War Doctor fit into the continuity right where he did. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason Hurt is in the infobox is because in-universe continuity fans wanted Hurt in the infobox as a "legitimate" Doctor (they're all legitimate, to be honest). It was a compromise to list him separately from the real-world series leads. DonQuixote (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Jayston should appear but I really think Richard Hurndall has made a massive contribution to the history of the show, even though he only appeared in one episode. For that episode, he WAS the Doctor, even though he was just covering for William Hartnell. Just as John Hurt WAS the Doctor for one episode. Neither of them had a full tenure but for the small amount of screentime they had, they WERE the Doctor. I think if John Hurt is there then Hurndall should be too. Also, I don't know why there is such a fuss. It would only be one line of text, it's not taking up much space. How do people decide these things anyway? Is there a vote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.175.222 (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In terms of the show's 50 year history, Hurndall's contribution doesn't merit inclusion on the infobox. We're not erasing him from history - merely suggesting the infobox be kept spare and useful.Zythe (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I give up on this battle! (86.149.175.222 (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC))

Note: A user today added him to the infobox using the above discussion as a reason. I see no clear indication that consensus has changed to include him, so have reversed the addition. To clarify if consensus has indeed changed, an RFC may be necessary. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Matt Smith is the thirteenth Doctor - infobox states eleventh

Matt Smith is the thirteenth Doctor, he says so in the Christmas special and it's the reason he needs a new regeneration cycle to become Capaldi (14th Doctor technically). The infobox currently states Matt Smith is eleventh, but this is incorrect since it doesn't count the "War Doctor" numerically and doesn't account for Christopher Eccleston regenerating and keeping the same face (mentioned in the Christmas Special 33 or 34 minutes in). So if the article states the doctor gets 13 incarnations, 1 from birth and 12 regenerations, then we can't call Capaldi the 12th Doctor, since it's incorrect and potentially confusing. I would like the infobox changed to state that Christopher Eccleston is tenth and eleventh, since this would correct things and count the War Doctor numerically sinc ehe still is The Doctor. The episode is still on iplayer if anyone wants to check this for confirmation, but it has to be changed either way as there's an issue with the infobox being in conflict with what both the BBC and our own article on regenerations state. Discussion welcome. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 21:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not Eccelston that regenerated and kept the same face--it's Tennant (The Stolen Earth). This also goes to show that Tennant's Doctor is specifically referred to as Ten in the episode. DonQuixote (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The infobox links to the articles we have about each incarnation of the Doctor, which are each named according to Wikipedia's policy on article names (see WP:COMMONNAME). We must name the articles according to how the incarnations are commonly described in the sources, and we should keep the infobox concise (see MOS:INFOBOX: When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.). Rubiscous (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Jenova, let me start by saying that I completely agree with you. In my fannish heart of hearts, I call Hurt the Ninth Doctor, Eccleston the Tenth, Tennant the Eleventh and Twelfth, Smith the Thirteenth, and Capaldi the Fourteenth -- to be fair, I also count series from 1963, not 2005, so we just wrapped up the 35th season as far as I'm concerned, not the seventh.
Unfortunately, word of god states otherwise -- Moff says Eccleston's still the Ninth, Tennant's the Tenth, Smith's the Eleventh, Capaldi's the Twelfth, and Hurt's numberless, and he's the one who gets to make that declaration... however wrongly he wants to make it, same as the Beeb can inaccurately but officially reset the series number.  ;)
I suppose the difference Moff wants is that while Tennant was the eleventh and twelfth Doctors chronologically, he's still The Tenth Doctor and Smith is The Eleventh Doctor and Capaldi is The Twelfth Doctor (even though the Capaldi Doctor clearly recognizes he's the 13th in The Day of the Doctor... even though he's chronologically the 14th... excuse me while my head explodes), and we should regard the (capitalized) numbering scheme as an identifier rather than as an actual count. That's unfortunately the official terminology and that's what the infobox should reflect -- although it also should both include Hurt in the list as he is now a canonical Doctor within the series continuity, and indicate the disconnect between the Doctors' ordinals after McGann, and the actual number of regenerations used. The Rev (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Why would Ten be two Doctors if he didn't change? One incarnation, two regenerations. Eleven is the Eleventh Doctor, twelfth body, thirteenth chance at life. Also, Capaldi doesn't speak in TDOTD - a Time Lord recognises "thirteen" TARDISes in the air. Zythe (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The BBC explain everything here http://www.doctorwho.tv/whats-new/article/watch-the-doctors-13-regenerations thanks Kelvin 101 (talk)
Anyway, the regeneration in "The Stlen Earth" was aborted, so it wasn't a full regeneration even if it may have "used the energy" of one full regeneration. So Tennant only played one incarnation. As for the War Doctor, he was a character not fully regenerated from the 8th Doctor was not even worthy of the name. he was the Doctor but still he wasn't. So Smith was the 11th. Arms Jones (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Matt Smith is the 12 actor to play as the Doctor, currently there are 13 Doctors/Actors playing the main Doctors in the TV series so technically Matt Smith is the 12th, that's regardless of whether the Doctor used up 2 regeneration's in 1 Doctor because that regeneration didn't change into a different person until the 2nd regeneration which is why Peter's easter egg was known as the 13th Doctor when is mentioned by one of the Time-lords in 'Day of the Doctor' when the 13 Tardis's turned up. Ronnie42 (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Matt Smith certainly isn't the 11th Doctor, but it seems to me some people hold the numbering system in such a high regard they refuse to change it. John Hurt is the 9th Doctor, Eccleston the 10th. Tennant the 11th, but is he the 12th as well - that I'm not sure on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.28.246 (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well it's ridiculous that John Hurt is listed under "others" in the infobox when clearly he's #9 -- 24.212.139.20 (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

But Hurt was never a series lead. I think we should operate by the common name principle. If a preponderance of reliable sources begin rejecting the idea that the Eccleston Doctor is Ninth, Tennant Doctor is Tenth, Smith Doctor is Eleventh, Capaldi Doctor is Twelfth, etc., and characterizing them differently, then we can address that. But right now, even the BBC -- which produces and broadcasts the show -- refers to Capaldi's character as the Twelfth Doctor: [8] [9] [10] [11] I think the article does an appropriate job of categorizing the Doctors and their regenerations and explaining the chronology. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Matt smith is Eleventh- Technically thirteenth because Meta-Crisis Doctor doesn't count, but War Doctor does 69.62.160.40 (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"By 2013, the character has been played by twelve actors"

Shouldn't the above now be changed to something like 'By 2014 the character has been played by thirteen actors'? Or, if we're sticking with this line that Hurt doesn't get counted with the others because he isn't a 'series lead' then something like 'By 2014 twelve actors have headlined the series, with John Hurt also playing an incarnation of the character as a guest star in the 50th anniversary episode'?

Even if we discount recasting (like Hurndall) or characters who may or may not be the Doctor (like the Valeyard or Curator) the line 'twelve actors have played the Doctor' is still factually incorrect. It's pretty unarguably thirteen.176.253.243.174 (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It could probably be written better, but the next sentence says "Several other actors have played the character on stage and film, in audio dramas, and in occasional special episodes of the series." DonQuixote (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I take the point, but then as a completely legitimate, seperate, canonical TV incarnation of the Doctor (albeit one who doesn't appear in any solo TV stories and only turns up as a special guest) I'm not sure Hurt should be lumped in with people like Trevor Martin and David Banks. In the history of the franchise he's far more significant than them, if perhaps not on the same level as the 12 leads. I think reference to 'twelve leads plus John Hurt' is still a bit clumsy, but the best way to get the key facts across.
Besides, the text as it currently is is confusing. Obviously the first eleven actors are Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Baker 1, Davison, Baker 2, McCoy, McGann, Eccleston, Tennant and Smith but it isn't actually clear which the twelfth actor being referred to is, as both Hurt AND Capaldi played the Doctor in 2013.176.253.243.174 (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to copyedit the text, but keep in mind that encyclopaedia articles are written from a real world perspective and thus the series leads should be emphasised more. As to the importance of Hurt, he's on the same level as Michael Jayston in that they guest-starred in noteworthy episodes. DonQuixote (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've made the changes whilst trying to stay within the guidelines. Hopefully it's now both more accrate and still easy enough to follow.
Just on one further point, do we really think Hurt is on the same level as Jayston? Hurt is very clearly playing a real new (to the audience) incarnation of the Doctor, a point the narrative is at pains to make clear, whereas Jayston is playing 'a distillation of the darker side' of the Doctor. That the Valeyard is actually literally a future incarnation of the Doctor is never made explicit, the narrative never really explains WHAT he is.176.253.243.174 (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
That's great, thanks! As for "real new incarnation" and "distillation", those are in-universe terms. From a real-world perspective, they're guest stars who have played versions of the Doctor. Unless, Hurt comes back and reprises the role, adding more real-world significance, he and Jayston are on the same level. DonQuixote (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Well someone seems to have taken offence and changed it back. Oh well.176.253.243.174 (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sonic screwdriver is not a weapon

While it can be used to harm electronics, robots and those dependent upon machines, the sonic does not maim or kill and should not be considered a weapon, even though it has been used as such on non-organic beings such as Santa decoys. It has also been used to overload the ears of sensitive aliens (maybe they were robots-- can't remeber) but had the sound system not been there it would have been unusable as a weapon. That is not the primary or intended function of the screwdriver.69.62.160.40 (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed redirect

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Redirecting 'The Doctor' to Doctor Who's 'The Doctor' about that thing it says in the link. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Doctor/Archive_6&oldid=1257987020"