Talk:The Doctor/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

The "War Doctor"

This newly released Mini-Episode confirms Hurt's position in the Doctor's regeneration cycle, and his name as the "War Doctor". --Jasca Ducato (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's mentioned at least twice: once in "Doctor Who?" and again in "Changing faces". DonQuixote (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Reason? --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

From a real world perspective, he's not a star of the programme. The section is about transitioning the programme from one star to another. A better place to put him in a table or list is here Regeneration (Doctor Who)#Regenerations depicted in the series or here List of actors who have played the Doctor#Other actors who played the Doctor. DonQuixote (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If he hadn't appeared in The Night of the Doctor, I would agree with you. That said, I would argue that from a technical perspective, the (admittedly) very brief appearance a the end of said episode did present him in the lead role, regardless of for how long. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

From a real world perspective, he's hasn't headline a series and he's not going to any time soon. It's like that episode of Star Trek where Captain Picard was played by a teenager. That teenager wasn't the star of the programme. DonQuixote (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The guy's an entirely separate incarnation! Do we review this after he's headlined in the 50th? The Eighth Doctor didn't headline onscreen 'in a series' - and Hurt's version will have had a similar amount of screentime by then, not to mention more appearances in individual episodes.Luke Myer (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suggested waiting the whole week until the main episode airs to figure out how to structure in the War Doctor; my gut from the language so far is that he's being treated like an asterisk in a sports record and we're not going to have to change our numbering scheme (Eccelston remains #9) due to him, but that's speculation. If the episode was a month out, yeah, but with a week left, we can be patient until we get the full in-universe details on him. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Spot-on! Masem, Impatience achieves nothing but heartache. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 17:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Waiting makes sense, though I would add that this is an article about The Doctor as a character, not just as the protagonist of a TV show, so while the numbering can stay the same (Moffat's clearly given him a separate name so Eleven is still 'Eleven', even if he's the twelfth form that body has taken), it would make sense to incorporate Hurt's Doctor into the rest of the article as if he were on a par with the others, in the picture-box at the top-right and in the 'Changing faces' section, even if he gets less detail than the rest. Considering his importance in the Doctor's story, post-2005.Mister Six (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well he is the Doctor (and there are now 13 of them)).Slatersteven (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I must agree here. Hurt IS the ninth Doctor. He regenerated from McGann and then became Eccleston. It was obvious when "Night of the Doctor" came out and is a fact now. Not to mention Capaldi was also on screen and his face showed up just when one of the Time Lords said there are all thirteen Doctors on orbit of Gallifrey. Finally - Smith's Doctor referred to Hurt as the Doctor when they parted ways. Mitch Brenner (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the 50th special very much concluded that Hurt is one of the Doctors. Although his name won't technically be the Ninth Doctor (since the War Doctor rejected the name. The Ninth Doctor refers to the ninth incarnation of the Doctor to take the name, even though he's the tenth regeneration), I definitely think the pic should go 1st, 2nd, ... 8th, War Doctor, 9th... etc. He is a bona fide incarnation.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed to note Hurt's Doctor as the War Doctor in discussions and not bump the other Doctors' up a number. Yes, this will make the initial discussion of Nine onward a bit confusing, but I doubt anyone is retroactively going to start calling, say, Tennant's version as Eleven. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(Edited for Don Quixote's kind critique of regeneration count) The Tardis Core wiki site has addressed the doctor by differentiating the actual incarnation count from the Doctor's ordinal description (or incarnation). Per the storyline, the John Hurt regeneration is a distinct regeneration from the 8th Doctor, making him the ninth incarnation. But he never considered himself a "doctor" but as a "warrior." Once he regenerated into the 9th doctor, it was his tenth incarnation, and all subsequent incarnations maintain the same protocol: The 10th doctor is the 11th incarnation, and the 11th doctor is the 12th incarnation. Example: "David Tennant plays the 10th Doctor, the eleventh incarnation of the Doctor." (Indeed, one could say that Hurt's timelord reverted from warrior back to Doctor, but this is probably another discussion.) Michaelopolis (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

They got their numbers wrong. Before Hurt, the second Doctor is the first regeneration, the eighth Doctor is the 7th regeneration and so forth. After Hurt, the ninth Doctor is the ninth regeneration and so forth. DonQuixote (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree to the add as the "war doctor" User: NPNUNDA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.135.112.12 (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Even though he doesn't use the same name/title/whatever as the others, the "War Doctor" is still a legitimate incarnation of the same character/person/entity/whatever, so he ought to at least be included in the article's image between the eighth and ninth Doctors. I vote that the article acknowledges him as being the ninth "incarnation", but still refers to him as "War Doctor" and uses the same numbering system as before (as in, Eccleston is still the ninth, Tennant is still the tenth, etc.) whilst quoting the naming issue as an anomaly/technicality.31.50.83.165 (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Another way of putting that is that the "War Doctor" is the ninth incarnation, and Eccleston's Doctor is the ninth Doctor, but the 10th "incarnation" of the character. Right?31.50.83.165 (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems like Steven Moffat is literally giving us a choice: http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/24/doctor-who-steven-moffat-clears-up-the-whole-doctor-regeneration-problem-sort-of-4199592/31.50.83.165 (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The way Hurt's Doctor sort of reverted back to being "The Doctor" at the end of the episode, and was counted among the other incarnations in the final shot and end credits, makes this even more confusing.31.50.83.165 (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Still haven't incorporated him yet? I'm mildly disappointed. Include him (pictures and tables) in between 8th and 9th and leave the numbering alone. Do it already! :) --Bark (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear after watching this: Hurt is the 9th incarnation of the Doctor. Eccleston is the 10th, Tennant is the 11th, Smith is the 12th and Capaldi is the 13th. The numbering should be adjusted to represent this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.156.93.216 (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Adjusting the numbering would be less confusing, but it comes down to whether the numbering refers to the fictional chronological order of regenerations, or the order in which the characters have been portrayed onscreen from a real world perspective. If it's the latter, then that would make John Hurt the 12th rather than the 9th, as in, he's the 12th actor so far to portray an incarnation of the character. So retaining the current numbering system and distinguishing Hurt as the "War Doctor" seems more practical. I suppose we could call him Doctor 8.5 or something...31.50.83.165 (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think in general it makes the most sense to have the numbering that the character would use match the numbering Wikipedia would use. That way if someone watches an episode where a Doctor mentions which number he is that matches with what Wikipedia says. In universe, Eccleston would say 9th, Tennant would say 10th, and for most of his regeneration Smith's would say 11th. I think adjusting any of that numbering would just be confusing both in-universe and real life. The real numbering question is the Capaldi Doctor who may consider himself the 13th Doctor now, but that is just speculation at this point. ColinBlair (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There now seems to be a broad consensus that John Hurt's portrayal is of the Doctor and should therefore be included. I would suggest that this change be made to the main image for the page. A bright cold day in april (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hurt is the 9th Doctor

I'm not sure why there is even a debate about this. The Doctor as a fictional being is referred to as having multiple, sequentially ordered incarnations. Within the context of the show, Hurt is undeniably the 9th of that order, shifting all the following up by one. The idea that we are suddenly naming the Doctor's by when they appear on screen rather than when they appear with the characters continuity is bizarre and runs counter to the way articles such as this typically run (see the order of Enterprise ships from the Star Trek universe). Hurt is never referred to as the War Doctor on screen and he IS granted the identity of the Doctor and refers to himself (and is referred to as) the Doctor. He is the 9th of that name of that being (certainly not 8.5). There is absolutely no precedent for distinguishing an incarnation of the Doctor as anything other than a sequential numbering of his incarnations. Capaldi is given a reference to being the 13th Doctor. This is a retcon, but Hurt is still unquestionably the 9th Doctor by every reasonable standard we have to measure.Stamfordbminus (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't know about the numbering, because Moff has supposedly said that it stays the same. But in the episode, Hurt is referred to several times by secondly characters as "The Doctor" and Tennant and Smith incarnations also call him the Doctor at the end as well as him lining up with the rest of the incarnations in the shot at the end. That to me is evidence enough to certainly list him in the chronological order and have it mentioned (like in the other Doctor articles) that preceding him was the 8th Doctor (Paul McGann) and following him was the 9th (Christopher Eccleston). Because he is a clear sequential incarnation. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Moffat can say what he wants outside the episode, but within the episode, Hurt is clearly depicted as the 9th incarnation, which makes Eccleston the 10th. Even then, if we go with what Moffat has stated we have to also consider that he has also stated that the Doctor's do not refer to themselves by numbers. In other words, this is us, counting the incarnations of the Doctors. And by a real world count of the sequential order of the fictional characters incarnations, we have to shift the numbering up of 9, 10 and 11.Stamfordbminus (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The War Doctor is the ninth incarnation of the Doctor (this is not in dispute), but nevertheless he comes between the Eighth Doctor and the Ninth Doctor in terms of names for incarnations. This is what Moffat has said, what the show itself has implied, not to mention is more practical, and dovetails well with Wikipedia's real-world emphasis.Zythe (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

What Moffat states has limited value in comparison to what is actually portrayed on the screen. The most recent show directly implies that Capaldi is the 13th Doctor. He is certainly one of the thirteen shown, and we know the numbering for the other 12 who are also all shown. The Doctor's name is not the "9th Doctor" or "10th Doctor" or "War Doctor" or "Doctor Who". It's just (as they are referred to on screen) "the Doctor". The numbering system exists outside the series to track the order of incarnations. When tracking this in any real world sense, the 9th incarnation of the Doctor would be the 9th Doctor, just as the 12th incarnation would be the 12th Doctor.Stamfordbminus (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be making an argument from the perspective of aesthetics - "what does the text say? ignore that which is outside of it." Wikipedia basically does the opposite. The article isn't called e.g. The Doctor (Ninth Incarnation) anyway, it's Ninth Doctor, which universally refers to Eccleston's character for all but a few diehard fans who for some reason want a massive renumbering despite all indications that the episode itself was constructed in such a way as to avoid that scenario. "The numbering sysem exists to...track the order of the incarnations." Wrong. It exists by convention and the attribution of names by authoritative sources.Zythe (talk)21:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the trouble with retcons. But just because we dislike the ramifications of such does not mean we can ignore them. Yes, last week Eccleston was the 9th Doctor and has correctly been referred to as such. There was a point when the Shalka Doctor was referenced the same way. Things change when there is a retcon to a fictional characters history, and our information adjusts accordingly. We accept the changes, make our edits, keep notes about the alterations where appropriate. That is the way Wikipedia works.Stamfordbminus (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It's basically too soon to change the numbering. Wikipedia doesn't create it's own information, we reflect what is published in third-party reliable sources. It's too soon for those sources to have changed, which then carries over to mean to soon for Wikipedia to change as well.

Lets start with the basics; at no point in the show do any of the actors who have portrayed the doctor list a number next to the name - they are simply "The Doctor". There is no in-universe numbering that exists. The only numbering is what the fan community uses. So, what do reliable sources state? Overwhelmingly, they still refer to Eccleston as the ninth. Until that changes, anything suggested here on the talk page would be original research not supported by third party sources, and isn't usable within the article. As Moffat is explicitly stating that "John Hurt’s Doctor doesn’t use the title. Smith’s Doctor is in his 12th body but he’s the 11th Doctor"[1], it's unlikely that reliable sources are going to go against this - but time will tell. If third-party published sources begin changing the numbering, then Wikipedia should reflect that. Until then, the existing numbering of Eccleston as number ninth is entirely in line with what the published sources state. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. McGann is the Eighth Doctor, Hurt is the War Doctor, Eccleston is the Ninth Doctor, Tennant is the Tenth Doctor and so on. Yes it means that the name of the tenth chronological Doctor is the 'Ninth Doctor'. We can cope with this - it's fiction.Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"Steven Moffat confirms Matt Smith is Thirteenth Doctor, with regeneration riddle tackled during Christmas special", seemingly changed his mind since he claims the Matt Smith regeneration is the 13th due to 'Journeys end' counting as 2 regenerations, that John Hurt is part of the regeneration count. Link here. Also both Doctors both agree that John Hurt is an official Doctor before Matt Smith meets the Curator (Played by Tom Baker) so this would mean his title would change from 'war doctor' to the 'doctor' so his name should have 2 different alias --Ronnie42 (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, though, there's a difference between counting him as the ninth Doctor (small 'n'), and the character known as the Ninth Doctor (and Tenth etc). Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ronnie42 - He has confirmed that Smith's doctor is the 13th and final form, the 11th and 12th forms being in the same body. So his prior statement is still accurate. Combining the two statements we have: Smith is the 11th doctor, the 12th body, and is also the 13th and final form. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't even know for certain that the War Doctor regenerated into Eccleston's Doctor do we? So, who knows what "number" Eccleston could be. The Doctor, himself, has stated he has way more than 12 regenerations (500 something wasn't it?). Eccleston could be "number" 50 for all we know. 68.61.251.72 (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Steven Moffat has confirmed that Smith's doctor is the thirteenth and that this issue will be addressed in the Christmas special. He has said that the Doctor can only regenerate 13 times and as Tennant's doctor regenerated twice this means that Hurt's doctor would have to have regenerated in Eccleston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drwho16 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Change the picture

There are official pictures showing all twelve doctors which could be used as the main picture. If not, could a picture of Hurt be inserted between McGann and Ecclestone. Hurt is a face of the Doctor so he should be included. Drwho16 (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is a BBC picture which shows all twelve doctors including Hurt lined up. If this isn't available just insert Hurt into the current image.Pacman464 (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from creating a picture of all the incarnations of the Doctor. Feel free to do so and to insert it within the appropriate places in the article(s) keeping in mind the context of whatever section you're inserting it into. DonQuixote (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

What he said, he said in the name of peace and sanity

“If anyone corrects you and says “You mean TWELFTH!” when you say “Matt Smith was the eleventh Doctor” then that person is being irritatingly pedantic and should be pitied, in a nice way and with a gentle friendly, not-patronising sort of love, because they will have long hard lives ahead of them.”

— Neil Gaiman, Is the War Doctor now considered as the canonical Ninth Doctor?

Just to break a lot of the tension on the DW talk pages recently. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Real world and in-universe are not mutually exclusive

I'm going to state this again and try to make it as clear as possible. There is no rule that says there can only be one-and-only-one table. We can have a well-written section about series leads (which is what's in the current version of the article) and at the same time a well-written section about in-universe chronology with its own table with Hurt between McGann and Eccelston. So please, don't change the current well-written section to a different in-universe version because we can always create a new section that addresses in-universe continuity for the incarnations. Same goes for the images. DonQuixote (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to add a mention of the War Doctor

Under the "Changing Faces" section we have a chart of the Doctor order, actor and dates. Would it be advantageous to include a mention of the War Doctor *underneath*, but not a part of, that chart? "Based on the events in 'The Night of the Doctor' and 'The Day of the Doctor' we know that there was an additional regeneration in between the Eighth Doctor and the Ninth Doctor, known as the War Doctor, played by John Hurt" or something like that? We acknowledge he wasn't the lead in the role, and that he's not considered part of the "official" numbering, but we cannot deny that both in-universe and in real life he's being acknowledged as a legitimate incarnation of the character. At least until the next season starts and we may get more answers somewhere down the line. Esprix (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good!Zythe (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I had done an edit that got deleted, but what is there now, I think, is about perfect:

"In addition to the above-listed actors, others have played versions of the Doctor for the durations of particular stories. In the 1986 serial The Trial of a Time Lord, Michael Jayston played the Valeyard, described as an amalgamation of the Doctor's darker sides from between his twelfth and final incarnations. In the 2013 episodes "The Name of the Doctor", "The Night of the Doctor" and "The Day of the Doctor", John Hurt played the War Doctor, an incarnation existing between those of McGann and Eccleston. Hurt was never the series' lead actor; his Doctor was retroactively inserted into continuity for the show's 50th anniversary, and was written so as not to disturb the ordinal naming of the established Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Doctors."

Kudos to whoever wrote it! Esprix (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Cheers!Zythe (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

My two cents

John Hurt: I admit I had to read a lot of arguments on this before I really formed my opinion, but here it is: I do NOT believe that he should be added in the picture of the 11 canonized Doctor's, for the following reason: He is NOT "The Doctor". He is the Gallifreyan who typically uses the title of "The Doctor" (let's say that "The Doctor's" real name is Bob to keep it simple), but he himself does not use that title, as he doesn't think he deserves it. The following regenerations also do not think of him as "The Doctor" (as 11 said "But not in the name of The Doctor"). So while he is, technically, the 9th incarnation of Bob, he is NOT the 9th Doctor (that would be Eccelston). Therefore putting his picture in the infobox would be confusing to people who don't know the show, as he is not "The Doctor" anymore than the Valeyard is. Because "The Doctor" is a TITLE, not a name.

Paul McGann: Screen time does not a Doctor make. For those of you arguing that McGann's lack of screen time (i.e., just the one back door pilot and the mini webisode) means that he is somehow not as worthy to be called "The Doctor" as others, I have to completely disagree. He was the official successor of McCoy (who no one argues is not the official 7th Doctor), and just because it unfortunately didn't work out that there was more TV for him, McGann is the 8th Doctor, so stop using the screen time argument against him. Also, I believe that the mini webisode made canonical his audio drama adventures, as he mentions his companions from the audio shows during it, and the BBC has said that "The Night of the Doctor" is a prequel to "The Day of the Doctor", which makes it canon. And if you add in the hours of his audio dramas, he served as The Doctor for quite some time.

Anyways, those are thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyselink (talk • contribs) 03:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign that Vyselink (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC))

Canonized? As far as I know, Doctor Who has not been canonised yet in any incarnation, unless you've heard any different from the Vatican... Mezigue (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the episode he is redeemed and accepts the title of the Doctor having been called the doctor by Tennant's and Smith's version. Therefore he does use the title of the doctor.Pacman464 (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the use of canonization. That likely comes from dealing with the nonsense blathered about canon-this and canon-that from the fanopolis that is the Whovian throngs. Canonization is the process by which the Catholic Church turns a dead person into a saint. The Doctor doesn't fit that category. Its probably best to avoid the entire sack of crap about canon and simply stick to reliable sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Canon is not the issue; in fact, it's irrelevant to the discussion. As Jack says, it's more about reliable sources (as well as Wikipedia's out-of-universe perspective).Zythe (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

He's called the Doctor in the show. He IS the ninth incarnation. Therefore he IS the ninth incarnation of the Doctor.Stamfordbminus (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Show us a reliable reference that states, without equivocation, that he is the 9th incarnation. We cannot make that assessment on our own. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Outside references are not required. The linear progression from the publicly accepted 8th incarnation to the Doctor played by Hurt is directly established within the show. His identity as the Doctor is directly asserted within the show. After that, it's just math. The number 9 follows the number 8. We may treat the numbers associated with the Doctor as names, but they are not (and that is clearly stated by Moffat and can be sourced). It didn't matter before, as we never had to worry about the numerical designations being erroneous until the recent retcon. Regardless, now the in-univese numbering of the Doctor's incarnations has definitively been altered.Stamfordbminus (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are wrong; references are always required. We cannot use your Sherlocking to determine content, since you as an editor are not a reliable source for anything within Wikipedia's content. That isn't meant to be harsh, but comments about how cites "aren't required" bothers me on a fundamental level.

The subject matter we are dealing with is a time-traveling fictional character wherein continuity issues often (to put it mildly) require several leaps of logic. What may seem perfectly logical to you is not necessarily accurate or within the fictionalized logic of this tv program. That aside, you noted that you have a citation with Moffat listing the progression and identifying Hurt's Doctor as the 9th (and a subsequent alteration to the ordering) - why didn't you simply forego the argument and put that in there to begin with?

I will reiterate: you need a RS that explicitly states that Hurt's characterization is in fact the Ninth Doctor, and that the ordering is changed. Without it, we cannot say it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This is no more a matter of personal deduction than is watching Batman and noting from the on-screen actions that Batman's parents were killed. It happens on screen, right there for us to see. That is how the story was told. And like almost every story synopsis written on every page about fiction, it is acceptable material to include and does not require an outside source.

To clarify: I did not say that Moffat stated Hurt was the 9th doctor. What Moffat said was that the Doctor's numbers are not names. That the Smith Doctor does not consider himself the 11th or the 12th or the 25th - though honestly that seems to contradict some of the on-screen material. But then, that's the problem with sources. If we go by the recent Star Trek movie as an example, previous to the release we have an official source stating that Khan was absolutely not in the movie. Since entertainers (rightfully) do not care about fact but instead entertainment, they frequently lie.

No offense was taken and I do understand where you are coming from. Regardless, there is a danger in over-correcting. If it was relevant to say that the Hurt Doctor wore a goatee we would not need to wait for any source beyond the fact that it was clearly shown that way on screen. That IS our source. Seeing a clear, linear progression from the McGann Doctor to the Hurt Doctor is the same.

Now, if we adhere to the strict interpretation of guidelines for common names, than the "names" of the Doctor as we use them may not change. Eccleston remains the "Ninth Doctor" - but he IS the 10th incarnation and that is relevant information that should be incorporated early in the relevant articles.Stamfordbminus (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. People get a little touchy with the whole "canon" thing. A) I am fully aware that religions (especially Catholics) use the terms "canon" and "canonization" etc to describe ecclesiastical ideas that they want to make official/declaring new saints. However, the word has come to mean "official" within somethings own history, i.e. many did not consider McGann's 8th Doctor audio dramas to be official, nor his companions, and now many do. It's a word, it's strict meaning has changed, get over it. Or when you read the word "gay" is the only thing you read is that someone is happy? B) I agree that Hurt's War Doctor should be incorporated early in articles, however, he is NOT The Doctor. As I explained above, he is the 9th incarnation of Bob, but he is NOT the 9th Doctor. The Doctor is a TITLE, one that he does not take for himself. Yes, I saw the 50th anniversary, and he does thank the other two for making him feel like the Doctor again for a few minutes. However, Hurt's Doctor did not consider himself the Doctor only because of what he did at the end, but for being the soldier he was during the War itself (see 10's speech to the Master in "The End of Time"). I agree with Stamfordbminus that the 9th, 10th, and 11th Doctors articles should be rewritten in away to explain that they are the 10th, 11th, and 12th incarnations of Bob (or whatever, you get my point) but, because Hurt was a one-off character, his picture should not be in the infobox with the Doctor's. Eccelston, Tennant, and Smith's numbers should not be changed (or Capaldi's when he officially makes his debut). I've already explained my feelings on McGann, that screen time does not make the Doctor, but McGann was supposed to be a continuing version, it just didn't work out that way. Hurt was SPECIFICALLY created to be a one-off. It would be as if (god forbid) they canceled Doctor Who after this years upcoming Christmas Special, when Smith regenerates into Capalid, and claiming that Capaldi was NOT the 12th Doctor. Vyselink (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to point out your opinions on the matter, Vyselink. Taking in what all of you have offered, I would draw the following conclusions:

1. John Hurt's War Doctor was indeed an incarnation of the Doctor. It counts, whether it was a one-off or a continuing characterization. This is one of the reasons why people get so up in arms about McGann's stint not being "real". Frankly, when I hear someone take that point of view (about what's real canon or otherwise) , I want to simply turn down the volume on the person, as they are simply draining valuable oxygen from the room. If its noted in the primary source of transmission, then its real. Full stop.
2. Yes, the articles for Eccleston's & Co.'s characterizations onwards should be noted that they are one incarnation more than was previously thought. this is because it happens to be accurate and this happens to be an encyclopedia. Funny how that works out, right?
3. For any this to happen, it needs to be explicitly cited. I find the argument opposing this mainstay of how we work to be without merit. It isn't simply observable information, but instead mostly clear. Since we don't get to impose our viewpoints on the article, we use references, instead. Without them, we get to say precisely zip. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's what the BBC page says:

"The ‘War Doctor’ was a choice made by the Eighth Doctor. After crash-landing on Karn he was helped by that planet’s mysterious Sisterhood and Ohila allowed him to influence his next regeneration. Who or what did he wish to become? The Doctor made his decision quickly… ‘Warrior!’".

Here's some quotes from Moffat:

"He's the same Time Lord, the same being as the Doctors either side of him."

"Matt Smith's Doctor is in his 12th body but he's the 11th Doctor, however there is no such character as the 11th Doctor"

"Paul McGann turns into John Hurt so they're not the same incarnation. He used up another regeneration..."

So that's an official source pointing to the fact that the Hurt incarnation immediately follows that of the 8th Doctor. That he is his own incarnation. That he is the same being. That Matt Smith is the 12th body, regardless of what we call him. So the Hurt Doctor is the ninth incarnation. Eccleston is the 10th. And so on.Stamfordbminus (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you be troubled to provide links to those quotes, please? As your comments support my conclusions, It would be good to be able to substantiate my conclusions with references. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Here you go:

http://www.blastr.com/2013-11-25/confused-moffat-addresses-all-those-who-regeneration-limit-questions

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01l1z04/profiles/war-doctorStamfordbminus (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well it appears that we are in agreement here. I agree that we need sources for anything that we change/cite, that goes really without saying. It would be WP:OR without them. My only real fear was that someone was going to argue that Eccelston should now be numbered the 10th Doctor, Tennant the 11th, and so on. Which from all the evidence I've seen is incorrect. Eccelston is the 10th "Bob"/incarnation, and that should be noted (along with Tennant/11th etc..) Vyselink (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I've always loved this quote from Moffat: "Matt Smith's Doctor is in his 12th body but he's the 11th Doctor, however there is no such character as the 11th Doctor", and then in some other spot in that same interview he says something to the effect that the Doctor doesn't know how many incarnations there have been "off the top of his head". That's arguably the stupidest thing he's said, as apparently he doesn't even remember what his own show has written. In the Season 5, episode 11 show "The Lodger", the 11th Doctor needs to give Craig some information, which he does by headbutting him (somehow transferring his memories/thoughts into Craig......don't ask, it's Doctor Who). When Craig starts to sputter and say "You're a....you've got a TARDIS" the 11th points at himself and says "Yes, 11th". Vyselink (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Here's a video, it's about 40 seconds in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoHvZjnRndE Vyselink (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Moffat doesn't seem to actually be paying attention or he is simply lying. He also says he's very careful not to call Hurt the Doctor, yet Hurt is credited as the Doctor in his first and last appearance, and he's referred to as the Doctor by himself and others. So according to Moffat, he's not "the Doctor". But according to the actual show, he is. I liken his interview to those of J.J. Abrams when discussing the most recent Star Trek movie and insisting that Khan won't be in the film. He was lying for the sake of PR. To shield the audience from potential spoilers. Moffat was (and is still) almost certainly doing the same to prevent spoilers. When dealing with articles regarding canon in entertainment, any source outside the actual original material that predates the release of said material is potentially tainted.Stamfordbminus (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Should John Hurt be added to the info box

He portrayed the doctor and was a significant incarnation. There are numerous references to back this up although whenever he is added to the box the edit is undone. On previous discussions the concencus has been to add him so should he be added?Pacman464 (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any such consensus. There's consensus to mention him in the article, but not the infobox. To list every actor to ever portray the doctor would make the infobox too large, so we can draw a convenient line under those who have played the show's lead. I see no convenient line to be drawn between "show leads plus Hurt" and all the others. Rubiscous (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course we should; he's an Incarnation of the Doctor as appearing in the series. He should be part of the infobox list. The argument that others have portrayed the character is dilatory, as they were not connected to the continuity (indeed, only Cushing's portrayals would have even come close to inclusion, and they were specifically intended to not be a part of the continuity). If it is part of the series, it is in. This is pretty much the BBC line, and we shouldn't impose our petty opinions on it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Include. It's a show about the Doctor and Hurt played the Doctor on said show. We should also make not one each Doctor's page about the sequential ordering of the incarnations.Stamfordbminus (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out above, "show leads plus Hurt" is too arbitrary, and it also strays into in-universe. He's a guest star and he's listed under Other actors along with the other guest stars. A guest star is not important enough to be in every list on every page. DonQuixote (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. Mezigue (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Include Hurt should be included. He played an "in continuity" incarnation of the Doctor, and he has been in as many television episodes as Paul McGann. KitHutch (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"In continuity" is "in-universe", which contravenes writing about fiction. So, no. DonQuixote (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you've already said this. If in-universe is truly an issue, then we should only show Hartnell and leave the rest for later in the article. Since that is unlikely to happen, and we're already considering the material with an acceptable and non-misleading in-universe order of the Doctor, than Hurt should be placed within the image. You speak of rules? Remember: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. I say it improves the article, and barely bends the rule in the first place. INCLUDE.Stamfordbminus (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A small confession: you will never find an editor less concerned with Whovian canon than I, and you can confirm that with just about anyone who has ever edited with me. So believe me when I say that this isn't a canon issue. This is a simple logic issue:

1. We have references from the showrunners that say - in no uncertain terms - that Hurt's character is/was an incarnation of the Doctor.
2. This is an article about Doctor Who, dealing primarily with the actors who have portrayed him on television.
3. There is no number 3, as this is a fairly simple argument.

We have a reference that say he is an incarnation, so any twitch a contributor might have about inclusion is going to have to take a backseat to the references that explicitly provide detail that we - as editors - should act upon. It isn't "in-universe" to state a cited fact. It's called an encyclopedia for a reason. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

As it has been pointed out many times, it's not about "canon" or whether or not Hurt has played the Doctor. It's about where to draw the line. Two options are that we can include every actor who has played the Doctor or we can list the series leads and then link to Other actors. To continually argue that he should be included with the series leads rather than Other actors based on "in continuity" and such is arguing from in-universe and doesn't hold as much weight as arguing from a real-world perspective. Yes, the sources say that he has played a version of the Doctor, but no source says that he's a series lead. DonQuixote (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A concern whether Hurt was a lead or not (and as the he is is called Doctor Who and is about Doctor Who and he played Doctor Who, it seems like an odd concern) does not seem particularly relevant on an article specifically about the character of Doctor Who. A certain amount of in-universe is inherent in an article about a fictional character. In short, you're worrying about an irrelevant detail and twisting Wikipedia guidlines to the breaking point to keep this information out.Stamfordbminus (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

He's mentioned in this and other articles multiple times. So, no, it has nothing to do with "keeping information out". The infobox is for quick information and the simplest is to list series leads. A guest star does not have to be in every list on every page. DonQuixote (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You say guest star, I say he played the lead character.Stamfordbminus (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

They're not mutually exclusive. Within the history of television, many guest stars have played the lead character. The episode Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling from The Prisoner comes to mind, as well as guest stars playing younger or older versions, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If he did play the lead character then things would get messy. We'd have to insert him in between 2 mentions of Matt Smith. Luckily for our sanity, Day of the Doctor was officially during Matt's tenure. Rubiscous (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hurt hasn't played Doctor Who, the only person to have played Doctor Who is Peter Cushing. Rubiscous (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not according to the show's credits.Stamfordbminus (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That's been retconned. Hurt definitely hasn't. Rubiscous (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The previous episodes credit sequences have been retconned? I really don't think that is true. Regardless, you're just screwing around with semantics. "The Doctor". "Doctor Who" "Dr. Who"... contextually, they are all the same guy. He's the lead character of the show and Hurt played him.Stamfordbminus (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think all of you saying he shouldn't be on aren't reading the info box correctly. The info box gives information about the doctor and says PORTRAYED BY. Did John Hurt portray the doctor? YES. Should he be on? YES. The only thing I would change would be a better picture of Hurts doctor, although well done to whoever put it together. Ronaldomessirooneymourinho (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is getting beyond mental. Real world significance and writing about fiction while maintaining proper weighting and sense of perspective is the main thing editors need to care about.Zythe (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Zythe did Hurt portray the Doctor?Ronaldomessirooneymourinho (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That has never been in dispute. However, I think giving him a picture is disproportionate weighting, as he was a guest actor retcon Doctor, and sticking him between anywhere in the 1-12 sequence misrepresents the real world story. Including him at all puts disproportionate emphasis on the fact that he was, in the story, a "real" Doctor. You've declared a consensus, when there clearly isn't one. Zythe (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The info box says portrayed by. You have just said Hurt has portrayed the doctor. not adding him would be misleading. Ronaldomessirooneymourinho (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a link to Other actors who have played the Doctor...so not misleading at all. DonQuixote (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The other actors did not play their own incarnation or a legitimate Doctor. The other thing I can think of doing is to change the word Portrayed to Incarnation. The argument he only appeared in three episodes wears thin when McGann is listed. Like it or not he played a legitimate incarnation and the 50th anniversary focused on him. I don't think a consensus will ever be reached when you refuse to listen to the opinions of others as you have clearly already made up your mind that he should not be added.Ronaldomessirooneymourinho (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Er...pot, kettle, black. But seriously, if you can make a real-world argument rather than an in-universe one, then I'd be happy to listen. Please see WP:WAF to see why that distinction is important. DonQuixote (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

He played the Doctor. He is credited as the Doctor. Is that real world enough for you. Ronaldomessirooneymourinho (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he did play the Doctor, but he was also a guest star. The infobox is for quick information, listing the series leads and then providing a link to all the guest stars is good enough. What real-world reason is there for Hurt to be singled out as the most important guest star? DonQuixote (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

He isn't Michael Jayston who played "an amalgamation of the dark side of the Doctor". John Hurt portrayed The Doctor. He is a real doctor and perhaps some people should recognize that (Zythe). He should be included in the infobox but perhaps at the bottom or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcs2050wiki (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

He is Michael Jayston in that they're both guest stars. Real-world perspective. He is a guest star. Some people should recognise that. He's already linked with Other actors. DonQuixote (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

He isn't a guest start he played the doctor. He portrayed the doctor. He is a legitimate incarnation. You should recognise that. But like I said you have already made up your mind and no concensus will ever be reached.Ronaldomessirooneymourinho (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

He's a guest star by the very definition of the term. Please use real-world terms as that's the preferred style of writing on Wikipedia. DonQuixote (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The only users who don't want him to be added are you and Zythe. It's got nothing to do with if he was a guest star he played the doctor. this is confirmed on the official website. Surely if only two people disagree we have a concensus.Ronaldomessirooneymourinho (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I also don't think he should be added. We do not have a consensus. He guest starred as the title character in a couple of episodes, but always alongside the show's current title lead, Matt Smith. If Hurt were ever to portray the character with himself as the leading actor, then yes sure I'd vote to add him. But in real-world terms, he's a guest star. And here on WP we work on real-world terms.Justin.Parallax (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) John Hurt is a guest star. He guest starred as a past Doctor. Matt Smith is the lead actor. He also portrayed the Doctor. Does that not make sense?

You also seem to think an infobox needs to be as "literally" and "fully" inclusive as possible, whereas it is in fact supposed to be a carefully cultivated overview which presents a comprehensible portrait without going in for complexities, ambiguities, uncertainties or anything that might be misleading. The fact of the matter is, that because of this show's interesting casting history and longevity, listing every "true" face of the Doctor is simply not within our remit - it is much more the remit of fan wikis. If over the next 5 Christmas specials we kept meeting other past Doctors, would you want it exponentially expanded? Would that represent a fair evaluation of the show's 50 year history? When the information is specifically about the Doctor's fictional history, rather than the character-in-real-world-terms, then the War Doctor is of course included in sequence. Disclaimer: I'm a big fan and I "count" him as a "real" Doctor because that is the fact of the story, but this is irrelevant to the discussion of giving appropriate weighting on this encyclopedia.

Please read over the discussion again, as the divide seems to be between the various editors (quite a few) who want to write about the article according to guidelines, and then a group who seem to be less informed about the perspective used in Wikipedia's articles about fictional characters.Zythe (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

sorry Zythe I didn't realise your opinion meant more than others and that it was it is, an opinion. I think the BBC website is a better source than yourself.Ronaldomessirooneymourinho (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

What?! Don't get all personal. The BBC website includes him in its list of the Doctor's past lives - so? This, as has been stated, is not in discussion. It does seem like the editors on your side of the fence just aren't getting it—making it a false dilemma which hinges on whether he's "really" the Doctor, which of course he is—and then there's maybe a dozen on this side who have taken part in the various arguments, said it crystal clearly in policy terms, and then tired of the battle. The current solution works - leave Hurt out the infobox, and explain the real world context of his introduction in the article. This is what's advised on the Writing About Fiction guidelines.Zythe (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

John Hurt portrayed the Doctor and the info box should reflect this. I think you making this out to be more complicated than it is. If somebody wanted to find out about dr who and the actors who portrayed the doctor then Hurt is a part of that. The info box lists the actors who portrayed the doctor and hurt portrayed he doctor. He is different to actors in the others list because he played his own incarnation and so played the doctor. Why is McGann on here when Hurt isn't. technically hurt appears in more episodes. Ronaldomessirooneymourinho (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Because McGann lead the show in real-world continuity. Notice we name the actor and the dates they lead the show, with no link to the article about the incarnation of the Doctor they played. Notice also that the dates are consecutive. Where would you place Hurt? It would be confusing for anybody who is unfamiliar with the show (and that's who we write for) to use a fictional timeline to sandwich somebody who portrayed him in 2013 between two people who portrayed him in 1996 and 2005. And to use a real-world timeline and stick him after Matt Smith could cause the uninitiated to assume he took over from Matt Smith. Rubiscous (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, the show did not say 'Guest Starring John Hurt". But maybe it did and I missed it. If it didn't, the argument that he was a guest star is original research. Yes, there were other Doctor's on screen, but that also is true of every appearance by Paul McGann. In short: He played the lead character. We don't get to decide the value of his contribution or the status of it beyond how it is depicted and credited and sourced. So once more, INCLUDE.Stamfordbminus (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

We're not discussing the value of his contribution or the status of it though. We're highlighting actors who have lead the show in their own right, and mentioning actors who have played the same character as the actors who have lead the show in their own right under "other". The canonical legitimacy or importance of the incarnation is irrelevant. Rubiscous (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

We absolutely are discussing the status if Hurt's contribution. We all agree he played the title character of the show, and this is an article about the title character of the show and was credited as the lead character of the show. He was not credited as a guest star, and the strict adherence to "he must be a series lead" is absurd. This is an article about a fictional character, a degree of in-universe tone is absolutely impossible to avoid, and wiki rules were not meant to be used in such an obstructionist manner as to prevent something that should so obviously be included.166.137.209.164 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia's focus shouldn't be on the character's biography, but on the real world history, end of. The issue with the table is more important than the picture, I'd agree, but simply William Hartnell or simply Matt Smith/Peter Capaldi would be preferable to a collage that reports fictional history involving retcons in such a way that it comes before the real life (lead actor transitions) history.Zythe (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't have a problem with either the first or the current Doctor in the image. It would make a great deal more sense. My contention is based on what we have now, which is arguably misleading if we exclude Hurt and arguably misleading if we add him. Between the two, I choose ADD. But if the third choice is just one Doctor then I will take that. However, I do think a in-continuity image of the Doctors in order makes sense elsewhere in the article.Stamfordbminus (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that it is misleading either way, as the infobox as it currently stands is a mixture of real-world info and in-universe info with no clear break between the two, as Template:Infobox Doctor Who character does not conform to the style set down by Template:Infobox character, in which real-world info is added before an 'info-hdr' separator, and in-universe info after it. Taking a step back and looking at it from a different angle now I understand your issue. The infobox isn't clear or consistent. I still think we should only list series leads but we should present it differently. Template:Infobox Doctor Who character isn't fit for purpose. Rubiscous (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Apparently, another user thinks that by adding the following text in a nowiki:

"This is a table of the lead stars of the programme. Other actors who have played the role (such as John Hurt and Michael Jayston) are listed in List of actors who have played the Doctor#Other actors who played the Doctor. John Hurt is mentioned below, but didn't play the role for a period of time when he was the lead actor."

that the discussion has ended. I imagine the user strongly believes this, as they've reverted it twice (1, 2) under the guise of WP:BRD. Discussion about Hurt's inclusion is ongoing, and we shouldn't do anything to short-circuit this valuable process.
I would ask that people hold off on making these sorts of edits until a consensus has been arrived at. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If you check the edit history, that was there and then an anonymous ip made a bold edit before even discussing it on the talk page. Please check the edit history before making such claims. DonQuixote (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

With respect, it is in fact you who should have started banging down doors to let us know what was going on, DQ. We cannot read your mind, and reverting three times in a row - w/out a peep - is just frakkin' stupid, man. You've been here long enough to realize that no one changes their mind when faced with revert after revert after revert. You wasted time. Stop doing that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox rework

As I mentioned in the discussion above, I believe that the root cause of arguments over whether to include or exclude John Hurt from the infobox lie in the way that detailing the Doctor's species and home planet (in-universe) were ambiguously followed by his first appearance and portrayals (real-world). As this is the way that Template:Infobox Doctor Who character sets things out, and as this demonstrably causes difficulties with regards to writing about fiction, I have reworked the infobox based upon Template:Infobox character as I believe this template creates a more MoS-compliant infobox, pending Template:Infobox Doctor Who character being reworked until it is fit for purpose. Rubiscous (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

To my eyes that is a significant improvement. In regards to the image I would still prefer we change it to either just the original (or current) Doctor, while moving the sequential imagery of incarnations to later in the article (while integrating Hurt). I suggest this not out of any concern for the canon itself, but when reporting about this particular fictional character, the in-universe order of incarnations is abnormally relevant. A group image without this character in-between McGann and Eccleston is misleading. As we're unlikely to see an accord regarding that image, why not just eliminate the problem? It's a bit untidy as it is anyway.Stamfordbminus (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the picture with all the Doctors could be moved to the changing faces section. I would have he current Doctor as the main picture as he is the most relevant from a real world view.Ronaldomessirooneymourinho (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The right direction I think. But I worry that by having a dedicated fictional section you create lots of room for things which are, in the context of fifty years, trivia - like the nickname Theta Sigma. River Song as "spouse" is also problematic, because it assumes a fictional "present" state for the character, and overstates the significance of a (great) latter years' recurring character. Perhaps the IU fields should just be "Affiliation", "Race", "Planet". These are constants across all characters and don't go into fictional minutiae.Zythe (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree. I think we should cut "spouse". The granddaughter bit is on the fence. I personally think it should stay, but it's hard to argue that while arguing against the inclusion of spouse. The rest I would argue to keep.Stamfordbminus (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. We want to avoid confusion, and having both spouse and granddaughter listed could cause that. "You mean Susan is River Song's granddaughter?" and so on. They're companions, put 'em in the companion's segment, not here.Justin.Parallax (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Talking about his family is too confusing. here's why:

There is some dispute over whether Susan really was his grand daughter and not just a companion. He has also been married to Queen Elizabeth. Would you include Amy and Rory Pond as in laws. Would you include his cloned daughter Jenny. Some fans believe he and the Master are brothers.Coronationstreet100 (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

We are told in the first episode that Susan is the Doctor's "granddaughter". That's not an ambiguous word. If the show says she's his granddaughter, she's his granddaughter – it's as simple as that. Susan been part of then fabric of the show since 23 November 1963, and has been sporadically featured and mentioned since then, as recently as The Rings of Akhaten this year – she's the only family member I would consider important enough to merit infobox inclusion.

I don't think it's appropriate to mention Elizabeth or Jenny, since they only appear in a couple of episodes and are rarely afforded much importance by the show. It'd be jarring to mention trivia like that alongside fundamental relationships like Susan being his granddaughter.

What fans believe has no encyclopedic significance. We record the key facts from the licenced material – no more, no less. So no, for our purposes, the Master is not the Doctor's brother. —Flax5 21:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd point out that in addition to licensed material, we also use references from reliable sources discussing the subject. If such a source made note of some familial relationship between the Master and the Doctor, we'd be obliged to mention it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Should the Doctor Who Doctors image include John Hurt's War Doctor???

Since the BBC has now made his character canon as noted by Doctor Who News:

http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2013/11/john-hurt-doctor-line-up-picture-241113154317.html--

SGCommand (Talk to Me  · contribs  · 19:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC))

I think it should, yes. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur. A 2013 image of 8 could be used as well, if we liked – since they might be better quality. DBD 20:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No. Various discussions are still ongoing. Let's wait until they reach a consensus. — Edokter (talk) — 21:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Where are these discussions please??--SGCommand (Talk to Me  · contribs  · 23:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC))

I really think it ought to. Even though the "War Doctor" uses a different name/title, he's still an incarnation of the same character and a part of the ongoing cycle of regenerations.31.50.83.165 (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes.50.156.93.216 (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it should show the main ongoing actors who each have "tenure" in the role.Zythe (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The War Doctor is a legitimate incarnation in his own right, and one of the most symbolic, despite the name variation he should have a place in the pictures, the Doctor Who Wikia links him in the picture textbox.--Snowy66 (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who Wikia also has an in-universe focus, whereas we have a real world one - we are interested in the character as a cultural product and acting role, and much less so as a fictional person.Zythe (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine for a real world list of actors have portrayed the character, but by that logic Troughton is the 3rd. In every reasonable manner, Hurt is the 9th incarnation of the Doctor and pages should be adjusted to match this retcon.Stamfordbminus (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"No, it should show the main ongoing actors who each have "tenure" in the role." In that case it shouldn't show the Eighth Doctor either, as his only onscreen performance is in a single one-off TV movie and a six minute mini-episode. The article's image should show every official incarnation of the character that's been portrayed onscreen.31.50.83.165 (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"We are interested in the character as a cultural product and acting role." John Hurt portrayed the Doctor in a feature length episode that was watched by millions of people worldwide. If that doesn't make his portrayal a significant part of the show's ongoing cultural impact, I don't know what does. The "acting role" point is nonsense. John Hurt portrayed the character onscreen; regardless of the total length of his "tenure", that fact is indisputable.31.50.83.165 (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

He's a retcon Doctor introduced for the special. McGann had tenure 1996-2005 and was officially given the role like the others before and after him. Hurt's Doctor, while fictionally important, is as meaningful for the front page as the Watcher or the Valeyard. These were both onscreen portrayals of "the Doctor". If you slotted Hurt after McGann (fictional order) or after Smith (order of introduction) in a photo, both would prove grossly misleading to uninformed readers.Zythe (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

McGann only had tenure in 1996. His voice acting in the audio productions isn't canon, is separate from the television series continuity and so doesn't count. The Watcher and the Valeyard are anomalous and not part of the character's canonical, visible cycle of regenerations. The Eighth Doctor is seen to regenerate into the War Doctor onscreen, and the War Doctor is seen to regenerate into the Ninth Doctor onscreen. This makes him a legitimate part of the character's television history. I don't understand what you mean by him not "officially" being given the role. He either portrayed the same character onscreen or he didn't. The fact that his incarnation's introduction was retroactive doesn't seem relevant.31.50.83.165 (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That's an in-universe reason. From a real-world perspective, it doesn't matter that we see him regenerated, etc. The point is, is he the star of the programme? That is, the picture is not to show every version of the character but to chronicle the history of the programme in terms of series leads (Richard Hunrdall's not in the picture either). DonQuixote (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he is the star of the program. "The Day of the Doctor" was simulcasted across the world. The point of the story was the War Doctor's dilemma, his conflict. He's the star. Therefore, he has just as many credentials as McGann. You seem to be splitting hairs, IMO. I'm an American who has only loosely followed this show for the last eight years and some of Pertwee's episodes, and I can see this as plain as day. It's confusing to not insert the War Doctor in between 8 and 9. (Leave the numbering alone.) --Bark (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned by others, inserting him between 8 and 9 is in-universe. If we must insert him, he's going to be between 11 and 12 as that's when his character was introduced in the real world. And he might be the co-star of the episode (or special), but he's still not the star of the programme. Also, McGann was specifically cast to star in an American show which never got past the back door pilot. DonQuixote (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong about him not being the star of the program. The day in "The Day of the Doctor" was HIS day. He qualifies for full inclusion in some order. Anyway, I've said my opinion, but in closing I get a very WP:OWN sense from you here. It's just my impression.--Bark (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be a false impression. It's not about ownership, but about writing about fiction in the proper way. In any case, it was not just John Hurt's day - it was also Matt Smith's. And for what it's worth, it's Matt Smith's era, and his episode, with John Hurt as a special guest star with star billing, in casting terms the equivalent of Kylie Minogue and David Morrissey, even if who he played had a much bigger impact on the programme's (fictional) history.Zythe (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If we're writing about fiction in the proper way within Wikipedia, Hurt is the 9th and all other bump up a notch from previous numbering. It's a retcon, but Hurt is unquestionably the 9th incarnation of a being whose fiction states only as 13 incarnations.Stamfordbminus (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that's writing in-universe. From a real world perspective, we don't have to implement the retcon, we just have to describe it. Eccleston was cast after McGann in 2005 and then much later in 2013 Hurt was cast as the incarnation between Eccleston's and McGann's. That's all we need to say from a real-world perspective. DonQuixote (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

But this is an in-universe article about the character, not about the casting order. Even then, the numbering isn't in-universe. The Doctor does not typically refer to himself by his regeneration order. The numbering exists so that we can track the sequential order of the fictional characters limited incarnations. Hurt is the Doctor, he is the 9th incarnation. Therefore he is the 9th incarnation of the Doctor. That is to say, the 9th Doctor. That would make Smith the 12th incarnation, that is to say, the 12th Doctor. Stamfordbminus (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about the character, yes, but Wikipedia articles should be written from a real-world perspective and not in-universe perspective. That's Wikipedia policy. All the in-universe stuff you mention should be described in the context of real world events. DonQuixote (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is not an in-universe issue. We have a fictional character whose mythology consists of multiple lives that progress sequentially. The fiction has now been retconned so that he numbering order has changed. When we are writing this strictly from an encyclopedic viewpoint, Hurt is the 9th incarnation and should be listed appropriately just as the NX01 Enterprise from 2001 is now listed ahead of the NCC-1701 Enterprise from the 1960's.Stamfordbminus (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're still describing everything in-universe. And that's fine when we summarise the mythology. But everything else that's outside of summarising the mythology, such as the list of actors who have lead the programme, are written from a real-world perspective. DonQuixote (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If the numbering of the Doctor's as stated on Wikipedia refers only to the actors as they appeared in the roles, the Hurdnall is the 7th and Atkinson is the 10th. But by counting only continuity actors, we're already stepping into the in-universe pool. I have no problem with a list of actors reading in order as they appeared, but regardless of when his appearance took place, Hurt IS the 9th incarnation of the Doctor, which shifts the others up accordingly. In short, we do not list the actors without keeping continuity in mind, and the reconnected continuity is quite clear and should be properly reflected.Stamfordbminus (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to state this outright because a lot of people are failing to understand the difference between in-universe and real-world perspective: if you want to create a table from an in-universe chronology, go ahead and do it as long as you can find the appropriate place to put it. The tables and infoboxes that we have now are constructed from a real-world perspective, so please be mindful of that and don't change them to in-universe.

As for Hurndall and Atkinson, they weren't the leads of the programme when they played the parts. DonQuixote (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

In-universe vs. real world: the Doctor isn't a real person. If you're going to say anything factual about the character, it's going to be that which is true from an in-universe perspective, that in the real world we know is fictional. This article is chock-full of "in-universe" facts about the Doctor. John Hurt is certainly a star - he's one of the few people who could carry off a one or two episode incarnation. Richard Hurndall was playing the First Doctor, not his own separate incarnation of the Doctor. 86.128.108.12 (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing in favor of changing the infobox of actors who played the role. I'm arguing in favor of referring to the character within the established continuity correctly in general. As far as your other point: Yup. The way we currently refer to the numbering of the Doctor is continuity and in-universe dependent. That was my point. Eccleston is only the 9th now because he overwrote the previous Moffat story with Atkinson. There was a point where Atkinson was considered the 9th Doctor. Retcons happen, and the way we list characters changes. Consequently, Hurt is the new 9th incarnation within the characters stated history. He is the Doctor. Therefore he is the 9th Doctor and Eccleston is now the 10th Doctor.Stamfordbminus (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, the War Doctor is a canonical Doctor and so should be included with the others. Warden (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you read what Don Quixote said? We don't want to create the impression Wikipedia was trying to write him out of the show's history. It isn't. We're just following the guidelines about writing about TV/fiction generally. How about, between Matt Smith and Capaldi on the *list*, we write John Hurt (2013) in italics. The italics will show there is a special circumstance there, and we won't have to face the problems we might run into if we put him in the picture.Zythe (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, my fault on that one. I wanted to directly respond to the above IP so I replied directly underneath him (hangover from Usenet days). I should have been more careful.

As to listing Hurt between Smith and Capaldi, that would be better than listing him between McGann and Eccleston as it's real-world perspective rather than in-universe. DonQuixote (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This article is about the character of the Doctor. John Hurt has now played the character of the Doctor. Very surprised there's a debate about this. A bright cold day in april (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that as of today (Nov. 25 2013) John Hurt is listed as portraying the Doctor in the list in the picture textbox (last name listed before "other actors who have played the Doctor"). I was getting the impression from the discussions here that no consensus had yet been reached over how/where to include the War Doctor. Should that remain, or not? Esprix (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it should remain. It seems that the consensus is that John Hurt did play the Doctor and not some other incarnation. Indeed, he is credited as such on the BBC website and also during the end credits for The Day of the Doctor. I believe these sources do need to be listed.A bright cold day in april (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said on WT:WHO - the image is nothing to do with "in universe" or "out of universe", it is to show the faces of the Doctor. John Hurt is now a face of the Doctor - and thus should be in. 188.223.5.95 (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. We seem to have a consensus. I will update in 48 hours. A bright cold day in april (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus. The dispute isn't about "who is the Doctor" at all. It's like you've not read any of the counter-arguments.Zythe (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

He's the Doctor. That's really all there is to it. It doesn't matter if the actor has or has not headlined the show. It doesn't matter if in one bit of credist he's called "The War Doctor" or if he's called "The Other Doctor" on the toy packaging. He is the Doctor. He is the ninth incarnation. He should be in the picture box between McGann and Eccleston.50.8.216.135 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

True of the character, definitely - not in question. But we have to be very wary of not misrepresenting the history of the show as it transmitted over 50 years. This is a specific point of guidance on the WP:WAF guidelines. We don't represent any fictional character on Wikipedia as a biography.Zythe (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm sorry, this isn't a personal comment against you or anyone in particular, it's about a certain class of edit discussions in particular: that is the most pedantic, pointless argument possible. People go on about guidelines for this, guidelines for that, but this is just a case of personal opinion. By that logic why the heck is half of the material in this article there? I could go on, but that's my point: a month ago the argument was "let's wait for the episode to air", and now it's this new stuff. I get tired of seeing people alternate between saying "the talk page is not a forum discussion" and then see people "invent" rule intrrpertations.

The character of the "War Doctor" was the feature of the biggest broadcasts in history, etc etc. The shos out, the character has been seen on-screen as much as he ever likely will, and there no "will or wont" left.Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: given that the BBC has publicity photos of all twelve doctors in one picture, why are we using a collage of twelve publicity images? Sceptre ^(talk) 23:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Lede edit back and forth

A bit of back and forth has been occurring, and since the other editor has not chosen to bring the discussion here, it is up to me to do so.
In what is surely one of the less interesting editing conflicts this article has seen, there is some back and forth regarding the preference of the following two phrases:

• On 4 August 2013, it was announced that Peter Capaldi would follow Matt Smith's tenure.
• On 4 August 2013, it was announced that Peter Capaldi would follow Matt Smith in the role.

In the interest of full disclosure, I advocate the second phrasing of the sentence; the titular role in Doctor Who is not an academic position. Even if one could argue creative/dramatic license, the fannish quality of supplying import to the role is contrary to our mission as editors. The second phrasing, imo, states the facts simply. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. Per WP:BRD, it would have been helpful for you to do so immediately after your initial change was reverted, rather than repeatedly reintroducing it without consensus.

I'm fine with either wording, but tenure sounds more natural to me, while "follow in the role" is a bit awkward. It doesn't strike me as at all fannish to use tenure in a loose sense, but if it is a problem for others, I would suggest: "On 4 August 2013, it was announced that Peter Capaldi will take over the role following Smith's departure."--Trystan (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't care either way, but the academic sense of "tenure" is definitely in no way the primary meaning of the word; no analogy is being drawn between playing the Doctor and professorship. It just means "the duration of holding a position," and can work in many contexts. Dictionaries tend to list the other meaning as US/Canada-specific, and usually as a third/fourth meaning (example example). Zythe (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but again, the term 'tenure' lends itself to some fairly lofty interpretations, something this article needs less of, not more. And I tend to dislike colloquialisms such as "take over". I'm not married to the second version, but I am strongly in favor of a plainer phrasing here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Once series 8 starts, we won't have to mention Smith in the lede whatsoever, given the 50+ year perspective.Zythe (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it heads my list of 'Problems That Resolve Themselves'™. My pointing out the problem is, if anything, to sharpen our awareness of the sorts of language we use, and how it can be used to elevate or decimate a topic. (ie, 'On 4 August 2013, it was announced that Peter Capaldi would be paid to assume Matt Smith in the role.') - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It was up to you to do so from the start since you made the bold edit which I reverted. It was never up to me, in light of this your attempt to instruct me that I be the one to start the conversation was rude, and your further attempts to suggest wrongdoing on my part incredibly rude. I could safely revert once more to the pre-bold version as your most recent edit was clearly an edit too far, but I will refrain from doing so if it will end this nonsense. Please read WP:BRD carefully and note who should be starting discussions, thanks. Rubiscous (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If I failed to immediately follow the protocol you described, why did you fail to do so yourself? If you revert, you start a discussion. Full stop and let that sink in. Because I erred in not initiating discussion doesn't give you license to ignore discussion as well. Now, do you wish to take part in the discussion? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Poppycock. I invite you to read WP:BRD again. I failed nowhere. I reverted your edit, I am under no obligation to immediately discuss after first revert. You then reverted my revert instead of discussing, and using your edit summary suggested that I should be the one to start the discussion. Totally out of order on your part, and I guess I was understandably stubborn in insisting on not following your unreasonable suggestion. I agree with Zythe's comment above, pointing out that the sentence will become moot within one week so it's not really worth discussing, but for the record I don't find any problem with the word "tenure", I think it more accurately conveys the status of series lead as reflected in the sources. Rubiscous (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The moment you noted the "status" of a character, I decided that I was dealing with a fanboy point of view, making any effort on my part to reason with you as moot as Zythe's comment about the subject being moot as well. Drahmahz concluded. Go edit something. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Again with the character. The series lead is an actor who portrays the character, not the character itself. And there would be a lot less drahmahz if you would refrain from trying to tell other editors what to do, but I see this might still be a difficult concept for you to understand. Rubiscous (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

I've been bold and removed the 'Played by (others)' section as it was simply a tautological link to List of actors who played the Doctor#Other actors who played the Doctor and goes against the MOS for Infoboxes (keep it simple and clean). I've relocated the link to 'Played by (series leads)' and retitled the section 'Played by'. Imthough that this would be important to note given the edit warring over adding John Hurt.Goodsmudge^(Talk) 14:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it went against the MOS at all. It made the list clearer, and indeed simpler. We are listing series leads there. People keep adding Hurt as "Portrayed by" is too open to interpretation. It's confusing both for the reader and pedantic editors. However we end up presenting the information, we should clearly and concisely communicate our intent, John Hurt shouldn't be listed but nobody should have to read notes/talk/summaries to find out why John Hurt isn't listed. The list as it is simply isn't fit for purpose. That was the idea behind splitting the list in that manner. Rubiscous (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

John Hurt

If you are going to add him then you need to add the other one episode Doctors from earlier in the series (and there have been others) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B015:92A5:0:3C:352A:CA01 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to Richard Hurndall's portrayal of the First Doctor in "The Five Doctors", he doesn't play a separate character. He simply replaces William Hartnell in the role.31.50.83.165 (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'd support noting him as an actor who portrayed the Doctor in the info box, placed between Peter Davison and Colin Baker. Unlike Peter Cushing, he canonically portrayed the same character.31.50.83.165 (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Other people who have played the Doctor in one episode have done so for numerous reasons; Hurndall stood in for the deceased Hartnell, but it's Hartnell who is regarded as the First Doctor since he was the principal actor to portray the role. Likewise, while there are are several 9th Doctors (Eccleston, Richard E. Grant, Rowan Atkinson...) it is Eccleston who is considered the 9th Doctor. John Hurt was clearly indicated as portraying the incarnation following Paul McGann's 8th Doctor in the minisode "The Night Of The Doctor", and thus falls between McGann and Eccleston as an official, canon, incarnation. However, that still leaves the question of how one deals with the Meta-Crisis Doctor and Doctor-Donna, since "The Time Of The Doctor" confirms that as an actual regeneration.Morogth (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul McGann (1996, 2013)

Rubiscous, you reverted my change of adding Paul McGann's appearance in 2013 to the infobox. I understand your objection, but I feel it is incorrect. The issue you raised was if we add all appearances it'll be messy (actually, what you said was 'out of continuity', by which I hope you're not implying Night of the Doctor is not-canon, because that's completely wrong). I assume (presuming you're not implying what I just said I hoped you weren't) that you mean all special appearances of past Doctors (e.g. multi-Doctor appearances). However, this case is not like that. The episode Night of the Doctor was unambiguously a Paul McGann episode (that is, one headlined by him, not a special guest appearance) and so should count as an appearance as much as his 1996 appearance. And if not, then I would argue on the same vain Sylvester McCoy shouldn't have 1996 next to his name, as that is even less of s significant appearance, appearing only in the opening of a TV movie that isn't headlined by him (indeed, he is credited as only a guest star). --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 21:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

By out of continuity I meant that the dates as they stand are chronological, and throwing in one instance out of that continuous chronology raises more questions for the reader than it answers. The whole list needs to be made a little less ambiguous IMO. We need to decide exactly what it is we are listing, and we need to accurately and concisely describe our intent to the reader. Be that series leads and their time served as series lead or headlining actors and their headlining appearances, or any other way of listing them. On reflection, listing McCoy's 1996 appearance does seem anomalous. Is the listing of any form of dates strictly necessary to identify key facts at a glance? Rubiscous (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Dates do reveal a lot to the reader about what the show was like when they were the Doctor without delving into OR. It also gives a crude summary of how important they are to the show's long run, overall, in terms of screen time. I think removing dates might take us in the direction of treating the show as the story of a fictional person, rather than an encyclopaedic account of the show's premise, development, creative changes and reception over the years.

On a separate note, I think Imagine Wizard might be right. It's fine to list 2013 for McGann and not 2010(?) for Davison in the list which presently exists, simply because it was in fact an Eighth Doctor episode. And because these things fall within our discretion. Zythe (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and reinstate my changes, as I feel that, as the list currently stands, McGann's 2013 appearance is valid in the format currently existing. If anyone has an objection, I think we should discuss it here until we reach a new consensus before deciding if we're going to revert back or forth or whatever. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 18:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)]

P.S. And also, RE: Rubiscous' 'out of continuity' point: I think that's fine. It shows that McGann's only other episode was not aired after his first 'episode', but in 2013 instead (and I would imagine any reader who can put two and two together can recognise the significance of his only other episode being broadcast in that year) which is an unusual and therefore point of interest. It probably would 'raise more questions', but as I explained in my brackets, not one that would confuse the reader if he were to do a minuscule of research as to the nature of his second episode (and anyone who didn't want to do that probably wouldn't care at all anyway). And McGann is an anomaly himself, being the only Doctor (with the possible exception of Hurt) to just have one special to himself. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 18:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been removed again, but for the record, I agree: McGann's return as the lead actor, in an episode entirely from his Doctor's perspective, is unique and unprecedented in the show's history. I think it should be acknowledged in the infobox. —Flax5 20:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Physiology section

This seems more relevant to the 'Time Lord' article than here. This is specificially about the character of the Doctor, not biological attributes which are common to his entire race, most of which are trivial. I suggest that the section is relocated to Time Lord and a paragraph is added to the background section summarising on the key points: two hearts, regeneration, not requiring oxygen. The meta-crisis regeneration can also be covered there, as can the new cycle received in "The Time of the Doctor". Goodsmudge^{(Talk | Contribs)} 11:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)