Talk:Eighth Doctor

Inclusion of both Timelines

I have not done this myself as I hate the constant edit wars, so if we could solve it here that would be great, but surely to satisfy both parties we could put something along the lines of: Ninth Doctor (Christopher Eccleston, Real Life)
War Doctor (John Hurt, In Universe)
Asterixtintin (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has clear rules about avoiding in-universe writing. So, no. DonQuixote (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Way back in the older days, before WP's standards are what they were today, we would record in-universe information. As a result, the article about Lightsabres wound up being longer and more detailed than the article on Franz Ferdinand. This is why WP does not support in-universe writing. This should not be an exception to the rule. Justin.Parallax (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The in-universe section says, and I quote - "It is acceptable to include both the fictional timeline and the real world timeline, providing that the distinction is not ambiguous; the real world time line should take precedence."
Asterixtintin (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The fictional timeline is already mentioned in the article proper. The infobox is for summarising key real-world information. DonQuixote (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

In which case Hurt's Doctor should placed as succeeding Smith's. He is not. The fact remains that the War Doctor is a BBC recognised Doctor, so deserves placement in an infobox, otherwise he becomes as unimportant as Cushing's Doctor within the "Whoniverse". It seems to me that the most logical place is to add him to both the Eighth and Eleventh as succeeding, and put a note in parentheses as to how he succeeds them.
Asterixtintin (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but in-universe isn't as important as real world info. The infobox is for real world info, and as such succeeding and preceding actors are placed there. As for the importance of the War Doctor, he's mentioned in the article proper:

McGann reprised the role for a webcast mini-episode, "The Night of the Doctor", in 2013, which precedes the 50th anniversary special, "The Day of the Doctor". He is shown to be a conscientious objector to the raging Time War between Daleks and Time Lords, and is killed when attempting to save a young woman who rejects salvation at the hands of a Time Lord. He awakens in the company of the Sisterhood of Karn, who explain that he has died and been temporarily resurrected. They urge him to bring the War to an end, and give him a choice of elixirs to trigger his regeneration. Saluting his various companions, he drinks an elixir designed to produce a warrior, regenerating into the War Doctor (John Hurt).

Everything is in their logical, real world place. This isn't a fansite, it's an encyclopaedia. DonQuixote (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I never disputed the fact that he was mentioned in the article or that this was an encylopædia. What I am saying is that, in your "logical, real world" progression, the War Doctor is not in a single infobox. He was the twelfth actor to play an individual, BBC Doctor, but is not

recognised as such. In terms of canon he is the ninth BBC Doctor, and again he is not recognised as thus. If we are to create a comprehensive, encylopædic, real world guide, he should be marked in both places with a note as to which line of progression the following is in.
Asterixtintin (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

He's in two infoboxes, actually...Doctor (Doctor Who) and War Doctor. All this has been discussed and you're not bringing anything new to the table.

The articles are written from a real-world perspective and is about the history of the programme. Any in-universe continuity can, and has been, mentioned in the appropriate places. In the real world, the actor Christopher Eccleston played the part in 2005 after Paul McGann in 1996. John Hurt played the part in 2013 concurrently with the then incumbent Matt Smith. All of this is already mentioned in the appropriate places. DonQuixote (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Well you understand what I meant, I'm sure. You know what I said as well, of course. Also, I haven't seen anyone else suggest the inclusion of both universes, but that could just be that I haven't read thoroughly enough.
Asterixtintin (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite aware that you want an article in a fan-orientated in-universe prose. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that mainly concerns itself with one universe, the real world one, so it's going to be written in terms of a real-world perspective. You can go to tardiswikia, or some other wikia, if you want to present the information in terms of in-universe. DonQuixote (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If I wanted fan-orientated, in-universe prose, I wouldn't want the inclusion of both universes, or the comment about which universe it was in. What I was trying to say is that you fully understood that I meant a Doctor (character) infobox, and not a general Doctor Who article infobox.
Asterixtintin (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

He's in a character infobox in War Doctor. And adding "succeeded by War Doctor" to the infobox on this page is completely in-universe and inappropriate for the real-world orientated infobox.

Again, you're not the first person to request this, and consensus is against you because Wikipedia prefers real-world over in-universe (see talk page archives for talk:Doctor (Doctor Who) amongst others). DonQuixote (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please understand, as far as WP standards are concerned, we are interested in THIS universe. If people are interested in fictional ones, they are free to look into the show or it's fan wikis. But the real-world universe takes precidence always. Similarly, we shouldn't make exceptions to this rule simply because the show has got rather tangled up in its own continuity. Consider the companions as well - Paul McGann's character mentioned his companions from the audio plays last year as well, should they be included in the infobox simply because of that? The answer is no - if it were otherwise, we would be obliged to include every companion, which would make the infobox a mile long and cause casual readers great confusion as to when Colin Baker would ever have had a show featuring Frobisher the giant talking penguin. We therefore keep the fields in the infobox limited to real-world THIS universe info only. Remember, keep it simple, keep it real. Justin.Parallax (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for commenting so late on this. I have some concerns that the 'real world perspective' rules may be being applied in an inconsistent/unhelpful way. I imagine anyone who has just seen 'The Night of the Doctor', and witnessed the Eighth Doctor (as played by Paul McGann) regenerating into the War Doctor (John Hurt), would be somewhat baffled to read in the infobox here that the Eighth Doctor was succeeded by Christopher Eccleston, especially since the article itself twice mentions the character's regeneration into the War Doctor. Another problem with the infobox is that the Eighth Doctor (a fictional character) cannot in any event be succeeded by Christopher Eccleston (a real-life character), even if the latter has '(Ninth Doctor)' tagged on after his name. It thus appears that, in its desire to maintain a 'real-world perspective', the infobox has turned into an unhappy hybridisation of the real and fictional worlds, which does justice to neither. Can anything be done to improve the current situation? Chronarch (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Indiana Jones (adult) portrayed by Harrison Ford. Succeeded by Sean Patrick Flanery (young adult). It's common practise. DonQuixote (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

There is the potential for confusion, given the retroactive establishment of the War Doctor character. However, the article should resolve that confusion in the direction of a real-world understanding (after McGann, the next show lead was Eccleston) rather than a fictional narrative (which can also be explained, but shouldn't be highlighted over the real-world order of events).

Regarding the character/actor order in the infobox, I agree that they should be swapped. Eccleston follows McGann, but the Ninth Doctor follows the Eighth as the main character of the show. See Talk:Eleventh Doctor#Eleventh Doctor Preceded by David Tennant.--Trystan (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Usually the actors are more important than which version of the character they portray.

Darren Stephens (season 1-5) portrayed by Dick York. Succeeded by Dick Sargent (Season 6-8).

Sheldon Cooper (adult) portrayed by Jim Parsons. Succeeded by Iain Armitage (child).

DonQuixote (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the actors are important, but so is keeping the character and the actor distinct. I would support a change to the infobox identifying the Eighth Doctor's companion as "Grace Holloway (Daphne Ashbrook)", but I would find the other way around misleading. Since the parameters of the infobox describe the subject of the infobox, it currently says that the Eighth Doctor was succeeded by Christopher Eccleston, which is like saying Darren Stephens was succeeded by Dick Sargent.--Trystan (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the infobox is literally saying: The Doctor (The Eighth Doctor) portrayed by Paul McGann. Succeeded by Christopher Eccelston (The Ninth Doctor).

And you make a good point in that Daphne Ashbrook should be listed in the infobox as well. DonQuixote (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

DonQuixote - many thanks to you and others for your comments. Actually, the infobox appears from its heading to be about the fictional character of the Eighth Doctor (not about McGann as actor and series lead). Subsequent entries give further information about the Eighth Doctor (his first and last appearances, and the fact that he is played by McGann), but I still think that the most natural reading of 'succeeded by' would that it relates to who succeeded the Eighth Doctor, not who succeeded McGann. On the other hand, 'tenure' (which presumably means, though this is not stated, 'tenure as series lead') can only relate to McGann. The whole infobox thus still seems to me a somewhat uneasy blend of fiction and reality. The underlying problem, of course, is that the article professes to be about the fictional character, but an apparent determination to couch everything in terms of actors and 'series leads' is cutting across this and producing hybridised results. Personally, I'd restructure the infobox, and try to get across both the fictional and real-world successions, but perhaps it would be too difficult to reach agreement on that. Chronarch (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eighth Doctor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070129000300/http://www.drwhoguide.com:80/who_bf50.htm to http://www.drwhoguide.com/who_bf50.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Release date of the Doctor Who film, and tenure of the Eighth Doctor

I recently corrected the date of the eighth Doctor's first appearance to the date the TVM first aired; AlexTheWhovian however reverted this claiming 'UK series, UK date.'. Which is not a valid argument, firstly the TVM was a co-production, and secondly it's utterly irrelevant to what the actual date of his first appearance was, which is inarguably when his first appearance aired regardless of where it did so. The second point, edited was the end date for his tenure as the current Doctor, which is clearly when Eccelston became the new current Doctor. The character of the Doctor was still appearing as the current Doctor in media right up until that point, the character which is what the article is about covers more than just appearances in television, even portrayed by McGann (Just to note as an aside, this article is not about McGann though, but the eighth Doctor). No valid counter-argument was made in those revisions so those edits should be re-instated, especially the first, which is just a straight-forward objective fact.219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian's second edit claimed 'His tenure ends on his last regular appearance, which was the film.', which, as above doesn't account for the fact that the character was regularly appearing in media right up to that date, secondly, 'regular' can't apply to one instance of something by definition; "regular, adjective: 1.arranged in or constituting a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual instances. 2. recurring at uniform intervals.", and thirdly there's no basis for claiming that criteria for his tenure as the current Doctor.219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I can see some merit in discussing your first point - as it was a co-production - so why is the later UK date given preference. But you should drop the second point as it distracts away from the first - the tenure field is for the actor being the lead character in the TV series - see the Template:Infobox Doctor Who doctor - which does not encompass other media. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The first point is much more straight forward yes, there's no reason to give the UK date preference here, especially as it is false in regard to the date of the character's first appearance. On the second point the link you've provided does not assert that the tenure field is for 'the actor being the lead character in the TV series', this article is not about the actor (I anticipated that point and mentioned it in the earlier comment), but about the character.219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

As I also stated - the fields in the info box relate to the TV series - not other media. Dresken (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. You say the link you've provided does not assert that the tenure field is for 'the actor being the lead character in the TV series', but then you say the fields in the info box relate to the TV series. How can the tenure field not be for the lead actor of the TV series, but then must only be related to the TV series? -- Alex^TW 04:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the same person as Dresken, so... no I'm not. Dresken, -the infobox does not assert that it only contains information relating to the tv series and excludes other media, nor does 'tenure' imply that. Tenure as the current Doctor naturally continues as long as the character is being depicted as such. Again, this article is about the character.04:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Apologies; I misread the comment. I support Dresken's comment. You don't seem to be replying to the Big Finish counter-example. The Seventh Doctor had a Main Range release this month - why does his tenure not say "present" or "December 2018"? We note your opinion on the tenure, but you have no agreement here on such a definition. -- Alex^TW 04:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Also I specifically did answer your assertion about past Doctors. The very fact that you're calling them past Doctors demonstrates the distinction in question. 'Tenure' as the current Doctor in relation to the character, does not carry any implication of being solely specific to the actor's tenure in the television show. The TVM is fairly distinct from said show in terms of production as well.219.88.68.195 (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Then where's your source that from 1996 to 2005, the Eighth Doctor was not referred to as a past Doctor? That seems like your own WP:OR. -- Alex^TW 05:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a disingenuous argument. Are you asserting the character was considered a past Doctor in that period? Would anyone? That's not WP:OR, and over-use of citing policy in places it doesn't apply doesn't make it accurate. I might as well ask where your source is that he was not referred to as a purple dinosaur for goodness sake; that's not how anything works.219.88.68.195 (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You're making the assertion that he was considered a "current" Doctor at the time. You need to back that up. You say this, at the same time that the classic-era Doctors are apparently still past, even though they are still active in spin-off media, but the Eighth was apparently current while also still active in spin-off media. -- Alex^TW 08:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

That he was not a past Doctor at the time is not a controversial or (I would assume) a disputed assertion, the BBC explicitly marketed the past Doctors as such, see Past Doctor Adventures, and discontinued the separate Eighth Doctor range when the new series started. In regard to your earlier links, MOS:TV#Broadcast actually counts against your position, as the production was non-UK, the TVM is distinct from the BBC series Doctor Who, even the BBC's minor part was under the subsidiary BBC Worldwide which, which was explicitly for operations/sales outside the UK. So 'the original network or streaming service of release in the country of production' was not the UK. One of your links was ' List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC' so of course that's a different context and would use the date it was broadcast by the BBC. That the other dates are the same doesn't indicate anything about consensus without those edits haven't been addressed explicitly. I would contend those dates should be corrected as well where the context is the same, describing the two other links provided there as a ' multitude of articles' seems like excessive hyperbole. You also ignored the point that 'regular' can't by definition refer to one instance of something. In point of fact, pedantically speaking, the Eighth Doctor had no regular appearances in any televised series, since he never appeared in any series. He was in a single film, and a single minisode. He did however have regular appearances as the incumbent Doctor in other ongoing official media, which is no less authentic officially produced Doctor Who content that the television show.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reason is similar to MOS:TIES; an article that has a strong relation to a particular English-speaking nation should use the details related to that particular English-speaking nation. Thus, the date that the article uses for his first appearance is that of his first appearance in the UK, due to the series being a UK series as a whole, irrelevant of the production of a single episode. Also per MOS:TV#Broadcast, the broadcast information that we should use is the original network or streaming service of release in the country of production (i.e. the British network for a British series such as Doctor Who[...]). You have no basis for the tenure; his first and only appearance in an episode broadcast by the BBC was the film. Other media is irrelevant - past Doctors are still appearing in Big Finish material, are their dates listed as currently appearing? No. You can also see the note listed at The Doctor (Doctor Who)#Actors for the Eighth Doctor, where, interestingly, the date is also listed at 27 May 1996. Same as The Master (Doctor Who), List of actors who have played the Doctor, List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC. See the documentation at Template:Infobox Doctor Who doctor for the "finish" parameter: The last regular appearance of the Doctor in the last episode where they are credited as starring. -- Alex^TW 03:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not a detail relating to a particular English-speaking nation, it's a point regarding an objective fact about the date of the character's first appearance, nor is it a point about broadcasting, since again this article is about the character, his tenure as the current Doctor begins on the date he first appears as the Doctor. Which is inarguably when his first appearance first aired. Past Doctor stories are explicitly marketed and presented as such, that reinforces the point if anything. Other media is certainly not irrelevant, this article is about the character who appears in multiple mediums, not solely about the TV show.219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a series related to a particular English-speaking nation, so the content must related to that particular English-speaking nation. When there's been a clear consensus on a multitude of articles on what date to list, since 27 May 1996 is the date listed in all of those articles I've detailed, then there needs to be a clear consensus to overrule that. Yes, his tenure started when he first appeared, I agree. Which was, inarguably, his only and therefore last television appearance until the online webisode released in 2013. Thus, his tenure ended when it began. As I said, which you specifically didn't answer: past Doctors are still appearing in Big Finish material, are their dates listed as currently appearing? Television content is the only material detailed when it comes to articles about the television release of Doctor Who. -- Alex^TW 04:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This article on the other hand, relates to a character who first appeared on a specific date, if as you've asserted, his single appearance is the only one which is relevant in relation to the character, then the first airing of that is the only one which is relevant. This isn't a matter of language/spelling, whether to use color or colour, but of the objective fact of when the character first appeared. If the date is also incorrect in other articles that's another matter entirely, you can't cite other articles as support for incorrect information.219.88.68.195 (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I most certainly can, as it proves that there is a WP:CONSENSUS across a multitude of articles to list the date as it has been stably listed for years. -- Alex^TW 04:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually you most certainly can't, since that doesn't prove WP:CONSENSUS for the infobox on this page. The date of his first appearance is a point of objective fact, what other articles state is irrelevant.219.88.68.195 (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It proves it via WP:EDITCONSENSUS. The articles are all directly related through the date; your personal opinion of it is irrelevant. If it was released on 27 May 1996, then that is the date listed in all articles concerning its release date. -- Alex^TW 05:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It really doesn't, again, this is a point of fact. Other articles may be about the TV show or contain incorrect information themselves, it's irrelevant, this article is about the character.219.88.68.195 (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

And hang on a second, what do you mean 'if', we know that's not the original release date, you've already implicitly acknowledged that.219.88.68.195 (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is noticed; I recommend that you look into how Wikipedia consensus works. Stop trying to put words into my mouth. Yes, it was released on 27 May 1996, but this discussion is to agree whether we considered the UK broadcast first or not. -- Alex^TW 08:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Nothing I expressed was 'personal opinion', your passive-aggressive and condescending tone is not conducive to how Wikipedia works. The objective fact is that it wasn't first. I haven't put any words in your mouth, you haven't disputed that the earlier broadcasts were earlier at any stage, the basis for your argument that the UK date should take precedence implicitly acknowledges they were earlier.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, IP, please consider. This article is on the watchlist of many Doctor Who fans, of various ages and outlooks. After the 2013 special, even more so. In all that time, the start and end dates in the infobox have been what they are. Doesn't that seem odd? Perhaps there's a Wikipedia-specific reason for that. Alex is relating some of the reasons. Others will very likely comment on this in the near future. IP, you have been editing here since 2013. You should be aware of the various policies and standards. What seems logical and reasonable and self-evident on the surface is sometimes not the way things work on the site. Perhaps you might consider bringing your concerns up at the Doctor Who WikiProject for a broader range of commentary? Cheers, and happy editing! --Ebyabe (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I've already looked back at various versions of the article in its history, and that's not actually accurate in regard to the dates for the character's tenure as the current Doctor remaining static.219.88.68.195 (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs that support this? -- Alex^TW 04:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't really feel like going through multiple versions of the page again and then coming back here and copying pasting numerous links, only to inevitably have to muck around with edit conflicts, for something that can be easily and quickly checked more easily, especially when it doesn't seem like it'd make a difference to you; | here's one219.88.68.195 (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The onus is on you to back up your claims. If you cannot do it, you have no claim. The diff was almost ten years ago. You're going to need something far more recent and reliable to back up the claim that the character's tenure as the current Doctor has been static. -- Alex^TW 05:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't make the claim that the character's tenure as the current Doctor has been static, quite the opposite. And that's a fallacious argument to start with.219.88.68.195 (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Back it up, or no claim. Simple. -- Alex^TW 08:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Again I didn't make the claim you stated I did, and I reject your argument as unnecessary wiki-lawyering, it's already been established that the date has not been static over the entire course of the article's history which was the claim I was responding to. It was also a fallacious argument to begin with, we can't infer something is established fact simply from remaining in place for any amount of time without being addressed, it is not evidence in of itself.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

This can be solved quite easily, with two questions; -what was the original airdate of the TVM (i.e. his first appearance), and that's original as in 'first'. And on the second point, between which dates was the character considered the current Doctor, with media featuring the character reflecting this.219.88.68.195 (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

That's very simple. May 12, when the TVM premiered. Though one might argue that it could be May 14, when it aired on primary broadcaster (Fox), rather than an independent station in Canada that aired it two days earlier. I can't see how anyone would think that the BBC date would be correct, given their minimal involvement in the production. Nfitz (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting how you've appeared here, at this very moment... You have no basis for using "first" for another country. Please leave the WP:STATUSQUO as it is, as it should remain while a discussion is in place, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. Arguments have already been presented as to the use of the 27 May date, as to ties with the series being British. As for the IP, the article has always used and most likely always will use the film as his only televised appearance, and thus the only span of his tenure. -- Alex^TW 08:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure your point here - I've been editing in this topic area for about 13 years. There's no reason not to edit the page, simply because one recent editor is making up their own guidelines about who can edit when. Particularly over such a trivial point. Perhaps the issue is that we changed this from the previous status quo, when that recent mini-episode aired in 2013. Before that everyone was happy to just have "1996" rather than putting a month or even a date on it. So let's try a compromise. And enough with the WP:SQS - you toss WP:STATUSQUO constantly to try and block other people from violating your often made up rules, blatantly ignoring that it says it is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling. Nfitz (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and not this article. But who's the editor making up a guideline? Certainly not me, I haven't said "stay off this article", nor made up any guidelines. I do see an editor, however, telling another editor that they can't use established essays and guidelines... (Very incorrectly, I might add: Status quo stonewalling is typified by [...] and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change - yes, I haven't contributed here at all!) However, I'm not seeing how it was changed only because of the minisode, when it existed as such months before it was released. What's the compromise, then? Interesting compromise. Let's see what other editors think. -- Alex^TW 14:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you were implying with your reply to Nfitz above, I can assure you they are not myself, if that's what you were going for. I am puzzled by your response to them that "You have no basis for using "first" for another country." or your use of shock quotes around first. The basis is that it was literally first, the 12th of May is before the 27th of May. That's what first means. I disagree that you've demonstrated a consensus on this point, as to the compromise Nfitz has gone for, fine, I don't see the need for it personally since there is a clear answer here that you for whatever reason have an issue with, but if it's better than nothing, at least it doesn't relate incorrect information.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Ssard and Stacy Townsend

I note that these two are mentioned at the start of the novels section. They first appeared though in the Radio Times Doctor Who comic strips, and they would later appear in one novel, the start of the Novel section makes it sound like their adventures were in the novels. It also mentions the events of the last Virgin New Adventure novel, The Dying Days, but doesn't draw a distinction between that and the continuing BBC range. As it stands it looks like there must have been a gap in the BBC novels themselves after dropping off Sam, rather than her being the regular companion for the first 26 books of the series. Those other stories appearing elsewhere, with the gap only being retroactively created in Placebo Effect for the former, and theorized as the period the second must have occurred.219.88.68.195 (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Eighth Doctor Full Image.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)