Talk:Tenth Doctor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

tears

Is the Doomsday episode the first time we have seen the Doctor cry? If so, it seems somewhat significant, and perhaps should be mentioned in the article. I seem to remember an article in Radio Times Magazine that said that this was the first time the Doctor had been seen to cry but perhaps that is just referring to the two new series, and unfortunately I have no means to verify this statement as I have long since thrown out the 'offending article' as it were. Can anyone help? Ammi 14:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sex/Dancing

"The 2006 series continues the exploration of the Doctor's romantic aspects, with the Tenth Doctor sharing kisses with Rose (albeit while she was possessed by Lady Cassandra) and Madame du Pompadour." It was pretty clear to me that the Doctor did more than share kisses with Madame de Pompadour ("The Girl in the Fireplace")! She reads into his mind and becomes mentally intimate with him, states that it's time that the lonely boy was no longer lonely (or words to that effect), led him into her bedroom - and the next time the Doctor shows up in a scene he's loudly singing "I Could Have Danced All Night." (Dancing being an occasional awkward metaphor in the series for sex.) Aren't we sort of determinedly ignoring all this? I have seen far more subtle representations for sex in other movies and television... - The Unknown Fan

Well, the Doctor said in Army of Ghosts that he has had kids (which presumably has an impact on fan squeamishness about Susan's origins, and hints at RTD's attitude to stories like Susan being the granddaughter of the Other), and am I alone in seeing significance in his shocked, "You're not...?" at the end of Doomsday when he assumes that Rose is pregnant? Is it a hint that he assumes any child of Rose's might be his?--Bobizgrate 18:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Another way of looking at the Doctor's assumtion of Rose's pregnancy is that since it was never stated how much time has passed since the breach was closed and their good-bye on the beach (but enough time for Jackie to get pregnant) he might have assumed that Rose was pregnant with Mickey's child. The scene is ambiguous enough (coupled with the feelings they have for each other that have been "danced" around almost since day 1) that it could be take either way. I personally like the idea of his thinking the child was his though ;), but the Mickey idea works as well. Also, wasn't it in the episode "Fear Her" that the Doctor mentioned that he was a father?--CNJArtist 14:57, 11 July 2006 (EST)

Bearing in mind that most of the kissing done to the ninth and tenth doctors was not reciprocated (he seemed to be politely accomodating Captain Jack. He appears somewhat shaken and sometimes even violated every time someone kisses him as if that side of life had not entered his head for a long time and came as a complete surprise - indeed Cassandra mentions that the romantic parts of his anatomy had not been used in a long time in New Earth - The kiss the ninth doctor shared with Rose in the Parting of the Ways was very much a means to an end and seemed to me the most sex-less kiss ever shown on TV. There was affection there but little else.) The only person that the Tenth Doctor paid attention to in a romantic way was Madame du Pompadour, and that is understandable seeing as she was a famous mistress and was openly in love with him, and had seen inside his mind. At that point the impression I got was that the Doctor experienced an awakening, but considering that 1) when he sings the song from My Fair Lady he is pretending to be drunk and is putting on a persona rather than it being his own, and 2) the fact that he finds it almost impossible to talk about love and his affections for Rose are hesitant and stilted at best - as are hers for him. And not even mentioning the fact that throughout both series MICKEY was Rose's boyfriend and lets face it the doctor isn't exactly the two-timing kind.... I think it is very unlikely that it even occured to him that the child would be his. The impression I got from watching that scene at the end of Rose's final episode was that this was the first declaration of love from a previously unrequited relationship (they hug a lot, but 21st century friends do), and that the doctor seemed almost shocked that she could be pregnant, as if it was an uncomfortable reminder that Mickey was her boyfriend and not him and he was wondering if she really felt for the doctor all that he felt for her. It had all the feigned delight of someone who'd just found out that the secret love of their life is getting married to someone else (Aside from the joy that discovering that a new life is going to be born has for anyone). I know RTD said that he was going to explore the Doctor's romantic side a little more in this series, but I think he is far too sensible of the fans and canon of Doctor Who to push it any further than that. Ammi 13:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

All I'm saying, folks, is that a simple mention that the Doctor *may* have had or *probably* had sex with Madame Du Pompadour is more complete than a wifty mention of a romantic relationship. - The Unknown Fan

Kilt joke

It might be helpful if someone can locate the original article in which Tennent is quoted as saying he wanted to wear a kilt as the Doctor so it can be cited in the article. 23skidoo 19:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It was in The Daily Mirror (link to web version added as you suggest.) Tim! (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Well done, thanks! (It's a fun piece of trivia if nothing else). 23skidoo 02:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Accent

There's a new interview with RTD in SFX (ha!), in which we find this:

There have been all these conflicting stories about the Tenth Doctor’s accent. Will he be English? Will he be Scottish? Will he be a bit of both? So, go on, tell all. For us! “D'you know, I keep getting letters about this, and it's weird. Did you not watch 'The Parting of the Ways'? Did you fall asleep before the last scene?! (Don't answer that) He spoke! That was his accent, him there, that Doctor talking, on screen, him. I know he doesn't say much, but it's very, very clear. Anyway, describing accents in print is one of the odder things I've been asked to do, so you'll just have to find out at Christmas."[1]

I feel like some part of this ought to be included, or at least reflected, in the bit on this page about the Tenth Doctor's accent, but for the life of me I can't figure out how to do it. Anybody else care to give it a go? —Josiah Rowe 01:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've done something. Have a go at it.--Sean Black ^Talk 01:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a bit more, 'cause it seems to me that Davies is casting a doubt on whether we're hearing what we think we're hearing when we call his accent "Southern English". But then, I'm a Yank, so what do I know? —Josiah Rowe 01:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm from the States, as well, actually. My experience with accents is mostly limited to Ben and Tegan, as sad as that is :).--Sean Black ^Talk 01:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I lived in England for a year (attending Uppingham School), for what that's worth, but I'm still far from Henry Higgins when it comes to UK accents. —Josiah Rowe 01:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I Am a Dalek

Just to be clear, is I Am a Dalek a novel or a short story? As listed now, it appears to be the fourth novel in the Tenth Doctor series. 23skidoo 00:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a novel. A short one, but a novel nonetheless. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Will it be released by BBC Books or is it coming out under a separate publisher (ie. like Big Finish's Short Trips)? 23skidoo 01:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like it'll be under BBC Books. Quick Reads is a program that publishers and writers are participating in, not a separate imprint as far as I can tell. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Theme tune link

Can we find a better name for it than "Tenth Doctor's theme music", perhaps along the lines of "New series theme music"? The current name implies the different seasons have different music. (This applies to the Ninth Doctor article too.) --Whouk (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "theme arrangement"? After all, it is the same song. 23skidoo 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Arrangement works. Note that the title arrangement is subtly different in The Christmas Invasion; it sounds a lot like the closing theme to series one (which you can only really hear clearly at the end of Parting of the Ways).--Aderack 10:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone actually heard the arrangement being used in the regular series? If it ends up being the same as the 2005 series, maybe the link should be renamed "Christmas Invasion theme arrangement"? 23skidoo 16:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The link isn't to the closing Christmas Invasion music. AFAICT, it's identical to the Eccleston and TCI opening theme - not really a Tenth Doctor specific arrangement at all. It's copyright status is also questionable. —Whouk (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that, but I listened to the Ninth Doctor theme link and the Tenth Doctor one back-to-back and there are definite differences. The 10th theme sounds "busier" than the 9th. Maybe they were just recorded off TV differently? 23skidoo 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the TCI theme sounds like an edit-down of the Eccleston closing theme rather than the opening one. Compare it to what you get over the end credits to Parting of the Ways and tell me it's not the same. --Aderack 16:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Pop Culture references

Maybe something should be mentioned under Personality about the new Doctor's apparent love of Earth pop culture as evidenced in The Christmas Invasion? In his few short moments of action after waking up he managed to reference The Lion King, The Highlander, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Spaghetti Westerns ,possibly a few other things too which I failed to spot.

While not disagreeing, perhaps it's a little soon to make such a conclusion. I would rather wait until we see more of it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Let's wait till a few more episodes are aired. As the Doctor himself says, he's still trying to figure out what kind of man he is. 23skidoo 02:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it that this Doctor is especially well versed in modern culture, or is it that some event in Series 1 made 21st century culture the predominant culture for the next few millenium? Cassandra's knowledge of the word 'chav', as well as the coincidental fact that the 'iPod' she brought out in End Of The World featured 21st century music, and added to that the fact that our present day TV shows are still being shown in thousands of years time, leads me to believe that the pop culture we are experiencing today is going to last for a long time, perhaps the Golden Age of Chav TV. My guess is that when Rose sent out the words Bad Wolf through space and time, she also sent out a copy of the News Of The World that she had been reading. Or am I just nuts? Damiancorrigan 23:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of the novels seem to suggest that things go in cultural cycles. In the far future, we'll have episodes of Prisoner: The Next Generation, for example. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer my idea.

Anyway, the cycles seem to be short and frequently recurring - I forget what number Big Brother they were up to but it clearly reappears quite frequently.Damiancorrigan 23:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Free Radicals" in tea?

I realize the Doctor stated that the free radicals in tea aided in his regeneration, but I think this was a scripting error, and the intended term was antioxidants (of which tea is actually a good source). Free radicals tend to have a damaging effect on cells. Should any note be made concerning this? I understand this is a little nit-picky, but I'm a stickler about bad science : ) Stationwagontodd 13:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, give the man a break, he's in the midst of regeneration trauma, after all! :) if this is to be added anywhere, it's probably most appropriate in the notes for The Christmas Invasion itself. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides, he's been known to "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow" and credit the "high concentration of positive ions" for feeling good on the Eye of Orion. :) (I just figure that (a) our terminology is "wrong" compared to the Time Lords, and/or (b) he knows better than we do.) --Joe Sewell 17:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We're also talking about an alien who could be killed by aspirin, so we shouldn't expect a one-to-one correspondence between human toxins and Time Lord toxins. proteus71 1:31, 11 Apr 2006 (UTC)

I agree, free radicals may have been just what the Doctor wanted, however, it is commonly understood that it is anti-oxidants not free radicals that are found in tea. Now I realise I'm arguing with myself a tad, but I recently read in RD (December 2006 issue I think)that although tea has a lot of antioxidants in it, it is also surprisingly teeming with free radicals. This would make the Doctor correct in his statement about free-radicals and tanin. Tinkstar1985 06:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

He is an alien. Free radicals may be good for him, but bad for us. Time Lords are different. --I.W 19:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Affected accents

Are you certain D10 was the first to use an afected accent? I thought the first Doctor did something like this. And the Fifth Doctor impersonated the accents of at least 3 of the previous four Doctors in Castovalva. 23skidoo 21:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I should have typed ' first to affect an American accent'. Thanks.  :) proteus 1:27, 11 Apr 2006 (UTC)

OK, that works (unless Hartnell did so in the Gunfighters, of course ...) ;) 23skidoo 05:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Dent?

He also referred to his pyjamas and dressing gown as being "very Arthur Dent". However, it's unclear as to whether he actually met the character, or was just throwing in a Hitchhiker's reference.

I'm aware of Douglas Adams having been a writer for Doctor Who, but I'll admit I'm not so well versed in the Whoniverse* to know whether or not it crosses over with the HHGTTG universe—although that seems to be pretty darn unlikely, giving the absurd nature of the latter. Are we really suggesting the Doctor might have met a fictional character (in the Doctor's world as well as ours), or that he met a random "Arthur Dent" with the same taste in pyjamas?

* I just googled this term I made up and it appears to be in common use—neat! :-)

82.92.119.11 19:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In one episode, the Fourth Doctor critiques one of Oolon Colluphid's books. --82.10.128.225 20:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's in Destiny of the Daleks, where the Doctor claims that Colluphid got his book on the origin of the universe "wrong on the first line". smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That reference was inserted by DNA himself. Well, if the universes do cross over, I guess it's just a matter of time before we see Doctor Who and the Vogons. Maybe this time the Earth won't be demolished... 82.92.119.11 21:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Taken from whoisdoctorwho.co.uk -part of the bbc.co.uk canon for the new series. "Arthur Dent This rather odd man was lying down in front of a bulldozer in front of my home" Ammi 13:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. All these are submitted by readers; you'll notice that both I (Terence Chua) and Josiah Rowe both have submitted entries there. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the Doctor is simply aware of HHGTTG as a work of fiction (eg: if he mentioned Homer Simpson, you might just assume he is referring to the TV show, not a fat, yellow, 3 finger and a thumb friend of his). I'm sure the Doctor was just referring to Authur Dent with full knowledge that he is a fictional character. Tinkstar1985 09:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Quirk or coincidence?

OK, so we've now seen the Tenth Doctor twice determine the identity of substances by tasting or licking them. It's odd, but is it noteworthy? A personality quirk or just a coincidence? Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he's just been watching too much Due South. Angmering 06:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It reminded me of Richard E. Grant licking the mirror in The Curse of Fatal Death... —Whouk (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Must be a Tenth Doctor thing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Grant was a ninth doctor, wasn't he? Damiancorrigan 23:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

He was the tenth incarnation of the Doctor in Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death, too. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Whilst Grant did play the Doctor, and probably sat somewhere around incarnation 9, he doesn't really fit into the main Doctor Who timeline, in which Christopher Eccleston played the 9th Doctor. This is the same for a number of actors who have portrayed the Doctor in various mediums from radio, and books on tape, to theatre productions. Tinkstar1985 09:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The conversation above was about the "Handsome Doctor" which Grant portrayed (for a few minutes) in The Curse of Fatal Death, not the sorta-kinda Ninth Doctor he played in Scream of the Shalka. I admit that it's confusing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

asyncronous timeline?

it mentions this briefly in the "girl in the fireplace" part, but having read the tardis article i didnt see a prominent explanation of this. I think in terms of DW overall it's an important concept to explain to the ininitiated. In "Bad Wolf" (i think) the doctor explains it quickly to rose

cycloid 10:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Regenerations and new knowledge

I don't know enough about the older doctors to know for sure, but I didn't think regenerations gave the Doctor new knowledge. In which case "Like the previous Doctor, it appears the Tenth Doctor is well-versed in human popular culture" is inaccurate. Perhaps it should be something more like "the Tenth Doctor is is appreciative of human popular culture".Damiancorrigan 15:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, everyone seems to be ignoring me, so I'll go ahead and change it. Damiancorrigan 13:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Do you have any references for the Doctor obtaining new knowledge through regeneration?Andral 10:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

K-9 and Sarah Jane

Since K-9 and Sarah Jane are long term companions, and in fact, have each been involved with more stories than Rose Tyler, it is presicely common sense which indicates they should be included as companions. In the Tenth Doctor episode in which they appear, K-9 even refers to the Doctor as "Master". Either K-9 is a companion of both the Tenth and Fourth incarnations or a companion of neither. 71.254.4.208 04:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, K-9 and Sarah Jane are listed as companions in the companion section of the article.71.254.4.208 04:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no. It's like saying Tegan is a companion of the First Doctor on the basis of The Five Doctors. They were guest stars, nothing more. The mentionsof K-9 and Sarah in the Companions section are not as companions; if you actually read the sentence, it is in the context of the School Reunion episode when it mentions Mickey as a companion and that K-9 and Sarah also appeared. It does not say they were companions of the Tenth Doctor. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Khaosworks said it much better than I could.--SB | T 04:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, she is on that basis. What is the qualification for being a companion, other than traveling with the Doctor? I did read the sentance, and it says that two characters who began with the Third and Fourth Doctors, then appear with the Tenth. Please, Khaos, do not damage the quality of the wiki.71.254.4.208 05:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarah is a companion, just not one of the Tenth Doctor's. And if travelling with the Doctor is a criterion, then Sarah didn't travel with the Tenth Doctor, did she? The sentence goes as follows: "Rose's boyfriend Mickey Smith (Noel Clarke), a recurring character from the previous season, joined the TARDIS crew as a regular companion in School Reunion. A former companion, Sarah Jane Smith, also appeared in that episode along with the robot dog K-9 (Mark III)." Note my emphasis. She was a companion of the Doctor, but not of this incarnation. You're the one who wants to keep shoehorning this in against consensus. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two ways concensus does not occur, Khaosworks. One is that concensus does not happen because one other guy agrees with you, and two, it does not occur because you say so. If you prefer not think of Sarah Jane as a companion, then don't. But a character who adventured with five different incarnations of the Doctor, lasted for five seasons and is listed as a companion in nearly every Doctor Who guide ever, is probably a companion. The concensus disagrees with you.

Also, the Bananna is relevant exactly because it is featured in both seasons. 71.254.4.208 06:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what? No one ever said that Sarah Jane wasn't a companion of the Doctor. What we're saying now is that Sarah Jane is not a companion of the Tenth Doctor. Being the companion of one incarnation of the Doctor does not mean that you are a companion of all the others. Following your line of thinking to it's logical conclusion, we would list all the companions in the history of the programme in the infobox for every Doctor, which would, of couse, be ludicrous. --SB | T 06:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, she is, so the wiki should indicate that fact. What's the harm in leaving the referance there until we get some real concensus on this issue?71.254.4.208 06:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

She was a companion of some of the older Doctors, but Sarah Jane hasn't travelled in the TARDIS with the Tenth Doctor, nor has she appeared in more than one story with the Tenth Doctor. Both of these are important things for every companion; I thought Adam Mitchell was borderline, but there is no way that Sarah Jane is a companion of the Tenth Doctor. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 06:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of "real consensus": I too think that Sarah Jane was not a companion of the Tenth Doctor. That makes it, by my count, at least three editors against her inclusion in the infobox, to one in favour. I think that we can leave her out unless more editors come out of the woodwork supporting her inclusion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

May we leave her on until people have a chance to comment, rather than revert every ten minutes? If Sarah Jane is not a Tenth Doctor companion because she only appears in one story, perhaps we should not consider her a companion of the Third Doctor, as she only appeared in Four with him. Also, Liz Shaw only appears in three stories, and Sara Kingdom in one. Are they companions?

Also, I fail to see why the status of Sarah Jane Smith has anything to do with my other edits on the page. No one has raised any objection to them specifically, so I have no choice but to determine they have been vandalized.71.254.4.208 07:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. Jude (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the good faith here, Jude? The information is relevant, correct, and some of it is not even being challenged in talk before an editor is banned! Is this how Wiki treats newcomers?66.252.251.204 07:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My comment was in reply to: so I have no choice but to determine they have been vandalized. Any edit made in good faith is not vandalism. Jude (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You're a real son of a bitch , Jude. I recognize your name. You do this regularlly, dont you, just block users cause you feel like it. Theres no good faith edits here. Read the damn talk page. some stuff of mine was edited without any epxlaination. The other stuff was edited because one or two guys think a companion is a companion in one story but not the other. I was trying to work this out nicely, when you popped up. 66.252.250.232 07:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I got nothing but IP's and spare time. How bout you, Jude?

Just for the record, I'd like to note a few things:

1. Khaosworks explained every edit he made to this anon's contributions, either in edit summaries or on this talk page.
2. The "companions" field in Template:Doctorwhodoctor is generally understood to be for companions of that Doctor. This has been explained to the anon above.
3. The anon was blocked (and, eventually, the page protected) because of violation of the three-revert rule, not because of this content dispute.
4. Every time you edit a Wikipedia page, below the edit window is a notice saying, in part, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly..., do not submit it." The anon editor should remember this, and that it is not necessary for every edit to be explained in great detail. A succinct edit summary is generally sufficient. Also, if you strongly disagree with the removal or editing of your prose, a revert war is not a productive way to resolve the situation.
5. The attitude displayed above is not helpful.

I hope we can discuss these issues civilly and reasonably. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We can discuss this, as soon as the page is unblocked, and I'm back on an even playing field, however, it seems a number of people would rather play nasty blocking games. I don't care if "My writing get mercilessly edited" I just care that Vandalism seems to mean that when a new Wiki editor makes a change to someone who thinks they own a damn page. Unblock the page, and I will forgive and forget, until then, I want Bookfojude's testicles in a vise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.252.249.156 (talk • contribs) 03:46, June 21, 2006 (UTC)

Please review the Wikipedia policy pages on the three-revert rule and civility. You have repeatedly violated both tonight, and therefore are not in a position to make any demands. If you want to discuss the content of this page in a cool-headed manner, you can do so; the page will be unprotected when it is clear you will no longer violate Wikipedia policies. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume good faith that the edit war will not continue now that I've unprotected the page. If it does, another admin is likely to reprotect it. Please gain consensus for changes here, on the talk page. Jude (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about my "lack of civility", however, when blocked, there's little else I can do. Now, I fail to see how its suddenly valid to just erase someone else's work here, not edit or alter, but just erase it, and have it be anything but vandalism. Some may say, for instance, that Sarah Jane is not a Tenth Doctor companion, some will say she is. This is a TV show, and there's no hard, fast rules about what a companion is or is not. So, why the immediate erasure? Does it hurt the wiki? Is giving more information a bad thing? The Sarah Jane inclusion is not entirely incorrect, no matter how one looks at it.

Also, why erase the information about the Bananna. I did'nt originlly write that, but I thought it was appropriately funny, which is why the writers included it in two seperate episodes. The Doctor is quirkly, so are banannas, so why not?66.252.250.251 08:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right that there are no hard-and-fast rules; however, there is consensus. You weren't to know this, but the question of whether Sarah Jane and K-9 should be listed in the infobox has been discussed before (see the page's history), and most of the editors agreed that they shouldn't. The argument is pretty simple, and it's stated above: the "companion" field is for companions of that Doctor, that is, people who travel with him and share his adventures. Of course there are fan debates over whether Sara Kingdom or Liz Shaw are "really" companions, but they're included in enough published lists that to exclude them would be original research. However, although Sarah Jane was a companion of the Third and Fourth Doctors, most of us here seem to agree that she wasn't a companion of the Tenth Doctor, any more than Jamie was a companion of the Sixth because of The Two Doctors.

As for the banana, it's a judgment call — but we don't want the article to become an agglomeration of trivia. We've got to draw the line somewhere, and one easy place to draw it is to include something only if it's been mentioned in more than one story per Doctor. Steven Moffat has mentioned bananas in both of his scripts, so you might be able to make an argument for including a fondness for bananas as a general trait of the Doctor's, but with only one mention for each of the Ninth and Tenth Doctors I think it's a bit too trivial to merit inclusion. The Fourth Doctor page doesn't mention his penchant for ginger beer, nor should it, in my opinion. It does mention jelly babies, which is appropriate since it's a character trait widely associated with him. If the Tenth Doctor's fondness for bananas becomes as widely known as that, it should certainly be included; but I don't think it's reached that stage yet. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You could make a case for including in the article on Steven Moffat since he seems to be the only writer who mentions it… HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Much my point, Josiah. You say the bananna is not relevant, both myself and the original author of that line say it is. Would it hurt anything to have it there? I agree Jamie is not a Sixth Doctor companion, he was clearly traveling with the Second Doctor in the Two Doctors, not the Sixth. However, in School Reunion, only one Doctor is present, and that's number Ten. Sarah Jane should be a Tenth Doctor companion if she's to be considered a Third. Can we include it for a few days to see what people think? And, who is this royal "WE" you keep referring to? 66.252.250.251 08:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The "we" wasn't royal, but referring to the members of the Doctor Who WikiProject, a number of editors who work together to improve and maintain the Doctor Who articles on Wikipedia. If you'd like to create a user account, you're welcome to join the WikiProject as well.

As for these specific edits (Sarah Jane and K-9 in the infobox and the banana comment), I think that a look at the page history and this talk page shows what "people" think already. Specifically, Khaosworks, Sean Black, Smurrayinchester, Phil Boswell and I have all given our opinion either on this page or in edit summaries. However, there may be others who disagree, and they're welcome to edit the page or discuss the matter here. Generally, when only one or two editors support a change, they have to convince the other editors on the talk page, or bring the matter to a wider audience if they feel that they're being treated unfairly. It's not common practice to leave a controversial edit up "to see what people think".

My understanding of "companion of such-and-such a Doctor" is "someone who shared multiple adventures with and/or travelled with the Doctor in a given incarnation." Sarah Jane shared one adventure with the Tenth Doctor, but she didn't join him on his travels. Similarly, the Brigadier shared one adventure with the Seventh Doctor, but he isn't a Seventh Doctor companion. I think that most of the Doctor Who editors would agree.

(Incidentally, I'm about to go offline, so don't take a lack of further response as a lack of interest. I'll see you later, but I'm sure other Doctor Who editors will be keeping an eye on these pages.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The point of distinguishing Companions is that they actually travel with the Doctor and get carried from adventure to adventure with him. There are many people who could qualify if you loosened the rules to the extent you are suggesting. What about Elton Pope ? He has encountered the Doctor more often than many but he isn't a Companion? What about all those chaps from UNIT? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"It doesn't hurt" is a oft-quoted refrain used to justify adding non-notable trivia where it doesn't belong. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"Non-Notable", huh? "Most of the editors would agree", huh? See, one serious problem with concensus model is, that it is frequently assumed that "concensus" means "I'm right, and everyone agrees with me, so debates over." Actually, concensus model shows that so long as there is disent, you don't have concensus. What we have here, I see now, is the electronic version of a street gang, and I wandered into your turf. "Yo, the Doctor Who Wikiproject, don't mess with us." Now I see how Khaosworks could get so many people to disagree with me so quickly. Ok, I'm a political animal. Are we going to use simple majority voting rules or concensus model here?

Well, I say Sarah Jane Smith belongs as a companion for the Tenth Doctor. Apparently, the membership of the DWW disagrees and "owns" the page. Well, here's what I propose. I'm going to return Sarah Jane to her place as a companion for 5 days. During that time, we will welcome comments and input from other editors to see what they think. We get a concensus to keep her, we keep her. Agreed?66.252.250.113 14:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling editors who disagree with you a cabal is also a time-honored refrain. Why don't you solicit comments and opinions from other editors about this before you put that in, since you're going against something that has already been discussed and decided as opposed to something new that hasn't been discussed? And it's spelled "consensus", by the way. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt, criticism of spelling. Hope you understood the word consensus, Khaosworks. Also, I call em as I see em. If the list of people who've comment are all members of a group, which is distinct, and has a name, then it is a cabal. Now, it has been discussed, by a select few, the Doctor Who Wikiproject, and decided, by the same group. That isn't consensus. It's tribalism. Since you have rejected my offer, Khaos, then we can go back to the fighting. The choice was yours. 66.252.250.78 15:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? I didn't know a counter-proposal for you to work within the system was an invitation to leave the table. Who's rejecting whose, now? Call third opinions in. File a content RFC, if you want. Please. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a part of the project. Sarah most certainly is not a compnion to David Tennants doctor. Jefffire 15:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As there seems to be a desire to make consensus clear, I'll add my voice: Sarah Jane was not a companion of the Tenth Doctor, which is what that field in the Infobox is for, any more than Jamie was a companion of the Sixth because he was in The Two Doctors. Sarah Jane was a companion of the Third and Fourth Doctors who makes a guest appearance in one Tenth Doctor story.

I think there is a pretty overwhelming consensus from those contributing to this talk page (and indeed the article) that this is the case. It doesn't seem very sensible to stick with her on the Infobox list for five days when most of the people here seem to disagree with that position: the default should be the other way round and it should stay that way unless there is a signficant turnaround of the discussion here. —Whouk (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I should add for the awareness of the IP user adding Sarah Jane repeatedly that using different IPs does not mean that s/he is not breaching the three-revert rule and risks being blocked if s/he keeps making the same revert. —Whouk (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm left with no choice but to use different IP's as the admin abuse is staggering. It's bullying pure and simple. There's little discussion other than "I'm right, you're wrong, we don't need other opinions". So, just so you know, inclusion of Srah Jane is a good faith edit, I am very determined and will not be silenced. Its' ridiculous that Adam is a Ninth Doctor Companion, in two total episodes, but Sarah Jane, appearing in 50 stories, is not. 66.252.249.65 15:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You are openly admitting to Sockpuppetry, in adittion to violating the 3rr. It is not a hard task to semi-protect the article, you this tactic is fairly useless. If you believe that admin's are abusing their power then report them. However, my outside view is that you are obsessive and uncooperative policy violater. Jefffire 16:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected: this user has now resorted to uttering threats on my talk-page (and maybe others?) and has exhausted my patience. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's try a different tack. Suppose some of the internet rumours are true, and Captain Jack appears in Army of Ghosts, but wanders off again at the end of the story. Would this make him a Tenth Doctor companion? No, it would make him an incidental character, who used to be a companion, and has now returned briefly. Would it stop him being a Ninth Doctor companion? No. Likewise, Sarah Jane returns for one story with the Tenth Doctor. Does this make her his companion? No. But is she still the Third Doctor's companion? Yes. Just because she is not the Tenth Doctor's companion does not affect her standing as the companion of other Doctors. As for Adam, at least he did travel in the TARDIS with the Ninth, while Sarah Jane never travelled with the 10th Doctor. Can we please now move on to something more productive now? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me chime in and try and explain again, since you seem to be labouring under the misconception that we are saying that Sarah is not a companion. We are not. Sarah Jane Smith is indeed a companion, it is simply that she was a companion of the Third and Fourth Doctors, not a companion of the Tenth. She is not associated with the Tenth Doctor in the same way, whereas Adam Mitchell is associated with the Ninth Doctor; he took him on as a travelling companion - the Tenth did not do the same to Sarah, who was obviously just passing through. You method of classification would mean that Jamie becomes a companion of the Sixth Doctor, Tegan becomes a companion of the First, and maybe even Peri becomes a companion of the Second... or, taken to its extreme, would mean that every companion should be included under every Doctor. Which is silly, and defeats the purpose of classifying them in this manner.

Just FYI, you have not only declared your intention to use sockpuppets, but also declared your intention to be disruptive. That is definitely not good faith. We have never accused you of editing in bad faith, merely that your edits are against consensus. Those two declarations of yours alone, and that last one especially, could earn you long-term blocks. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, there are multiple examples on the article of POV, original research, admin abuse, rules lawyering, you name it. So, I'm forced to resort to multiple IP's to resolve the situation. I'm simply trying to achieve consesnsus using the spirit of Wiki. I've asked that a controversial opinion on the inclusion of Sarah Jane Smith be discussed, and a number of editors here, who mostly are members of one editing group, don't think that's fair. From their perspective, the only fair thing here would be for me to shut up, and go away, allowing their opinion to be the final decision.

For the record: nobody here is saying that the question "Is Sarah Jane a companion of the Tenth Doctor?" should not be discussed. We are, however, saying that Wikipedia policies about sock puppetry and the three-revert rule should be followed, and that the article page should not reflect an opinion which appears to be held by only one individual. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a good faith edit, and should be regarded as such, but is not. Sarah, a long time companion, is being termed merely a guest star, while Adam, a single appearance character, is regarded as a companion for the Ninth Doctor. Earlier, multiple edits of mine on this page were simply reverted, erased, not altered, without discussion. This may be an edit war, but I didn't want it, didn't provoke it, and wish it could end. If you have a positive solution, please offer it, Jeffiere. 66.252.251.84 16:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How about stopping? Jefffire 16:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, do you mean "shut up and go away"? Nah, doesnt sound positive to me, try again66.252.251.84 17:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Came Here via the RFC

Since input was solicited: Sarah Jane Smith was a former companion, but was just a guest star on one of the 10th doctor's episodes. She is not, in my opinion a companion of the 10th doctor. Nandesuka 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, your right, she isn't a companion to the tenth incarnation. My reasoning for this was first that she only appeared in one episode. However, Donna (the bride in Runaway Bride) also only appeared in one episode, but came accross as more of a companion, particularly considering the amount of time she spent inside the TARDIS, amongst other things. Tinkstar1985 08:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

On consensus

Although the anon is correct in pointing out that consensus is not the same as majoritarian democracy (and, of course, voting is evil), I feel that it's worth noting that so far eight different editors have chimed in against the anon's position; at least two of them are not members of the Doctor Who WikiProject. Normally, I would try to work towards a compromise wording, but since this is an infobox and needs to be succinct I unfortunately don't see a lot of room for compromise. However, if anyone else can think of a way to incorporate the anon's point of view, please suggest it. Failing that, however, I feel obliged to point out this passage from Wikipedia:Consensus:

Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. (e.g. insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute.)

It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Nearly every editor believes that his (or her) position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may also be reasonable. But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities.

I haven't yet heard an argument of exactly why it is you feel that Sarah is a companion of the Tenth Doctor; you seem to be saying "once a companion of any Doctor, always a companion", which would defeat the purpose of listing companions of each Doctor. It's also very difficult to stay focussed on the content issue when you keep making vague allegations of abuse and threats of sockpuppetry. Perhaps if we could get past the posturing and name-calling you could explain your reasoning. Why is Sarah's appearance in School Reunion any different from, say, the Brigadier's in Mawdryn Undead or Battlefield? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Josiah, now that things have calmed down a bit, I'll make that arguement. First of all, Sarah Jane is a bit different than the Major as her appearances tend to be direct involvement with the adventure at hand rather than as an observer to it. Also, the Major does not tend to travel with the Doctor. Sarah Jane is nearly unique among companions also, in that there was the drama of "being left behind" was dealt with in a direct way. She shares an almost romantic involvement with the Doctor like almost no one else save Rose or Romana. Add these together, and "School Reunion" feels as if she's "rejoined the team" for that story, instead of being a guest.

That being said, I'm not unreasonable. Now that I see a consistant "vote" against her inclusion, I'm ok with her being left out. My original issue was that given the four edits I'd made, ALL of them were almost immediately erased, none of them retained, and all by one editor. It wasn't just about Sarah, even an observation orgiinally made by another editor was removed. Each change was simply deemed "irrelevant", and that was it. When I objected and asked for explaination, none was offered. In fact, my objection was ruled grounds for my being blocked from further edit, again without explaination or discussion, except for, "Oh, well, you edited multiple times". If Wikipedia is supposed to be about concensus, then discussion is paramount. If someone had said to me, "Jeez, I'm not sure including Sarah is a good idea, lets ask some others, I would have been ok with that. Instead, I got "WE are the Doctor Who Wikiproject, we shall decide what goes here, we have Admins, and you are banished for your disagrement!" This seems to be how Wikipedia is run.

I've run into this once before, editing the Bernie Sanders page. Bernie is a congressman who leans to the left politically. I lean to the right, but am also an expert on Sanders, living in the same town, and knowing his entire family on a name basis. I included a few edits which balanced his positions and showed an alternative viewpoint, using Sanders own quotes and statements. My references were meticulous, and no one challenged the accuracy of my statments. Instead, the edits were termed "weasal words", "POV", "Vandalism", you name it. They were erased without explaination quickly and entirely. When I restored them, the response I got, from one or two editors was "Hold on, we need a sec to go get an Admin and ban you, ok?" My story was that the POV was inherent in the article without a balanced view, their story was "Anythng is this article which may show Sanders in anything less than a glowing light must go!" It really makes me not want to have anything to do with Wiki. It seems to be a haven for cyber bullies.72.92.152.161 14:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my very late reply to this, but I've had an extremely busy week with no time for Wikipedia and my computer has been on the fritz to boot. Anyway: I'm sorry that you felt like you were being bullied. I think this was just a big misunderstanding, and there was some fault on both sides. One of the key principles of Wikipedia is "assume good faith", and I think that this was breached by more than one party here. I am sure that your initial edits were good-faith — as you say, they were mostly accurate, and I'm sure your intentions were good. Likewise, Khaosworks and the other editors who reverted your changes were operating in good faith, trying to keep the article concise and free from excessive trivia. The Sarah Jane thing was a disagreement of interpretation — it was eventually shown that there was a consensus that she's not a companion of the Tenth Doctor, but that wasn't clearly demonstrated at the start of the disagreement.

You object to the way your edits were characterized, and that there was not sufficient discussion of the decision to revert them. However, the characterizations ("POV", "too trivial", and a fair amount of discussion of why most of us don't consider Sarah Jane a companion of the Tenth Doctor) were part of the discussion. Furthermore, you seemed to expect a pattern of behaviour which isn't usual on Wikipedia pages. Usually, if an edit is reverted, and the original contributor feels that the reverting editor hasn't considered the issue well enough, he or she brings up the issue on the talk page but does not restore the controversial edit. Your insistence that your version should be left on the page during the discussion seemed belligerent to us, because it was not the usual way things were done here. Perhaps an argument could be made that controversial edits should be left up during discussion, but that's just not the way things are usually done here. The revert war that ensued (as well as the characterizations of edits with valid explanations as "simple vandalism") made everyone more tense than was necessary.

Your objection to the removal of your edits wasn't the reason you were blocked; the edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule were. The distinction is subtle but important. You can object to the removal of an edit as loud as you like on the talk page (as long as you remain civil). But constant reversion is counter-productive, and therefore discouraged by Wikipedia's policies. The 3RR is an important rule because it forces people to discuss instead of reverting. Now, perhaps it may have seemed to you that everyone was ganging up on you, but in the case of Sarah Jane I think it honestly was that most people didn't interpret "companion of the Tenth Doctor" the same way you did. The WikiProject members happen to be the ones keeping the most active eyes on this page, but we're not monolithic — we've got plenty of disagreements amongst ourselves! (You should have seen the war over An Unearthly Child vs. 100,000 BC.) I hope we're not deaf to outside voices, either, but perhaps we could improve on that.

All that said, if you would like to create an account you're welcome to join the WikiProject and participate in our discussions and work. I'm sure that you've got lots of useful skills and knowledge that could help improve Doctor Who articles here. And maybe you could help keep us from seeming like a gang of bullies, too! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackie Tyler- companion?

I added her to the list following Army of Ghosts based on her TARDIS trip plus the last two years as a recuring character/quasi-companion of the Ninth and Tenth Doctors. This was removed, presumably due to the opinion that her lack of qualification for companion status is not overruled by the events of the episode- comments anyone? I believe that the events of the episodeclearly involved her to a sufficent degree to justify listing her as a companion. MartinMcCann 19:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a companion really has to travel willingly with the Doctor; Ida travelled with the Doctor, but that was by necessity, not choice, so she doesn't count. Likewise, Jackie only accidently wound up on the TARDIS; if she choses to travel with the Doctor willingly after this, even just for one episode, she then becomes a companion á la Adam Mitchell or Cap'n Jack. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither Ian nor Barbara chose to travel in the TARDIS either , but they're companions. Admittedly the circumstances were slightly different but the fact the Jackie's TARDIS trip was unintentional does not rule her out. More importantly, she has been an important recurring character for the last two years, played a vital role in The Christmas Invasion with that tea, and the situation at the end of the episode makes it inevitable that she will in the middle of things in Doomsday. Maybe not enough to qualify her on their own, but together they make a convincing case. MartinMcCann 19:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Recurring characters don't necessarily make companions - take Sergeant Benton, for example, who also travelled in the TARDIS in The Three Doctors, who rarely appears in most general lists. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackie has appeared enough with The Tenth Doctor, as well as traveling in the TARDIS, to include her as a companion, I say add her. 71.254.9.154 05:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor himself seemed to be embarassed that he was caught travelling with Jackie: "When Torchwood writes my complete biography, please don't say that I travelled with her mum." I can see the arguments on both sides here. The problem is that since the programme has changed and the supporting characters are so much more important than they used to be, the line between "companion" and "not-a-companion" isn't as hard-and-fast as it used to be. Jackie is an important supporting character, and she has now travelled in the TARDIS; however, she hasn't travelled in time and she's only gone from southeast London to Canary Wharf, which isn't really much of a trip. Personally, I would say that "regular character" is now a more important distinction in Doctor Who than "companion": Jackie is a regular character, but (I think) not quite a companion (so far). Adam Mitchell was a companion, briefly, but not really an important supporting character in the series. In the classic series, nearly all companions were important supporting characters (with the possible exception of Kamelion), but not all important supporting characters were companions (e.g. Mike Yates). Now the two sets are even more distinct. Does that make sense? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[unindenting] Yes, I see where you're coming from. However, think of it this way: On Third Doctor, we only list those who are definitively companions in the infobox, explaining those who could be considered companions in the article text. I think the same solution would be ideal here.--SB | T 05:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree — sorry if I wasn't clear. I was just trying to articulate what I think is the source of the confusion: in the classic series, "companion" equalled "significant supporting character" about 90% of the time. In the new series, not so much. However, I agree that we should reserve the infobox for unambiguous companions — which, I think, doesn't include Jackie at the moment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The nature of the new series mean their are recurring characters who aren't companions, and Jackie's affiliation (and Mickey's before he joined in School Reunion) came via Rose. Mickey travelled in the TARDIS in Rose but that didn't make him a companion. Jackie's so far only travelled somewhere she could have got to on the Tube :-) —Whouk (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackie shouldn't be consider a companion just for being present on one tardis ride. This looks to me like a result of oversimplifying the definition of a companion. Jefffire 14:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The question isn't 'should one TARDIS ride be enough to make someone a companion?' but 'should the degree of her involvement in AoG/Doomsday (including the TARDIS ride) be enough to make someone who has been an important reccuring character/quasi-companion for the last two years a full companion'. After all, she's been involved in the series enough to make a case (albeit an extremely weak one) that she should be considered a companion already, similar to UNIT in the Third Doctor's era. The problem is whether she should be compared with Benton and Yates (not companions) or the Brigadier (much stronger claim to companion status). MartinMcCann 15:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But UNIT isn't considered a companion, as you note, with the only one who ever even makes it on the companion lists being the Brig, and even then the Doctor never refers to him as a former companion (notably, he's absent from the roll call during the Dalek scan of the Fifth Doctor's mind in Resurrection of the Daleks but admitedly that also omits Leela). Recurring character yes. To label her definitively a companion, no. And I'm not even sure there is a dispute notable enough to call it as such. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Khaos, you yourself wrote on the Jackie Tyler page that Jackie Italic textaccompaniedItalic text the Doctor to Torchwood in the Tardis. Accompanied indicates she is a companion, and yes, it is disputed as to wether hse is or not. 71.254.9.154 22:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed where? A dispute on Wikipedia doesn't count - WP:ASR, and it's not reported anywhere else. Show me where the dispute is widespread or notable enough to warrant its inclusion. Secondly, accompanying the Doctor in the TARDIS isn't a hard and fast criterion - a companion in the Doctor Who context is more than that. HG Wells accompanied the Doctor in the TARDIS. Marcus Scarman also did. Several human expedition members in Earthshock. Benton and Dr Tyler in The Three Doctors. They aren't companions. Liz Shaw never travelled in the TARDIS and she's a companion. If "accompanied" disturbs you, there are alternative phrasings. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Martha Jones

I added Martha Jones as a companion in the infobox earlier, and it's been reverted for being "premature". I take the point, but I would argue that it's perfectly correct to call her a companion on the basis of the press release, even though she's not appeared in the series yet. What does everyone think? Obviously, the last thing we want is another companion-based edit war on this page! --IanIanSymes 14:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of edit warring, so no worries people :). Basicaly I think we should wait until Martha actually becomes a companion before we include her, otherwise some people are going to be very confused when they read the article. Jefffire 14:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Okie doke, how about instead of putting it in the userbox, I add a couple of sentences into the main article about how the BBC have announced a new companion, etc? --IanIanSymes 14:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sound good to me. Jefffire 14:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we list this info yet? We are technically making public information which has been embargoed until tommorrow. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. Mind you, Wikipedia wasn't the first, and won't be the last... --IanIanSymes 15:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ian, the addition sounds good to me, great info! 72.92.135.251 00:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I took out Martha again and Rose's mother. Recurring characters are not the same thing as a companion. Jefffire 11:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"I'm sorry. I'm so sorry."

I've been pondering adding a 3rd level section under Personality about his 'catchphrase' of "I'm sorry. I'm so sorry." to replace the repeated Notes/Trivia item which lists all the previous uses of this phrase, replacing the bulk of each item with a pointer to this proposed section. Any thoughts? --Billpg 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

He's used it so much that I think that would make sense. It wouldn't be necessary to itemise each usage in that article - it's so common now that just mentioning the first occurrence and one or two notable subsequent uses is probably enough. —Whouk (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What's with the name dropping?

This season every episode somebody was 'named'. It just occured to me. Why mention who the president is in the alternate universe (last episode)? Why have the real name of 'the terrorist mom' that died in the alternate universe? There is no reason in the plot to do so.

What are the names that seemed to drop and what's the reason behind them?--82.92.33.229 18:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• To add more realism to the universe? To stop characters and locations seeming two-dimensional? I doubt there's anything deep behind it. --86.144.60.11 14:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's too much, down this line of inquiry, that would be good article fodder . . . . but for what it's worth: In the first of those two examples, I'd say, the reason for naming the "terrorist mom" is that it's a Cybermen episode, which is to say it's all about individual identity and the loss of same. In the second example, my feeling is, the name-dropping doesn't have much to do with any overarching theme about names or identities--it's just that the English president is somebody we've met in other episodes, and her political career in the "main" universe has been a really important subplot. Iralith 19:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes the show seem more real, personally. GusF 17:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Donna - The Runaway Bride

Does Donna count as a companion? She got her name in the opening credits.

--86.2.173.190 13:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should obvious tht Donna is indeed a companion, as she is listed in the companion slot in the credits, as mentioned, and the level of thier involvment is t least on the level of Grace Holloway, and as grace is classified as a companion, Donna should be classified as a companion. Only trouble, though, is there is not a page on Donna to link to. I'm rubbish at it, but if either khaosworks or another big writer could ad it, it would be great.TheGreenFaerae 01:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Russel T. Davies is quoted in issue 373 of the Dcotor Who Magazine as directly referring to donna as a companion; "But the new companion? My immediate decision was that there would be two. A one-off Bride, to really hammer home the coming-and-going notion, and to take the curse off the tag of 'the New Girl', and then a proper full-time replacement, to launch Series Three." This quote, for verifiability, can be seen on page 14. The article is called 'Companion Piece'.TheGreenFaerae 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Looker"

Can't find a reference yet, but I thought I'd voice that this isn't a random addition. The game (which I have not played, but came across this aspect previously) features time-manipulating villains where "Looker" mysteriously shows up each time. It's a reference/homage from the game developers to the Doctor, but I'm not sure that we'll find a proper source. Hopefully, though, since it is a nifty and unexpected reference to a generation that probably isn't going to get it (aka - most Pokemon players).--Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought it might be legit, which is why I added the {{cn}} instead of deleting the edit. However, if by "most Pokemon players" you mean kids, I'm sure that any kids in the UK will get the reference. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but then again my experiences with folks that play the games is rather limited. At any rate, there is probably some source that can be used, but it might take some digging. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox not displaying correctly?

I added a "finish" parameter to the infobox (with citation!), but it's not displaying. I dropped a line at Template talk:Doctorwhodoctor, but I don't know how many eyeballs are on that page. Can anyone else see the "last appearance" entry in the infobox? Anyone know what's going on? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Further down there's was an instance instance of finish= that was negating your finish=blah. DonQuixote (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for finding and fixing that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Allons-y Alonso

This catch phrase is taken from the moovie "Pierrot le fou" by jean luc godart (1965). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierrot_le_fou This is maybe not a direct reference, but i think93.16.169.183 (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC) it could explain the origine of that catch phrase.93.16.169.183 (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's an unrelated use of the same joke. Not notable. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I would not be so sure."pierrot le fou" is quite famous not only in France, and the use of the same joke is very unlikely i think. 93.16.169.183 (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"IN-UNIVERSE / Fiction tag

Hi, I've had a quick read through the article and i think that in its current state, the tag requesting that it be re-written to avoid it sounding "in-universe" is probably defunct and no longer required. What D'y'all think? Darigan (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

New Series Adventures Hyperlink

Can someone please explain why the hyperlink for the Sub-Heading of "New Series Adventures" was removed from the novels listing? Why does it no longer link to New Series Adventures (Doctor Who)? Darkglasses (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Companion Objection

Rose Tyler, Martha Jones, Donna Noble, Captain Jack Harkness, Sarah Jane Smith, Mickey Smith, Astrid Peth, Jackson Lake and Rosita are listed as companions.

I fail to see how Jackson Lake, Rosita and Astrid Perth can be considered companions in any way. They're no more companions than Brigadier Bambera was to McCoy in Battlefield.

I'd also dispute Captain Jack Harkness and Sarah Jane Smith being companions reappearing guest stars maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.212.245 (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, they are all backed up by reliable sources, which is the basis of inclusion of material on Wikipedia. We cannot base such categorisations on personal opinions, as that would be original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

They are companions for one reason: because the producers of the show said that they are. That's all that matters. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What about Wilfred though? 'Confidential' does refer to him as a companion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.253.158 (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Regeneration section in Personality page

I do not see why this part is on Personality, for one, the Regeneration has nothing to do with the 10th Doctor's personality and another is because the regeneration is already discussed, word to word as well, at the end of his biography section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.115.178.184 (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Removed. DonQuixote (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Lindy A. Orthia's opinion should be a section, not the overview

Orthia's ideas strike me as germane and important, but including them as the bulk of the overview section implies that they are factual, or at least reflect a canonical consensus. A single academic's reflections and critique do not necessarily equal a consensus, and I don't suppose Orthia intends them to be objectively certain. Is the bottom-line message of the Tenth Doctor era really that "The Doctor's battle against evil is perpetual precisely because, like other liberals, he does not recognize the structural oppression that is everywhere around him." Maybe.

Perhaps her (thoughtful, probably accurate) perspective could be moved out of the overview, and into a dedicated section? --Hughstimson (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There was previously a more detailed character analysis of the Tenth Doctor on this page - where has it gone? It appears to have been replaced by a list of who and what is in each episode, which we can get from episode synopses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.98.153 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Episode synopses are bad. Orthia's words should, really, be one of several sets of academic opinions which should make up the Overview section. At the moment it's a stub, so it looks swayed.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've actually removed the section entirely. It's excellent summary of academic criticism, and it belongs somewhere, but that somewhere is not this article. I've read the paper in question - it's about all seasons of Doctor Who up to its composition (29 at the time, it seems), making it a poor fit for an article about the Tenth Doctor. Even the sections alluded to are not entirely about the Tenth Doctor, with the Mickey the Idiot bit referring to the 9th. It's good writing, and an interesting topic, but belongs in a different article. Perhaps in an "academic criticism" section of Doctor Who itself? 96.39.62.90 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Stylistic question

I noticed that in the infobox, the titles of episodes are presented 1. in italics and 2. non-italics, but within quotes. Does anyone know which style is preferred on WP:

First appearance "The Parting of the Ways"
Last appearance The End of Time[3]

The same is true of episode names scattered through the text. All the best, Wordreader (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Per our manual of style, single episodes are always in quotes, multi-part episodes, or serials, are in italics. — Edokter (talk) — 09:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Edokter (talk) , Wordreader (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox again

Once again the infobox is not displaying properly, and I'm not sure how to fix it. Vyselink (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we disable feedback?

Literally all the reader feedback appears to be from children who don't understand what Wikipedia is for. Is there a way to disable it for articles where it's entirely useless?Zythe (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Any admin can change the Article Feedback settings on the protection page. — Edokter (talk) — 10:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Personality Traits

Why has the section on the Tenth Doctor's personality traits and quirks been removed? Surely, this is an essential facet of the Doctor within his individual regenerations? Can someone please explain?

Theblako (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can write one with the necessary citations, then feel free to add it. DonQuixote (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. Wikipedia editors are completely out of control if someone has decided to completely remove the personality section of this incarnation of the Doctor. I don't see that the personality sections of other Doctors have been removed, nor are there many citations. (A brief glance didn't show any for the eighth or ninth Doctors, the only two I looked at.) Just stop acting like an egomaniac. Opinions and personality analyses don't need citations.--Drbauman (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Here, here. --194.81.33.10 (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinions and analyses don't belong here. Wikipedia is about collating published sources, which include published opinions and analyses that can be cited. And as to the other articles, feel free to delete those sections if they're not up to par. (Just a little comment, but if you whine that your personal opinions and/or analyses have been removed, then think about where the ego really is.) DonQuixote (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. None of the information removed had been written by me. I have no particular dog in this fight. My ego is not at stake, so your attempt at psychology 101 is off base. I'm just sick of a few control freaks treating wikipedia like it's their own personal playground, and to hell with everybody else. Drbauman (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, you're missing the point. Opinions and analyses, yours or mine or anyone else's, don't amount to a hill of beans on Wikipedia. To think that they do is being egotistical. Policies such as WP:OR and WP:RS help to take ego out of the picture by requiring the citation of a reliable source for such things as opinions and analyses. Ignoring such policies is "treating wikipedia like it's [your] own personal playground". DonQuixote (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You really need a citation to point out to you the Tenth Doctor is energetic and exciteable, said "...well" a lot and enjoyed making disorganised lists? Good lord. (203.45.61.202 (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

No, but we do need citations so that it doesn't go beyond what you mentioned...that is, it doesn't baloon out of control. DonQuixote (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't understand the controversy. Doctors 1 - 9 seem to have no problem with having a lengthy "Personality" section with very little citation, mainly because they're just summarising the obvious. Mr Tennant gets one paragraph listing his TV appearances and another dedicated to a journal article. Albiet an interesting article but kind of irrelevant to Doctor #10 as a whole. People want to have a summary of his personality, not the "cosmopolitan vision" of his companions. (Same as above, different IP sorry: 58.178.86.213 (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC))

If you can write the above without personal opinions or analyses, then feel free to do so. If you are going to added opinions and analyses of any kind, these require citations. If you don't think the articles for the other Doctors are up to par, feel free to edit those. The "controversy" arises because this project, and Wikipedia in general, has evolved over the years into being more formal (cf the controversy over the use of copyrighted images that ocurred some time ago). DonQuixote (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The comedy, of course, being that no "formal" writing about literature, television, film, or any other narrative medium insists that all claims must come from secondary sources instead of from reasonable accounts of primary sources. "Formal" writing about the show would, in fact, consist primarily of analytical claims based on primary sources. Now, of course, those would violate WP:NOR, but on the other hand, the policy is that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." So if the claims made are ones that anyone viewing the episode would be able to see are supported by the text, they're fine. So, for instance, a claim along the lines of "the degree to which the Doctor takes vengeance on his adversaries is a recurring theme with the Tenth Doctor, coming up in The Christmas Invasion, The Runaway Bride, and The Family of Blood." Which is something that can be straightforwardly verified - all three of those episodes contain scenes that explicitly deal with the idea of the Doctor being vengeful.

The problem here is that you are holding to a ridiculous view that any claim that is not simply a quote of dialogue or a synopsis of visible on-screen action is analysis and thus original research. Nobody who works with narrative media for a living would actually support that claim. Plenty of things in fiction are implied strongly enough that any viewer will either see them on their own or immediately agree upon having the implication pointed out to them. To act as though summary of such things is forbidden is to badly distort the nature of fiction, and has no basis in NOR as written or as it was ever intended. If, as you say, Wikipedia has evolved to this viewpoint, it is probably a fair part of why Wikipedia's coverage of fiction has actively deteriorated over the last few years. 71.88.35.24 (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

'The problem here is that you are holding to a ridiculous view that any claim that is not simply a quote of dialogue or a synopsis of visible on-screen action is analysis and thus original research.'

Nope, never said anything like that, however...

'Plenty of things in fiction are implied strongly enough that any viewer will either see them on their own or immediately agree upon having the implication pointed out to them.'

...which is interpretation (ie original research). And that's fine for people working 'with narrative media for a living', but this is an encyclopaedia where the purpose is to collate other people's interpretations and not synthesise one. DonQuixote (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

except we're talking here about things so flamingly obvious that nobody writes them up and publishes them since it's (generally rightly) assumed that the implication is obvious, and people tend not to waste time publishing the obvious. 71.88.35.24 (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Some people might think that it's flamingly obvious that the moon is made of green cheese, but I'm not going to take them seriously unless they cite reliable sources. And, to be fair and objective, the same expectation should be applied equally to everyone. Sorry if you're indirectly taking the flack for the green cheese people. DonQuixote (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, Wikipedia's goal is not fairness, it's being an encyclopedia. Fairness is only valuable when it makes our articles better. Excluding material so obvious nobody publishes it does not help articles You're acting as though there is no way to distinguish between quackery and the obvious - a position so ludicrous only a longtime Wikipedian could come to it. In fact, NOR already provides, in it's discussion of primary sources, a very good test to determine whether something is obvious enough to cite to a primary source - if an educated person with access to the source could verify the claim. In other words, if a consensus of editors agrees that something is clearly supported by a primary source, it is not OR. 71.88.35.24 (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not acting as if there's "no way to distinguish between quackery and the obvious"...I'm just trying not to...well, to put it bluntly, thinking that your opinions and analyses are worth more than they are is quackery ("flamingly obvious" is an opinion of your analysis).

And you're right that "NOR already provides...a very good test"...which is what's been said above. Opinions and analyses are Original Research. DonQuixote (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think the claim that vengefulness is a recurring theme with the Tenth Doctor is an opinion on the same level as "the moon is made of green cheese," you are so far departed from reality that I wonder why you're even writing an encyclopedia. I mean, come on. On what planet is the observation that multiple episodes talk about the Doctor being unforgiving anything other than a fact verifiable by anyone with even a modicum of a brain? 71.88.35.24 (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, yeah, the "green cheese" was used as an example of how bad it could get. And pointing out that anything is a "recurring theme" is OR. Any literary analysis you learned in literature class is OR. Pointing out that multiple episodes "talk about" anything is OR. The key phrases here are "recurring theme" and "talk about". These aren't facts but your anayleses. And while anyone with a "modicum of a brain" can assess your analyses and even agree with them, they're still OR which, unfortunately, has become a no-no in Wikipedia policy. DonQuixote (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"And pointing out that anything is a "recurring theme" is OR. Any literary analysis you learned in literature class is OR. Pointing out that multiple episodes "talk about" anything is OR." Lovely. You've managed to construe OR to be a massive NPOV violation that eliminates the entirety of the humanities from WIkipedia by rendering absolutely all modes of observation about literature a policy violation. Wow. Congratulations. Years of watching Wikipedia, and you've managed to come up with a new low of policy. 96.39.62.90 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I'll de-anonymize for this. If this is actually policy - and I edit rarely enough that I have to hope to God you're just a nutter that isn't reflecting policy - then it is the most grotesque policy ever. It amounts to an active decision to gut coverage of arts and literature - topics that simply cannot be covered meaningfully in the way you describe. Actively seeking to remove uncontroversial information that any reasonable person would agree with is antithetical to the idea of spreading knowledge, and changes Wikipedia from an attempt to freely distribute knowledge to an attempt to privilege some forms of knowledge over others and to marginalize and inhibit the dissemination of information. It makes Wikipedia evil.

Nope, I'm not doing any of that...I'm just telling you what Original Research is. If you want to argue against policy, you're talking to the wrong person. All of the above is original research, which, in this case, I don't care one way or another about, but someone else does and did (that's probably why the original passage was removed). Seriously, you're complaining to the wrong guy as I'm not too interested in politics. But I can try to show everything in perspective, which is that Wikipedia is an attempt to freely distribute verifiable knowledge (it's even in caption right below the edit box). Original research, by its very nature, is not verifiable. DonQuixote (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Stating the obvious is not original, nor is it research, nor is it unverifiable, so your grounding in reality here is pretty marginal. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Obvious" is an opinion of you analysis. We're all entitled to our own opinions, but none of us are entitled to our own facts. Doing any sort of analysis is original research, no matter how obvious the result may be. Thinking that your opinion is "knowledge" that everyone must know about is quackery. Sorry, but our opinions, yours or mine, are irrelevant...especially in regards to "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" (cut-and-paste from just beneath the edit box). Yes, you can state the obvious...as in obvious facts, but you can't state an interpretation, no matter how obvious you think it might be, without expecting someone to object. And in this case, someone (should probably look him up in the edit history) has objected. DonQuixote (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's no more difficult a judgment than "any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Which is, let's face it, a rather lengthy and overly verbose way of saying "obvious." We have a fantastic means of judging whether a claim is actually verifiable in a source - consensus. If nobody says "Oy, I don't think the source actually says that," then it's non-obvious, or at least, might be non-obvious, so there should be a discussion about it on the talk page. But as far as I can tell, that's not what happened here. What happened here is someone came in an junked an entire section of an article instead of putting in some actual effort to add information instead of removing it. And so I, when reading through Wikipedia's articles on the eleven doctors for the personality sections, suddenly found myself on one with a major aspect of the topic removed seemingly without any actual careful sifting through of what was sourceable, what was actually verified in the source, and what wasn't. Which is bullshit. Whoever removed it spent ten seconds of non-efort shitting on the encyclopedia so I couldn't find the fucking information I was looking for. And I'll avoid looking in the edit history, because then I can nicely avoid having this next sentence be a personal attack: Whoever removed the section wholesale instead of working on the sourcing is a fucking asshole who made the encyclopedia less useful, less informative, and less good, and is no better than some fucktard burning books and censoring information in that their solution to the problem of potentially bad information was a scorched earth campaign instead of actual thought.

All of which said, since you are actually, so far as I can tell, the lone person in this debate arguing for removal of the section, were I to reinstate the section in its last findable form, what, exactly, would you consider to be an unverifiable claim in it?Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Phil, sorry, but you need to calm down. It would also be appropriate for you to self-retract (or at least restate) the previous diatribe. Speaking personally, no matter what position I held on the topic, I'd certainly never want to get caught up in a discussion when one of the primary participants is acting that way. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the idea that actively seeking to remove relevant and useful information is less toxic than swearing doesn't really work for me, sorry. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a little correction, but I haven't argued for the removal of anything. All I did was try to explain why something was removed and how we could rectify it. So, if you reinstate the section, I'm not going to care one way or the other (as I've said before). And if it's removed again, I'm not going to do anything about that either (because I can see the justification although I might not agree with it). Again, if you don't agree with policy, I'm not the person to talk to. DonQuixote (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Finally. Somebody standing up for what Wikipedia should really be about and not what that spineless puppet Jimbo Wales and his snivelling entourage have turned it into. Let's give a round of applause to those who stood against DonQuixote in the above discussion. --86.172.19.136 (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Two years and change later. Let's not. What exactly is Wikipedia really about then in your opinion? Because last I checked, encyclopedias are not places for people to indulge their inner essayist so that the general public should be subjected to sophomorically written opinions. The state of the personality section is exactly that. It has no real focus, moving from one randomly (and arbitrarily) selected aspect of personality to another (he's manic, angry, nonchalant, all in an attempt at reverse psychology? Is that how RP works on Gallifrey?) This is why we require sources. Because "manic" and "angry" can also describe the Ninth Doctor too. Moreover the way the above is written sounds like these are passing emotions being confused with overall personality features and at the same time a claim is made that they are in fact a deliberate strategy. So which is it?

ZarhanFastfire (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Last appearance

This has been changed to "The Day of the Doctor" however the general trend with past doctors is to cite their last appearance as "current" doctor, then underneath their last appearance in the series chronology. The 10th Doctor's last appearance as a current Doctor was in the End of Time, which needs to be noted. His appearance in "The Day of the Doctor" was merely a guest appearance. 86.174.188.47 (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, for older Doctors such as the Third and the Fourth, they have their last regular appearance listed and any later appearances after regeneration listed as guest appearances. The Doctors should be consistent so this should be done here too. Ric275 (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Should be something like this: The End of Time (regular), The Day of the Doctor (guest). It's what's done for all other doctors 86.181.163.171 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)