Talk:Eleventh Doctor

Eleventh Doctor

It is now disputable you could argue David Tenant is the 11th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.229.9 (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You could, but that would be original research). Moffat is saying that this the eleventh Doctor, read "Moffat: "The Doctor numbering stays exactly the same"". Doctor Who TV.. Edgepedia (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Moffatt isn't King of Doctor Who he's just a writer. Frankly in my opinion it's utterly barmy to call Smith the 11th unless they wipe Hurt's Doctor out of existance at the end of the special. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.229.9 (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a reliable source, rather than your opinion, which is how wikipedia is written. Edgepedia (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Writers determine the content of a show. As a result, the writers opinion trumps the fan's. Justin.Parallax (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

opinion is opinion abd besides Smith is nit the eleventh incarnation of the main protagonist he may be the eleventh to call himself Doctor but not eleventh overall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.197.148 (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal opinion on that, the creators of the show have said otherwise. Wikipedia works on verifiability, we can verify that this is the intention of the show's writers. I understand that your personal opinion differs, but that is original research, which has no place on wikipedia. Hope that explains a bit better. Justin.Parallax (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source suggesting renumbering link. I'm not saying it is definitive, but I imagine we will have many reliable sources arguing both sides of this. How this will be resolved on wikipedia will prove, erm, interesting. Retroactive continuity is a pain for those documenting an ongoing work, and throw time travel into the mix and the problems multiply. The writers' previous comments may have been to prevent spoilers, and may also change over time. We shall see.--Mongreilf (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

We can describe the rectroactive continuity, but we don't have to go back and retroactively change all the articles to reflect the new continuity. We can describe both in terms of programme history. DonQuixote (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If it is decided (decided by a majority or consensus of reliable sources, not decided among Wikipedia's editors) that Capaldi's Doctor is the 13th Doctor, then the title of that article should probably be changed. If it is also decided that Ecclestone et al are bumped up a number, their article titles may also need changing.--Mongreilf (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Just change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.104.146 (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Final episode

The article already states that the Eleventh Doctor's final episode is the upcoming Time of the Doctor but it is not stated in the infobox. Are there any objections to putting it there now? NorthernThunder (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, just putting this out there, his final appearance will be the first episode of Season 8, but we'll have to wait till that is confirmed in a reliable source (YouTube leaks are not). ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Eleventh Doctor Preceded by David Tennant

As this article is about the fictional character, the Eleventh Doctor, it is simply incorrect for the infobox to state that the character was preceded by the actor, David Tenant. It's difficult to properly address a controversial change when it just gets re-added to the page rather than brought to the talk page to build consensus (please consider following WP:BRD in the future), but I'll attempt to address the very brief rationale provided in the edit summaries below.

• it is the actor who creates the character - It would be more correct to say that a character is created by the actor, show runner, writers, costumers, make-up artists, camera operators, and many other artists. A character is much broader than just the actor's portrayal, and may be depicted in multiple forms of media. Conflating a character with the actor portraying him makes the article read as overly fannish, like talking about Tom Cruise fighting aliens rather than whatever character he is portraying.
• this follows the DW:MOS - I don't see this point addressed anywhere in WP:WHO/MOS. That guide very appropriately says to put the actor first in a cast list, followed by the character name. But a character list is different from a cast list. Just as we don't say that the Eleventh Doctor's companions include Karren Gillan, we shouldn't say that he was succeeded by Peter Capaldi.

This article is about a fictional topic, and should be written from a real-world perspective. That is to say, we shouldn't step into the fictional universe and write from that perspective. A key part of that is keeping fictional portrayals distinct in treatment from the actors who portrayed them. Compare other fictional character infoboxes, e.g., Lennie Briscoe.--Trystan (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Writing from a real-world perspective, it's one character played by multiple actors who preceded and succeeded each other. As an example illustrating the point, Indiana Jones was played by Harrison Ford (adult), River Phoenix (teen) and Corey Carrier (child) in that order. If ever that article needs to be separated into the different incarnations (this part is purely hypothetical) then we would have something like:

Character: Indiana Jones (teen)

Portrayed by: River Phoenix

Preceded by: Harrison Ford (adult)

Succeeded by: Corey Carrier (child)

Makes perfect sense from a real-world perspective. DonQuixote (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The parameters of an infobox describe the subject of the infobox and article. The fictional character "Indiana Jones (teen)" was not preceded by "Harrison Ford (adult)". In that example, you are relying on the reader knowing that Harrison Ford is an actor, and that therefore the only sensible way to read the information is by assuming that the "Preceded by" parameter only makes sense if read as a description of the "Portrayed by" parameter, rather than of the subject of the infobox, as all other parameters are read. If I didn't know anything about the subject, I would interpret it as saying that Indiana Jones was a teenaged character played by River Phoenix, and that the main character in earlier works from the same series is an adult named Harrison Ford. Writing from a real-world perspective does not mean we confuse characters with the actors portraying them; it means we keep them distinct.

In the case of this article, the "Portrayed by" and "Preceded by" are in completely separate parts of the infobox, so it is even more unreasonable to expect the reader to understand that the latter refers specifically to the former, rather than to the subject of the article and infobox.--Trystan (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that anyone will read it like that (and only if they consider everything in terms of in-universe). It's a trivial concern. DonQuixote (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think sloppy writing is ever too trivial to correct.--Trystan (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Er...as I have pointed out, it's not sloppy writing--it's writing from a real-world perspective. DonQuixote (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Raggedy Man/Doctor

An IP's edit to change the caption of an image from "Raggedy Man" to "Raggedy Doctor" was reverted. Since the picture is from "The Eleventh Hour," which uses the phrase "Raggedy Doctor" and not "Raggedy Man", the former would make more sense to me for the caption. The phrase "Raggedy Man" doesn't show up until "The Big Bang".--Trystan (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eleventh 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/20111018204742/http://www.shadowlocked.com/20100502354/opinion-features/doctor-who-matt-smith-the-best-doctor-since-tom-baker.html to http://www.shadowlocked.com/20100502354/opinion-features/doctor-who-matt-smith-the-best-doctor-since-tom-baker.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Appearance Section > Suggest it be cut back or replaced altogether

The appearance section is quite long and detailed. And it's duplicating content already covered in episode pages.

My suggestion is to either:

• remove the section altogether in favour of a list of cross-references to the season listing pages
• include a brief synopsis of the seasons and specials with relevant x-references to the main pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotheek (talk • contribs) 05:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)