Jump to content

Talk:Doctor Who: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 94: Line 94:
::::::::: And he's already included in the articles. [[User:DonQuixote|DonQuixote]] ([[User talk:DonQuixote|talk]]) 18:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::: And he's already included in the articles. [[User:DonQuixote|DonQuixote]] ([[User talk:DonQuixote|talk]]) 18:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::: Wonderfully mature response, glad to see you talking about this like a grown up. Paul McGann was the incumbent Doctor in the movie. Hurt was not the incumbent Doctor in the 50th Anniversary episode. It's really simply. It's not about who was credited when and who was given billing where (taking into note Flax5's observation there), it's about who was the incumbent Doctor. John Hurt has never been the incumbent Doctor. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|AlexTheWhovian]] ([[User talk:AlexTheWhovian|talk]]) 22:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::: Wonderfully mature response, glad to see you talking about this like a grown up. Paul McGann was the incumbent Doctor in the movie. Hurt was not the incumbent Doctor in the 50th Anniversary episode. It's really simply. It's not about who was credited when and who was given billing where (taking into note Flax5's observation there), it's about who was the incumbent Doctor. John Hurt has never been the incumbent Doctor. [[User:AlexTheWhovian|AlexTheWhovian]] ([[User talk:AlexTheWhovian|talk]]) 22:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::Odd that nobody wants Richard Hurndall in there despite being in basically the same situation. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] ([[User talk:Timrollpickering|talk]]) 23:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


== Wrong Date ==
== Wrong Date ==

Revision as of 23:59, 20 December 2014

Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 16, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 4, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
March 1, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
July 3, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
February 9, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 9, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
September 6, 2013Peer reviewNot reviewed
November 1, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
November 26, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
  • Error: 'FFAC' is not a valid current status for former featured articles (help).

Template:Vital article

Oceania

Can someone please fix the Oceania section? The article currently states that Doctor Who was/is popular in Oceania, and then has several oddly placed sentences about the show's broadcast history in Canada. Canada isn't a part of Oceania, obviously. I can't fix it myself because the article is locked. Thank you. 67.1.97.222 (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? 67.1.97.222 (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the paragraph into the North America section; I also tagged a number of paragraph with fact tags as they were unreferenced. Edgepedia (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a strange, out-of-place sentence in the "North America" section that states "Series three began broadcasting on BBC One in the United Kingdom on 31 March 2007." It's as if someone broke the paragraphs into regions, but was pretty careless about making sure the right sentences went into the right sections. Can someone please fix? IPs can't edit the page. 67.1.100.49 (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the sentence which states "Series three began broadcasting on BBC One in the United Kingdom on 31 March 2007." This sentence is out of place in a section about the broadcast history in North America. Some material in this part of the article was clearly reworked, but was left pretty messy. 67.1.100.49 (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Stickee. 67.1.100.49 (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add John Hurt!!

Though he didn't consider himself as a part of the Doctor's regeneration's, he needs to be included as an actor! I think he should be put down as John Hurt--War Doctor. Or as the ninth Doctor and the others upped one number. (Christopher Eccleston--Tenth (Im so sorry David!!) David Tennant--Eleventh (I am so sorry Matt!!) Matt Smith-- Twelfth Peter Capaldi--Thirteenth.) Sorry, big Whovian and couldn't help commenting. XXBrOkEnSmiLeXx (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the paragraph after the list of doctor actors table in the section Changes of appearance? It listed the War Doctor as a special guest Doctor. We do not list him as one of the main actors of the Doctor, as he never played the lead role of the doctor, only a supporting Doctor in two episodes. –KnightMiner (t|c) 22:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't change the numbers for the regenerations after the War Doctor, because he is apart, not quite the Doctor. But, he is important and should be included. 50.100.128.229 (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The War Doctor used a regeneration (as well as the Tenth's hand), so he could count as actor playing the Doctor, even though he only is shown in two episodes. IMBD counts John Hurt as a Doctor Who actor. Frmorrison (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's already counted as an actor who played the Doctor. See List of actors who have played the Doctor. And you do realise that you linked to user generated content at imdb, right? DonQuixote (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the BBC treat the War Doctor as a fully fledged Doctor now; see here. Sceptre (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does not matter. He's still only a supporting Doctor, and never played the Doctor as a lead role. Read the above arguments. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Never played the Doctor as a lead role": Was "Day of the Doctor" in my head, then? Hurt, Tennant, and Smith were all given lead billing in publicity. Sceptre (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned multiple times in this thread, he was a supporting Doctor. In TDoTD, Smith was the leading Doctor (since he was still the incumbent Doctor at the time), and Tennant and Hurt were supporting Doctors. Hurt has never played the Doctor as a lead role in his own season/series. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither had Paul McGann, arguably: he was the lead role in one movie that was 90 minutes long. BBC publicity for Day didn't shunt Hurt onto the side, he was given top billing along with Smith and Tennant. Post-Day publicity has fully integrated Hurt too. Given the BBC's attitude to Hurt, there's no reason other than fanwankery to not include him, really. Sceptre (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Hurt was billed fifth in the episode. —Flax5 17:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And he's already included in the articles. DonQuixote (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderfully mature response, glad to see you talking about this like a grown up. Paul McGann was the incumbent Doctor in the movie. Hurt was not the incumbent Doctor in the 50th Anniversary episode. It's really simply. It's not about who was credited when and who was given billing where (taking into note Flax5's observation there), it's about who was the incumbent Doctor. John Hurt has never been the incumbent Doctor. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that nobody wants Richard Hurndall in there despite being in basically the same situation. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Date

Although most people say it started in 1963 23rd Nov it started on the 22nd and was cancelled halfway through, then put on the next day. 202.158.223.209 (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - You will most certainly need to provide a reliable source for such a claim. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 02:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Not sure where you got this idea but it is incorrect. It is well documented, in numerous sources, that it aired at 5:15 pm and 23 November 1963. There is no reason to change the date in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 02:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dates for Capaldi and Coleman

Capaldi appeared as The Doctor in the 2013 Xmas special. Coleman made her first appearance as early as 2012, and joined as the companion after Gillan's departure in the latest Weeping Angels episode. Why are the years listed 2014 for both? Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of this year, 2014, the leads of the series are Capaldi and Coleman. DonQuixote (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they joined in previous years. Capaldi's appearance is somewhat more arguable, as he was only in the episode's conclusion; however, Coleman was Smith's official companion for a while, at least since 2013. Moreover, per WP:CURRENT, the current year is irrelevant. Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but within context, it's saying as of 2014 the current leads are...etc. DonQuixote (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, do we change that every year then? Chunk5Darth (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need now. I added the CURRENTYEAR template. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted. It should state the year they started as lead. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We had this discussion only a few months ago. "As of" means "at the current time", not "since". Mezigue (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be "since", because "as of" is confusing as hell, and is just another word for "currently". -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of using as of is to avoid articles containing outdated statements and so the reader knows the article is up to date. There is no urgency to that, I suppose, with any Doctor Who-related articles where impatient editors have to be stopped from jumping the gun obsesssively six months ahead of a change... Mezigue (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is just 'currentism', which should be avoided according to MOS:TV. State the year they started or leave it out; there is absolutely no chance here that someone will 'forget' to update the infobox. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to an old version of MOS:TV because I can't find a statement to that effect there currently? Rubiscous (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found it somewhere... under MOS:FICTION. Can't remember where though. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fan site link added?

Is the recent addition of "D50W" http://d50w.weebly.com/ to the "External Links: Official Websites" an error? It seems to me that it's a fan blog with pixelated photos, some trivia questions, all-caps text, and some grammatically poor and misspelled titles. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though. Keep or revert? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I see that the IP who added it also deleted it while I was looking at the "D50W" site. Yours, Wordreader (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Twelve's companions

So under the Companion section, it mentioned the different Doctor's companions. It lists Clara as Eleven's, but now that she's done an entire series with Twelve, I think that should be added. Also, Mickey was included as a companion, so if he's considered one, than Danny should be one too.. TaylorLanebore me 23:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:OR about who is and is not a companion can go on forever - and it is a fun discussion in the proper forum like a chat room. For Wikipedia purposes the only thing that matters is what can be reliably sourced. So, yes Clara should be added to the 12th Dr's list. As to Danny if a source can be provided (remember that Mickey was specifically stated to be a companion for three stories in series 2) that Moffat et al made him a companion then he can be added otherwise he is a recurring character. MarnetteD|Talk 00:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I go by what the Wikipedia episode articles give. Rise of the Cybermen has Mickey as a companion, The Caretaker does not have Danny as a companion. As well a referencing, the simple fact is that Danny barely traveled in the TARDIS, so from a fan's perspective, he's nt a companion. But yes, referencing too. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]