Talk:Tenth Doctor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Do NOT change the tenure box!

The episode ended before he regenerated: David has also been seen filming for the 2008 Christmas special and he's been confirmed to play the Doctor in the 2009 specials. So don't change it!

Edit-Protection

Is some sort of protection in order for a few days? It would seem helpful, due to the impending revert war over his regeneration. Thoughts? Mullet (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone update that he has confirmed that he will not be the doctor in 2010! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7698539.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msseak (talk • contribs)

Already in the tenure period (in the infobox). But I will add a sentence of explanation. SoWhy 22:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ginger"

It might be an inside joke, but the Doctor suggesting when he's regenerated that he's always wanted to be "ginger" could also reflect the fairly well known shorted rhyme slang where being "ginger" indicates being gay. In the same sequence he also refers to having a slightly weak wrist when he says "slight weakness in the dorsal tubicle". Takers on that? RubbishBeard (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ginger is the common word used in Britain to describe a redhead. Type 40 (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In the mentioned scene it definitely means more than just being a redhead and having a weak wrist. Ginger can mean gay or at least "girlish". The rhyming slang that is referred to is "ginger beer > queer". The weak wrist points to being "limp wristed" which also means gay. It should be mentioned in the article as far as I am concerned. 87.210.120.224 (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this could be mentioned but not confirmed. something along the lines of "it is possible that this could be a reference to..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.62.230 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A reference to 'always wanting to be ginger' could also just be an oblique reference to the Terry Pratchett book 'Witches Abroad' where Nanny Ogg's cat gets transformed into a human, and attends a masked ball, where he takes the mask of a ginger cat because he's 'always wanted to be ginger'..? Or are we all reading too much into this stuff anyway? --Picksy (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the cat has some homosexual tendancies as well, who knows —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.62.230 (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Fashion Commentary

The following phrase "We think that it is very fit and everyone should dress like it" is extremely POV (though kind of funny). I was bold. It's out. Godofpork (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Godofpork

Number of episodes/stories

An anonymous editor recently upped the count of episodes and stories by one. I almost reverted, but then realized that the anon is right if you count the Children in Need mini-episode. I can see arguments on both sides of the issue. On the one hand, it's part of the series' narrative, released on the Series 2 DVD, and produced by the official production team. On the other hand, it's only 7 minutes long, and doesn't even have a name. So, should we include it in our counts of episodes and stories? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should- they don't call it a mini-episode for nothing. ninjafish 6March

A cracking article, this one - it reads very well, and isn't burdened by too much geek detail. Well done to all editors concerned. jamesgibbon 09:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitly not, the mini-episode was nice and definitly worth a space on the serials, although it wasn't ever considered a 'real' episode, its just a bridge from one episode to th other. If I were you I'd revert straight away.--Wiggstar69 16:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wiggstar 100%. 82.19.114.0 20:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack as a companion

Like Martha, it's been pretty obvious that Jack is going to return at the end of S3. Unless anyone can come up with a reason not to, I'm adding him to the infobox. --Quadratus 15:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead I say--Wiggstar69 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Just saw the notice on the editpage. I won't add him, even though I don't exactly agree with not adding him. :P --Quadratus 16:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say leave it be until he actually appears. We shouldn't record things that haven't happened yet as if they have; for all we know, John Barrowman could fall out with the BBC, or be hit by a falling jet engine, or take a vow of silence, or have any number of unpredictable and/or wacky events happen that would end with him never filming those episodes, or their never airing. Nothing's certain until it's done. ShaleZero 02:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on this: on the one hand, ShaleZero is correct that anything could happen, but on the other hand we know a lot more than we did when that tag was placed on the page, the episodes are already in the can, and in the latest Radio Times Russell T Davies writes, ""Jack's back! As John Barrowman's Captain Jack Harkness comes storming back on board the Tardis — with an arrival like no companion has ever had before — it's time for the Tardis's wildest ride yet!" I think that's solid enough evidence to add him to the infobox now. If his inclusion is problematic, we could always footnote it to the Radio Times article. The original objection was that although we knew he would be returning, we didn't know whether he would be returning as a companion (he could have been resentful of the Doctor leaving him on the Game Station, and conspiring with Mr. Saxon or something). Since RTD implicitly calls him a companion in the Radio Times summary, I say we can do the same. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If Barrowman is to be mentioned, it should be referred to as speculative and not definite. As ShaleZero said, Barrowman might fall out with the BBC and not go on. And, if I know Torchwood, there'll be some twist to the story. And even then, I don't think he'll be a companion as such. Mageslayer99 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Captain Jack is definately returning as we have seen the trailer, so I'm going to add him. Harry matthews 13:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please hold off until Utopia airs. Just a few more days. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A companion is usually described as someone who has travelled in the Tardis (though not always, Liz Shaw never did). Jack does travel on the TARDIS in series three so perhaps that counts? ;) Type 40 (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bakelite

It's not an extraordinary ability to taste bakelite - from personal experience I know it has a distinctive smell, so tasting it shouldn't be that difficult. I suggest we remove that reference. Totnesmartin 20:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in liquid state it has an extraordinary smell, but when solid it's quite inert.84.198.96.249 (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Converse trainers

Could anyone please provide me with a list of the different colours of Converse trainers the Tenth Doctor has worn? I'm particularly interested to find out what colour Converses he wore with his tuxedo in Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel and The Lazarus Experiment. Any help would be much appreciated. PeeJay 20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sun rumour

I ripped out the ridiculous Sun rumour about Agyeman not returning because there's only that waste of trees itself to cite. Why would Billie be 'devestated'? She's the one who quit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk)

Duplicating links

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), regarding excessive linking: ""Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information." Once per section is enough. Chris 42 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bugger I just fixed all that without seeing this. I do think it was done haphazardly before, but I'll revert. Sam42 10:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

At the Start of the article can we have a quote

I was thinking a quote from the recent episode with 'The Family' in would be good' 'Why this Doctor who had Fought with gods and Deamons. Had run away from us, He was being kind'—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.205.19 (talk • contribs)

While I do like the idea and the quote, it wouldn't really fit with an encyclopaedia to open an article with a dramatic quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.30.114 (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

Does anyone else think that a Spoiler Warning should be added to the page after the Overview section? Cause there's talk of events happening during Season 3, yet it hasn't aired yet in the US. I know that in the UK, they've just yet to air the last few episodes, and then the US Sci-Fi Channel will pick up the syndication and air during the Fall.--Rich 10:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been decided that spoiler tags should be removed from all articles per Wikipedia:Spoiler, and I'm sure that if you add one someone would revert. I think the rationale is that a section that contains spoilers is already defined as such by its heading (usually "Plot"). However, it's a tricky one in this case, since there is no Season 3 section. Maybe have a look at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler to see if someone has raised the issue? :-) Chris 42 11:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ooooo..... I didn't know there was a whole guide about spoilers..... every time I think I finally understand the system, the manual keeps getting bigger on the inside--just like the Doctor's pockets. According to the guide, the spoiler tag is allowed in this case... However, since I don't see any real plot being given away, and putting in a spoiler tag would mean reorganizing the Biography and separating it into seasons, I'll retract my recommendation and keep my mouth shut.  ;) Rich 08:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Does Not Wear (Brand).

I've noticed that the article is edited every now and again regarding the Tenth Doctor's footwear, from "sneakers" to a particular brand of sneakers. From my research and asking on several major forums, this seems to be an invention of fans of the show, rather than an actual fact, as several other brands of shoes are done in an extremely similar style. In the context of the show the shoes, if they are branded, seem to have had the labels removed from them to intentionally make this ambiguous- therefore, I think sneakers is a much better term than naming a specific popular brand, hence my several edits to generic sneakers. Hope this clears things up!

Rvannith 15:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Doctor does wear a particular brand, although I feel mentioning the brand rather then just saying sneakers or the more 'english' word 'trainers' is pointless.--Wiggstar69 22:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

All the sneakers have the branding removed, by either filing down logos or by applying latex paint in order to intentionally obscure the brand. Given that this is obviously done to make the sneakers look generic, coupled with the lack of clear shots proving that the sneakers belong to a particular company, I'm keeping the reverts as they are, then. Rvannith (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look on the BBC Doctor Who FAQ section it does say they are created for the show but resemble a particular brand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.163.167 (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, you're allowed to say Converse. Check it out. Converse converse converse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.29.191 (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

2010

We know that Tennant will return not only for the 2008 series, but also for three 2009 specials. Whether there will be a 2008 Christmas special we don't know. We know that series 5 is being delayed because of Tennant's involvement in Hamlet, so he has to be returning for series 5, but technically we don't know he'll be in the whole thing. i have added the three specials + part of series 5 reference in to the main article. If anyone things it should assert even more, feel free to make a case. My interpretation of "be bold but not reckless" is what I've put up. 85.92.173.186 15:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait - I've just found out his involvement in at least some of the 2010 series ie itself, as far as BBC News is concerned, dubitable. I've made a secodn edit, though maybe a citation of the "gap year" article would be good. 85.92.173.186 15:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as we know his only involved up to 2009, no news conserning him in 2010 has been disgussed.--Wiggstar69 12:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, thought I can't list a citation as I don't have it with me, the Latest issue of Dr. Who magazine made the confirmation of him returning in 2010 a Cover feature.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.146.58.125 (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a Christmas special this year, newspapers have printed photographs showing the Doctor, Cybermen, a snow covered graveyard, and extras in Victorian clothing. Seems this would put the contempary episodes in the current year after that. Digifiend (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying Converse is completely appropriate, or maybe "canvas shoes" because they're not really trainers. Trainers is too unspecific. 80.7.122.88 (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

Not to sound mean or anything but I think we should make this page and the other Doctor Who charcter pages like he is a real charcter because the page is a little hard to understand so could we do that?--The K.O. King 23:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But his not real, his fictional, why would we pretend his real?--Wiggstar69 12:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines STRESS that we MUST make it clear that we are talking about fiction. Wryspy 22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know that. What I am saying is at the top put the Doctor is a fictional character on the BBC television show Doctor Who and is portrayed by David Tennant or something to that degree. But instead of saying in the episode Utopia The Doctor met another timelord called the Master. Just put at one point the Doctor met another timelord named the Master. Do you understand what I am saying?--The K.O. King 23:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Brits used "called" more than Americans do. Plus, he's called the Master. It's not his original name. Think about it. The Doctor frequently says of himself, "I'm called the Doctor." Wryspy 02:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that "The K.O. King"'s main point was about "called" vs. "named"; if I'm understanding him correctly, he's saying that the article should consider the character in an in-universe style, saying that events "happened" to him rather than saying that they were shown in such-and-such an episode. If that is what you're saying, K.O.K., I'm afraid we can't do that: in fact, Wikipedia's guide to writing about fiction explicitly says that articles must be written in an out-of-universe fashion. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Real world perspective for the reasoning behind this guideline. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first, but his switch from called to named in "But instead of saying in the episode Utopia The Doctor met another timelord called the Master. Just put at one point the Doctor met another timelord named the Master." sounds like something else, so I figured I'd address it whichever way this person meant it. The latter part's omission of the episode title sounds like it's how you interpret it, yet. Wryspy 07:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying Josiah Rowe so can we do that to the article?--The K.O. King 17:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't, because of the Manual of Style guideline I linked to. The Doctor Who wiki, a fan wiki which is not part of Wikipedia, has articles written in an in-universe style, but Wikipedia doesn't allow fiction articles to be written that way. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We absolutely cannot do it that way. The Manual of Style is oh so clear on that. Wryspy 18:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why I pointed him to the fan wiki. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. And I was backing you up because people asking questions like that usually need to hear the answer from more than one person to know for sure that it's right. Wryspy 06:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Sorry — I thought you thought you were correcting me. My bad. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay it was worth a shot ha ha.--The K.O. King 00:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Jamie Oliver

This was in a now-removed trivia section of the Jamie Oliver article. It has no relevance there but might be of some use to this article for a design section or something:

David Tennant, the current actor to portray The Doctor on the hit BBC series Doctor Who, stated on an interview on Parkinson in May 2007 that the design for the costume of The Doctor came from "a white version" of what Oliver wore on an appearance on Parkinson a year earlier.

Brad (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sally Sparrow

Someone might be able to word it better than me, but I think it's fair to refer to Sally Sparrow on the Companions section, even though she isn't considered one. She nonetheless performs the same functions as a companion, and is working on the Doctor's perhap which at least places her into a similar category as Captain Yates or even Jackie Tyler. This is different from Elton Pope, who generally operates independent from the Doctor and isn't really working for him except at the very end. It's probably also worth mentioning Madame De Pompadour being offered companion status, so I'll add that, too. 23skidoo (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Blink is not an episode you can really look at in the format of a Doctor Who story. It's not about the Doctor saving the world and some girl helping. It's about this really weird thing that happened to Sally Sparrow once, and the Doctor's involvement is really like a joke that the audience gets to be in on. Other than that, he could have been anyone as long as that person had time travel. So Sally isn't the companion in this story because no one is. Sally is the main character. --SoloGecko (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sally Sparrow is not a Companion. And I would in fact be very suprised if she directly in the series again; it seemed that the whole ending of that episode was about her moving allong away from the doctor and toward her own life. The same goes for Madame De Pompadour, who is about as much of a Companion as Shakespeare was. A reasonable rule of thumb (though not an exact one) is that the character is not a companion if they do not travel with the Doctor at least once. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

He didn't invite Sally to join him, he did with Astrid and Jenny, so those two count (Astrid died, he believed Jenny had died also) but Sally does not. Strangely though, Sally did get some votes in SFX magazine's favourite companion poll! Digifiend (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Expelliarmus"

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to sound mean, but isn't it Martha that suggests that Shakespeare say "Expelliarmus" at the end of The Shakespeare Code? Shouldn't she be credited with saving the day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.254.185 (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly that's how I remember it. --SoloGecko (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Gay culture reference in Time Crash?

I think that the person who added the remark about beards and wives as references to gay culture might be reading too much into the line. I'm of the opinion that it really should be taken at face value, a simple joke at the expense of the rather campy appearance of The Master's previous incarnations and the break with tradition of giving him a companion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.30.114 (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

But you don't know that, do you? If it's left significantly ambiguous that it could be either way, then it's fine. - NP Chilla (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obviously he meant it in the way it is referenced as in the article- in the same way The Doctor registered shock and surprize in The Sound of Drums "The Master has a WIFE?" RubbishBeard (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So that, too, was a gay joke? Because I can see how the beard thing is a big coincidence to dismiss, but "The Master has a WIFE?" works better if you take it at face value. The old Master was presumably straight, and it's hard to imagine someone like him taking time out of his busy schedule of world domination to take some random human out to dinner. If you take it to mean the Master is supposed to be gay, it's both commenting on a change in-universe and telling us about that change out-of-universe, and doesn't make sense anymore. --SoloGecko (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Does he still have that rubbish beard?" "No... well, a wife". Clearly a reference to the term beard in gay slang (see Beard (slang)), meaning a woman accompanying a gay man with the intention of making him appear heterosexual. That doesn't mean the Master is gay; he's likely asexual the way all Time Lords seem to be. Type 40 (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I had not been aware of such a term until now, so thanks for the link. That pretty much clears up any debate on this topic. The original comment could easily be taken at face value, but the "Time Crash" one cannot, considering it's wording. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Tenth Doctor Sayings

I note that a lot of the Tenth Doctor sayings such as "Sorry, I'm So Sorry", "Fantastic", & "What?" are mentioned in the main article. How does everyone feel about adding in "No no, don't do that", mentioned to Rose while she starts trying to speak like a scot to Queen Victoria & Martha while she tries to talk like a pirate in The Infinite Quest? I'm sure he says it another 1 or 2 times... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizrythmia (talk • contribs) 03:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think The Doctor also says the, "No, no, don't do that", to Martha in the Shaksphere Code when she says words like verily and other words I can't remember, but I think that should be added to the article.--The K.O. King (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Fantastic" is a Ninth Doctor catchphrase, the Tenth Doctor says "Brilliant". Digifiend (talk)

He hasn't said allons-y this season, has he? Type 40 (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The fourth doctor said "What?" a lot too. There's a video compilation of it somewhere. It's actually common among the upper class in Britain (Prince Phillip, for instance) as opposed to "pardon me" which is considered more middle class. Type 40 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotes <- Contains all the Tenth Doctor quotes one could need. :) -- Tarun. (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Family

The family section of the article as it stands lists only Jenny. I know that what with the Time War and all her expstence may be somewhat dubious at this point, but what about Susan and her mother? Since all the Doctors are the same person it seems a little remiss to avoid mentioning them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.6.6 (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Susan was added at one point, but then deleted. I assume that's because Ms Foreman is considered a relative of the First Doctor, as that's the only one she's ever been seen with (and is now presumed dead, as she's a retconned Time Lord). Digifiend (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't know whether she actually is a Timelord. After Jenny was "born", The Doctor stated that being a Timelord is more than just genetics. So him having a child the natural way would not automatically make her a Timelord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.96.249 (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

She's presumed to be though. It's never actually been revealed in any more detail. I think it might have been intended for the 1990 season though, as rumour has it Ace would've left to attend a Time Lord academy. However, it's possible that the same device used in the Family of Blood episodes could've been used here. Digifiend (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Imminent death

(Have I spelt imminent right?) The fourth series has been riddled with hints that this incarnation of the Doctor will be dying soon, much the same way the second series was full of hints as to Rose's impending "demise". Surely this should be mentioned. Do we know how much longer David Tennant will be staying on as the Doctor? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It was confirmed last year that David Tennant will star in the 2009 specials. [1] Moreover, WP is an encyclopedia, so not in the crystal ball / fan speculation game. All will no doubt be revealed in the next few weeks. Gwinva (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you're right. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Doctor's sayings

Alons-y! I'm sorry. I'm so, so, sorry. Molto bene! No. Don't

I can't think of any more! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.236.85 (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Regeneration

He can't regenerate yet, he's coming back in 2009! --Pluvia (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes media release false plots as hoaxes or distractions to sway people's opinions. Argentium (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Though this statement is direct from the BBC[2]. --Pluvia (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops that's what I meant by media, but we don't know the twist in the storyline yet or what happens in that special, anyway that was released ages ago, they could have changed their minds or David could have turned round and said he doesn't want to be the doctor anymore in the meanwhile, we seen him die and regenerate so he's somebody different, he's gone. Argentium (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well we've not seen him regenerate fully yet. For all we know, he might just stay the same somehow. I guess it'd just be best to say that he started to regenerate, and leave it at that. --Pluvia (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't speculate on Wikipedia. The BBC's statement there is the sovereign source here, and we are restricted from going against it. Martinp23 19:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Should the statement about River Song and a regeneration paradox be there? Surely this isn't true because she didn't immediately recognise him and he had to introduce himself for her to realise who he was.

Hey, aren't you forgetting when River Song said that he looked younger than she had ever seen him? Clearly she had seen him in an older looking tenth doctor form.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.10.238 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC) 

Only his top half was exterminated. Plus Martha has that special button she could press! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Good grief! I've heard of budget cuts, but hiring only the actor's legs really takes the biscuit! --Jenny 17:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And did you say a button? A big threatening button, perhaps? A big threatening button that Must Not Be Pressed Under Any Circumstances?

Ssshh! SPOILERS! --Jenny 17:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It'd be hilarious if the 3.5 million was to pay Tennant to film the 2008 Christmas Special and go through rigerous other location and film shooting of this season's finale rather than stay on as The Doctor...and then not appear in any of them...likely not going to happen, but in a world of spoiler-happy fans, it'd put the egg sqaure on their faces

Do we really need all that stuff about it contradicting things etc? Couldn't we just say that he started to regenerate? I mean, for all we know, the regeneration proccess might affect something else other than him. --86.152.136.224 (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The trouble at the moment is unsourced speculation being added to the page. People are adding their own pet theories e.g. that the Doctor's lost hand would stop him regenerating, or that it will all become undone at the end of the next episode. These shouldn't be added unless there is anything to back them up. I've tidied it up, but I figure more people will add stuff back in soon... The Young Ones (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I filed a WP:RFPP request to stop Ip's adding speculation. Argentium (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to suppose that River Song means that The Doctor has the same physical appearance. She has clearly met him many times, and therefore shouldn't expect him to look the same each time. She mentions his eyes, but it could (for instance) be a look he has that tells her he's not the man she remembers. Or perhaps a Time Lord's irises reflect his chronological age somehow. There's enough wriggle room there, and Moffat wouldn't deliberately tie himself to Tennant.

You will search the Series Five article on the BBC site in vain for any reference to Tennant coming back for series five. He may do so, but that document doesn't say he will. --Jenny 17:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

2010(2)

Tennant is confirmed for the 2009 specials [3], so that's what we should run with. It would be misleading to state that he's confirmed "until 2010" or "for season 5 in 2010" unless we have an official announcement. Which we apparently don't. We're not some fan site for wet-knickered teens so we should avoid making statements we don't know to be verifiable. --Jenny 23:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Infinite Quest

Why is The Infinite Quest mentioned in the opening section? I would have assumed it was better suited to the Other Appearances section.--Choc chik (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC) (sorry if this didn't work, couldn't find the "Start a new heading" bit, and i'm new to this, so thought i'd try something...)

Rename article (this section contains SPOILERS)

Shouldn't this article be renamed Tenth and Eleventh Doctor? Even if he chose not to change his appearance, the Doctor still used up one regeneration to heal from the Dalek attack. Leptictidium (mt) 09:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The regeneration is only a plot device. There's no reason to rename this article. --Jenny 09:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And? The point stands that the Doctor's injuries triggered a full regeneration, even though he was able to dump most of the energy into his severed hand. If the hand hadn't been available the regeneration would have proceeded as usual, with a change of appearance. Captain Seafort (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just had this debate with my other half. Time Lords don't have a fixed set of regeneration ENERGIES per se, more a fixed number of physical changes they can undergo. The regenerative energy is merely the facilitator of that. Seeing as the Doctor didn't undergo a physical change (as he really didn't need to) he more or less got a "freebie". I think the limit on regeneration applies to PHYSICAL CHANGE as opposed to a limited "pool" of energy he can draw from. It's the attempted physical change from a 13th incarnation to a 14th that proves fatal - like their cells have just gone "No, we give up, we're worn out." That's why the Master looked so fugly toward the end of his first appearances in the series. That's my take on it anyway, and it makes sense. A regeneration being used up has always resulted in a physical, emotional and mental change in the regenerating party. Seeing as none of that happened, it's relatively safe to say (in my books) that he's still 10 and has another 3 to go. 124.148.118.93 (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like original research. -Jenny 10:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus, I don't think the Master's condition was due to a botched 13th regeneration, but to extreme old-age due to his inability to regenerate. The natural result of the 13th regeneration is that the Time Lord's body simply fades away, per "Shada". Captain Seafort (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Jenny - no less original than the idea that he's now the 11th Doctor. Granted, what I said is purely speculative, but it a) makes sense and b) we didn't explicitly see him become a different doctor. And whilst it was never concretely set at any point in canon, EVERY OTHER REGENERATION has resulted in a different face, body and personality. Now I know how anal retentive you Wikitards get about OR and speculation, but come on. They've made it pretty plainly obvious what's going on. Also, it's OR to say that he's got a limited amount of regenerative energy to call upon also. So either way you look at it, both sides of this argument are steeped in OR and speculation. Seafort - yeah, I admit I should have worded that a little better. From my understanding, the Master was at the end of life 13. His body was decomposing, hence the hideous state of him. It's already been established he's a bit of a coward when his own life is concerned - he's deliberately holding off his own regeneration as he's fully aware that 12 is the limit and to attempt a 13 would be 100% lethal. Whereas staying alive, whilst unpleasant for him and his peers, was a lot less likely to result in his death. At the end of the day, there are simply too many gaps in the whole regeneration thing where explicit information simply hasn't been provided. The only alternative is to speculate, but at least my theories are not on the same level as the people screaming that Donna was the Rani or Romana, and that Adam was Davros. You HAVE to give me that. 124.148.118.93 (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the proposal that Tennant is the Eleventh Doctor is also original research. As is the presumption that he has "he's got a limited amount of regenerative energy to call upon". For this reason I don't agree with the idea that we make any references at all to such concepts. Of course there are "too many gaps" in the regeneration thing--it's completely fictional, somebody just made it up. --Jenny 09:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Another way of looking at is that he used a regeneration but didn't change personality and appearance. He is still the tenth Doctor but he's now on his eleventh generation. --Jenny 10:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

All we know is, that he regenerated a clone. We do not know if he used up an regeneration because full-regeneration means regenerating into a new Doctor. Changing anything because of a plot device is OR. --SoWhy ^Talk 10:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the rest of regenerations have also been plot devices. Leptictidium (mt) 10:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Er yes! :) --Jenny 11:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As the mechanics of regeneration are dependent on the whims of the writers, we don't know if he's regenerated or not (the producers might actually go up to a 13th actor to play the 13th Doctor). Even so, given the fact that if the events of Mawdryn Undead had resulted in the Fifth Doctor using up his remaining regenerations, he probably still would have been referred to as the Fifth Doctor. The point being that listing Tennant under Tenth and Eleventh Doctor is unnecessary since we can just list him as the Tenth Doctor with one less regeneration (depending, of course, on whether the producers consider this a full regeneration). DonQuixote (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You are so totally correct. If only there was some In story way to know if he had Regenerated. Something like the Doctor saying "I'm sorry, it's too late! ...I'm regenerating!" Or perhaps "There now. You see, used the regeneration energy to heal myself, but as soon as that was done, I didn't need to change. I didn't want to, why would I?"

The 5th series is going to be the 11th doctor, even if he looks just like the 10th doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.237.233 (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Right...and we know how production teams love to keep consistency amongst episodes...Doctor (Doctor Who)#Continuity curiosities. Besides, you missed the main point -- whether you or I consider Tennant as both the Tenth and Eleventh Doctor is irrelevant since the production team will probably try to cater more to non-fanboys (yep, fanboy, me). In that regard, they'll probably consider him as the Tenth Doctor or the Tenth Doctor with one less regeneration. Unless they officially announce Tennant as the Eleventh Doctor, we should probably keep everything simple. DonQuixote (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i really don't care, and im all for keeping it under "the 10th Doctor" unless as of series 5 the doctor starts behaving differently than he did in series 2-4. The Doctor Who articals are very well done, and i have nothing to interesting to add to them. the ONLY thing im talking about, is your comment of "we don't know if he's regenerated or not" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.237.233 (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just being a little cautious since producers have been known to retcon things (see Bobby Ewing#Patrick Duffy leaves and returns). The point is that if the producers haven't said that it was an official regeneration, then we can't presume to know what they have planned (that is, they might not count this as a regeneration). DonQuixote (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, David Tennant says on Confidential that it's up to the future writers if the Doctor really used up a regeneration or not...so we should not change anything if we can clearly source exactly this: That the episode does not make any statement about whether a regeneration is used or a Eleventh Doctor created. --SoWhy ^Talk 08:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Although personally I think it isnt an official regen, simply because the show would loose an entire Doctor if it is, it doesn't matter either way, information only goes on Wikipedia if it has a sourse, and one doesn't exist for this. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 09:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Haven't they already increased the supposed "maximum" on the number of incarnations a Time Lord is allowed? I thought it was supposed to be like 6 or so way back in the day, and they managed to retcon past that. It's likely that even if he goes through three more full regenerations, with a new actor and everything, if the show is still popular enough to get good ratings and whoever the Thirteenth Doctor is played by wants to quit, they'll find a way to get a Fourteenth and a Fifteenth and however many they feel like, just to keep the show going. The Doctor-numbering system is mainly for the fans anyhow. You never saw David Tennant on the show explicitly state "I'm the Tenth Doctor" or "There've been nine others before me" or anything to that effect. For all we know, there could've been a couple more in between the ones we got to see that were just never mentioned. Lurlock (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The 12-times limit was set and this was the only one I think was ever specified. And no, the Tenth Doctor says in School Reunion that he regenerated "half a dozen times" since he last met Sarah Jane Smith. All regenerations were seen on screen except the one from 8th to 9th and this would've been the only possible gap for further regens. But as the Doctor last saw Sarah Jane in his 4th incarnation and 4 + 6 = 10, he implies that there was only one regeneration in this gap. So#Why ^{review me!} 21:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To nitpick, we didn't see the regeneration from Troughton to Pertwee either, and the last time the Doctor saw Sarah was in his Fifth incarnation (The Five Doctors), so there are possible gaps for further regenerations in the series. Captain Seafort (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, while the phrase "half a dozen" does technically mean "six", it's often used less precisely, meaning more along the lines of "about six", which could easily be 5 or 7 or what-not. It's almost like saying "I think it's about six, but who's counting?" At any rate, my point is that if they want to make more than thirteen, they'll find some way to write it in there. The show has always had a history of bending their own rules to suit their needs. (This whole discussion is a perfect example - first time ever he's regenerated into the same body. That's not supposed to happen, but they managed to write it in.) Lurlock (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So what? We're on Doctor # 10 1/2? Ya know what? Never Mind. Sabre Knight (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The limit of 12 has been mentioned many times. The Deadly Assassin and Mawdryn Undead come to mind. However, there has also been many references to Time Lords giving regenerations to other Time Lords. If the authors wanted to really take the quick and easy route they could say The Doctor gained all the unused regenerations from the Time Lords destroyed in the Time War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.17.58 (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it has never been specified if the Doctor's change from Troughton to Pertwee was a regeneration. If you watch The War Games again, you'll notice the Time Lords simply says his appearance has changed before and it will change again. Surely they could change his appearance without forcing a regeneration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.17.58 (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hybrid Doctor

should the Hybrid Doctor get a section in this artcle? ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Both the new Doctor and the Doctor-Donna are mentioned briefly, but I think a section concentrating on differences between the new Doctor and the contemporary Tenth Doctor would be a good idea. The Doctor-Donna sequence should be dealt with under Donna Noble. --Jenny 08:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The half human Doctor is the 10th Doctor after all, just biologically different. --SoWhy ^Talk 08:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Heck, the severed hand should have its own section. As Julie Gardner has said, it has its own arc and everything. It's appeared in two shows, three seasons, multiple episodes in different roles. Its being severed at all, and subsequently regrown, is one of the more bizarre things ever to happen to the Doctor in any incarnation. Yet it barely gets a mention in the article. Anything dealing with the Hand Doctor would be a subsection of this.--76.235.64.51 (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "specials" :
  • {{cite news |title=Series five|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/09/03/48471.shtml |work=[[Doctor Who]] website |date=[[2007-09-03]] |accessdate=2007-09-03 }}
  • {{cite press release | url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/09_september/03/who.shtml | title = Doctor Who: Series five | date = [[2007-09-03]] | accessdate = 2007-09-03 | publisher = [[BBC]] Press Office}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, renamed one to "specialsPR". So#Why ^{review me!} 14:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Eleventh Doctor"

I don't get it. Why can't we refere to David Tennant as both the Tenth Doctor and Eleventh Doctor? We all saw him regenerate in the The Stolen Earth/Journey's End. It seems pretty clear cut, by all the definitions the BBC has given us he is now the Eleventh Doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.17.58 (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, US seeing it is not a reliable source, it would constitute original research. As far as I can remember, in "Journey's End", The Doctor clearly says "[...] Used the regeneration energy to heal myself, but as soon as that was done, I didn't need to change. I didn't want to, why would I? [fixes tie and cricks neck] Look at me. So, to stop the regeneration from going all the way [...]". So all we know from the episode is, that he never fully regenerated. Second, Tennant himself does state in Confidential, that he thinks it's up to future writers to decide whether the Doctor really regenerated. Third, the BBC uses and continues to use the term "Tenth Doctor" and so do all other sources. That is all we need for verifiability reasons. You are welcome to find a source that says "David Tennant plays the 11th incarnation of the Doctor" but please post it here first, if you do. Regards SoWhy ^{review me!} 14:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Television Appearances

Why is "Parting of the Ways" not listed? Okay, it's not a Tenth Doctor story, but the list does claim to be a list of television appearances and this certainly qualifies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangocow (talk • contribs) 14:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Doctor 11

If this is Doctor 11, then the next Doctor is already set no? The Valeyard... 70.51.8.158 (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to assume that he is number 11, all we know is that he is a man who calls himself "The Doctor" and even if he is a future incarnation of The Doctor, it doesn't follow that he is automatically 11, he could be 12th or 13th..maybe even beyond if they choose to ignore existing canon. magnius (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Companions

Should the companion list be On Televison and In Spin Off, as the doctor could have verious companions in both TV and Book {Ucebaggie (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

Not really.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit notice

Given the recent developments, I've posted an edit notice through the Mediawiki interface. It will appear at the top of the screen when editing (not reading) the Doctor Who, David Tennant and Tenth Doctor articles. The text appears as follows:

Please let me know if there are any tweaks needed, or if it should be applied to any other articles as well. (Any admin can make the changes.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Links used as references

Pretty sure it's against MOS guidelines to link quotes or facts to the Episode in question - this is unexpected for the reader and there's no way for someone to tell the cite for a fact unless they click (or at least hover over) the link.

e.g. under Personality:

his description of non-linear temporal physics as "a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff" is perhaps the most well known

should be changed to

his description of non-linear temporal physics as "a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff" (first used in the episode Blink) is perhaps the most well known

or as a ref

his description of non-linear temporal physics as "a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff" is perhaps the most well known

Paulbrock (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point: I hadn't noticed that the article was doing that. I'll try to clean up. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done I changed most of them to footnote references, except for the reference to "Dalek", which I brought into the text. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"From 10 to 11"

Nothing to do with whether Tennant is now the 11th Doctor. I've removed a sentence in the Knowledge of popular culture section that said the Doctor's increasing the volume on a cathedral organ from 10 to 11 was a reference to Spinal Tap. I don't think there's a suggestion of that. It's a common way of referring to extreme volume (and other extremes). Klippa (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Spin-off companion?

Sorry if it's too early to add, but shouldn't the Doctor Who Magazine comic companion Majenta Pryce be added in a "spin-off companions" section in the companions box like the Eighth Doctor's comic companions? 208.126.66.43 (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. DonQuixote (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know if anyone had any objections, and besides, I'm not that good with computers and didn't want to accidentally screw up the infobox. 208.126.66.43 (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I used the Seventh Doctor article as a precedent. DonQuixote (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I there should be a distinguishing between proper companions, suitable to the infobox, and ones in spin-off materials which belong perhaps in the section dealing with comics, novels, etc. Surely this is an episodic companion, from one particular comic or novel, right? Maybe if there were a series of novels or comics starring her.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it seems that she's on to stay for a while. I'm in America, so I'm a bit behind with Doctor Who Magazine, but she went in the TARDIS with the Doctor at the end of the comic "Thinktwice" and has a storyline set up for her (kinda hard to explain without explaining the whole plot of the comic she joined in) so as far as I can tell she's a spin-off companion in the same vein as Sharon or Frobisher. 208.126.66.43 (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Jackson Lake

Should Jackson Lake be included as a companion to the doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucebaggie (talk • contribs) 11:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not without a reliable source stating the BBC considers him so. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Appearance

While I'm at this, further down, under "appearance" we find this piece of badly remembered reconstruction:

"Like his predecessor, the Tenth Doctor would shave his face, something that he sarcastically told his fifth incarnation he would be doing by the time he became the Tenth Doctor."

Uh, no. He brought up the Master. Five asked if the Master still had that "rubbish beard". Ten answers "No. He has a wife though" punning on another kind of beard. I don't have time to go through the Personality section to prune it but I am certainly removing the above sentence.

08:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarhanFastfire (talk • contribs)

It's certainly badly-remembered... but by you, not the person who wrote it. I suggest you watch "Time Crash" again. TR-BT (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see the importance of such a statement; they all shaved. The 10th was only trying to convince the 5th that they are the same person by telling him to "check out this bonestructure, Doctor, because one day you're gonna be shaving it". -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)