Template talk:Doctor Who navbox

What's Cho-Je doing here?

Cho-Je wasn't an incarnation of the Doctor. Why is he listed here? 23skidoo 19:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove it. —Whouk (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Valeyard

Since the Valeyard is identified on screen as being a future incarnation of the Doctor, I wonder if he should be included in the "Other Doctors" section of the template? 23skidoo 05:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would think so also but whatever.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes

per this change - here.

Good idea, but two main problems. Firstly, the characters name is not Doctor Who. Secondly, the Watcher and the Valeyard were in the TV series - but they were "intermediate" versions and not actual regenerations. So I reverted. StuartDD ( t • c ) 13:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

mote also that the shalka doctor appears in one of the Past Doctor Adventures books as "unofficial" regeneration. StuartDD ( t • c ) 13:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, "The Doctors" is not an acceptable template name. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The newest proposal by Stuart is fine. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Doctors

The Doctors are read horizontally, that's annoying given there's just 2 in a row but 5 in a column. Could someone change it so they read vertically? I think there's a col1= -ish attribute that could be used for this but I'm scared I'll delete Wikipedia or something if I start messing with it. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

is there any way to return it to a vertical format as i find the horizontal format confusing and it was only a few days since this was the format —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.117.42 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Doctors of The Curse of Fatal Death

Though none of these Doctors have articles of their own, or are really likely to do so, they belong in this template. Atkinson was, after all, referred to as the "ninth Doctor" on the cover of Doctor Who Magazine #278 in 1999, while Joanna Lumley (the 13th Doctor) appeared on the cover of issue #328 in 2003. Inside that issue, Andrew Pixley wrote up the story as a part of his ongoing Archives column, a treatment reserved for "proper" episodes of the series. The story was placed on equal footing with other stories of the classic era during the 40th anniversary celebrations on BBC Gold. There, it was broadcast interspersed with "proper" episodes of the series.

Like other "ninth Doctors", Atkinson himself has received at least passing "official" status through press statements and at various points on the BBC website. [1] [2] The story itself was the most "official" production between the television movie and Scream of the Shalka. Parody, it might have been — but parody by the copyright holders.

Perhaps a line at the very bottom of the template could be entered as, The Doctors of The Curse of Fatal Death CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Or we can have a link to Doctor Who spoofs, where The Curse of the Fatal Death is mentioned. That way we can refer to it along with all the other Doctors in all the other spoofs. DonQuixote (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We could. The only thing that preys at my mind with that idea is that Curse seems different than other spoofs. It's essentially an "official" spoof. It was a deliberately out-of-continuity episode of the series, commissioned, budgeted, and produced by the copyright owners, fully utilizing the signature elements of the series proper. It was then sold by their distribution company to the home market as an otherwise normal part of the numbered catalogue of the parent program. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 15:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then we can have a link for Curse of the Fatal Death and another one for Other Spoofs...or not. Whatever you think is best. DonQuixote (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

11th Doctor

I have found no metnion of an 11th Doctor anywhere so i will remove Andrew Lincoln. In fact Tennant is confirmed to star through 2009 so i doubt there will be any news on an 11th doctor for some time S-m-r-t (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt Smith.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.254.42 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Who's a clever boy? </sarcasm> U-Mos (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Layout of Template

Seeing as #11 is a future Doctor, and #10 is still current, is it possible to rearrange the template to give more prominance to #10. Currently it implies that #11 is the current Doctor. 84.70.51.168 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, we list them by number. There is no reason to highlight the current actor, it will just lead to conflicts when to change it... Regards SoWhy 18:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hurndall?

Should we really have Hurndall credited as the First Doctor. He only protrayed him once, during The Five Doctors. By all means have him credited on the First Doctor page, but on the template? By that we'll have to credit Colum Regan for him being the Doctor in Journey's End and perhaps Selvester McCoy as the Sixth Doctor also as well as th Seventh. I think it's only fair to just have William Hartnell on the template. --Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 19:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Tentatively decided to include him as part of this discussion. I stand by my comments then, as Hurndall played the First Doctor in a completely proper (for want of a better word) episode of Doctor Who. U-Mos (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

i would like to add that you wouldnt need to add Sylvester as the Sixth because he was not ment to be the Sixth, and he was covered up by the energy only showing the wig and partial body, and Colum Regan was a body double and only there to save money on cloning effects of David Tennant where as Hurndall is an official actor staring as the First Doctor and not covered up, although not the origional he was still classed as an officail Doctor where as the others were body doubles. i can clearly see your point but i do believe an actor and a standin/body double are very differant. That would be like saying the Harry Potter polyjuice potion doubles in Deathly Hallows are the same as the actors stunt doubles!

Other doctors...

The Doctor Who Confidential that introduced Matt Smith yesterday mentioned Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, T Baker, Davison, C Baker, McCoy, McGann, Eccleston and Tennant. It did not mention The Valeyard or The Watcher or Hurndall, let alone DonnaDoctor or Human Meta-Crisis Doctor. Thus, it seems to me odd that a navigation box about the incarnations of the Doctor should include The Watcher and The Valeyard, or Hurndall. The Watcher wasn't even a speaking part and the actor who played the role so non-notable that he doesn't have a Wikipedia article about him! If you're going to include obscure entries, then why those ones and not others, like for The Curse of the Fatal Death Doctors, the Other or Muldwych[3]?

Let us be encyclopaedic about this, taking into account notability, an out-of-universe perspective and what citable sources say rather than a 'fannish', in-universe perspective. Navigation boxes are summaries, for ease of navigation, not exhaustive lists. I suggest this box should list the incarnations of the Doctor and their actors that most citations give, namely Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, T Baker, Davison, C Baker, McCoy, McGann, Eccleston, Tennant and, now, Smith. No Hurndall (but of course he can be described under the First Doctor article). No Watcher. No Valeyard. Peter Cushing, fair enough, and I'll not argue about the Shalka Doctor. Being bold, I'll make that change now. Bondegezou (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I wrote my views on Hurndall in the above section. I stand by them. As for Valeyard and Watcher, I'm for them being in too. However large their parts, they played a version of the Doctor of sorts in the main TV programme. I'd say that's enough for the infobox, for the Valeyard at the very least. As for DoctorDonna and the "other" Doctor from Journey's End, absoultely not. U-Mos (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, and I've read your views on Hurndall. I feel a useful guide here is the Wikipedia manual of style on writing about fiction (WP:WAF). This stresses using a real-world perspective rather than an in-universe one. I feel that your arguments for The Watcher and The Valeyard rest on an in-universe perspective. The manual of style talks of the "Description of fictional characters, places and devices as objects of the narrative". From a real-world perspective, The Valeyard's role in the narrative is not as an incarnation of the Doctor. His connection to the Doctor is a twist within the story, but his narrative role is as the villain, the Doctor's nemesis; one does not look to The Valeyard as an example of who the Doctor is. The Watcher just seems too non-notable to me!

Another way of thinking about this is to consider secondary sources. When secondary sources list the incarnations of the Doctor, they list Hartnell, Troughton, ..., Tennant and now Smith (and sometimes Cushing and maybe occasionally Grant). Show me some citations that bother listing The Watcher and The Valeyard or Hurndall in the same way! This navigation box is always going to be a summary, a simplification. One will always be able to ask why no Trevor Martin, or whoever. It seems to me that it would be more useful, following WP:WAF, to list the Doctors that most secondary sources bother with. Bondegezou (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced Hurndall into the list until we get a consensus here. As I also said above I believe that as Hurndall played the 1st doctor in a fully fledged episode, and not as an alternate doctor that he should appear on this list. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any particular attachment to the Watcher or Valeyard. If it was totally up to me, they'd be there. But you make a very good point and I have no issue in letting them go. As for Hurndall, I still feel he should be in there, as DeadlyAssassin supports above. U-Mos (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You offer an argument based on a criterion of playing the Doctor "in a fully fledged episode", but might I ask where does this criterion come from? I've tried to present an argument based on Wikipedia principles of notability, an out-of-universe perspective and reliable sources. As I said before, show me some citations that list Hurndall in the same way as Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, etc. I can't think of any. Yes, of course, Hurndall played the 1st Doctor in "The Five Doctors" and that is covered in the articles on that story and on the First Doctor, but what we have here is just a briefy summary to aid navigation. Most citations, as far as I can see, list Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Baker, Davison, Baker, McCoy, McGann, Eccleston and Smith (or some subset thereof), so it seems to me sensible to do the same. (Otherwise, why draw the line at Hurndall? Why not have Trevor Martin as an alternate 4th Doctor?) Bondegezou (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Template layout

To me this template would look far better if the names were in 'vertical order'. i.e.:

1      6
2      7
3      8
4      9
5      10
   11

This is far easier to read, rather than worrying about your eyes crossing the large gap when reading horizontally. Anyone else agree? -- Fluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 19:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I'm afraid. I'd find this very confusing. U-Mos (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm the same. It's a horizontal template, and conforms to a standard design of such things. Radagast (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)