Talk:The Doctor (Doctor Who)

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)

Page name

The name of the page is incorrect. He is called The Doctor, not Doctor. 86.154.189.22 (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a guideline for this sort of thing at WP:THE. Since the word "the" has no unusual meaning in this context, and since it isn't capitalised in running text, we don't include it in the article title. —Flax5 13:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, since the character is variously credited as "Doctor Who" (i.e., "Doctor" reads as his first name, since he is not actually a doctor) and "The Doctor", so "Doctor" is understood in both senses. —sroc 💬 01:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this assessment. WP:THE also states that using "The" in a title can be condititionally used in a situation where "The" is known as "another official or commonly used proper name" is used (such examples given are The Hague and The Crown). There is certainly enough evidence that "The Doctor" falls under that condition. (Also, I would argue similarly for Star Trek: Voyager's own "The Doctor.") --hmich176 10:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, he's not any old doctor, and he's not claiming to be a physician type doctor. "The Doctor" is generally his referred name. 217.44.214.229 (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that it should be 'The Doctor'. I think the title 'Doctor Who?' is a response to someone referring to him. This is the doctor. "Doctor who?" He isn't any run of the mill doctor either. He is the doctor of time, space, and the entire universe; including all races and species contained therein. If anyone deserves the honorific 'The' then it should be him. We should also discuss whether it should be 'The' or just 'the'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• I would agree with changing the title to "The Doctor" capital "T". "the Doctor" isn't correct to me because that could be anybody, and "The Doctor" is his title. Vyselink (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with changing the title of the article. He's consistently referred to in the show and supporting material as The Doctor, because that is his given name rather than an honorific (although he does have degrees as well. It's also used in-show to differentiate him from other, more conventional doctors. I'd say it should also be capped in running text. Mister Six (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)#

"The Doctor" is his name. As in, THE Doctor. It's a name and a title both. I don't think it makes a huge amount of difference to the accuracy of the article, though.31.50.83.165 (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Cause of the Fifth Doctor's Regeneration

This is worded quite poorly I think. You could say the Doctor was forced to regenerate because of Spectrox Toxaemia or Spectrox poisoning, but surely not Spectrox Toxaemia poisoning. Toxaemia means poisoning, the presence of toxins in the blood. It was the Spectrox that was the cause.

Should this be corrected?

Ph 1980 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Addition of The Dark Doctor

I think that since John Hurt has been confirmed as the doctor during the time war he should be added in between the 8th and 9th from death of unknown causes.

There should be countless sources on bbc.co.uk/doctorwho saying he is the Dark Doctor

I'm removing this for now. Let's wait until the show airs and see where John Hurt fits in. I've seen speculation that he could be anything from a future Doctor to an older Eighth Doctor to a previously unknown Ninth Doctor to a version of the Master. Because Wikipedia can't tell the future, I think it's proper for us to hold off and wait for the episode before updating the article with details about the character John Hurt portrays. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

Edit request

Reword - to include mini-episode featuring Paul McGann - note 5, as the information stored is out of date and not immediately applicable to the content, thus confusing a reader unaware of the mini-episode. JonOberdorfer (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: Edit requests need to include the exact text you would like to add in a "please change X to Y" format. Suggestions, like yours, are useful also, since some other editor may choose to take them up, but they do not require a {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Thirteenth Doctor"

Currently, the lead says:

On 4 August 2013, it was announced that Peter Capaldi would play the Doctor's twelfth incarnation (thirteenth doctor, as he identifies himself in The Day of the Doctor).

The parenthetical remark is somewhat in accurate, as Capaldi's character does not identify himself as the Thirteenth Doctor. The dialogue is:

• "All twelve of them."
• "No, sir! All thirteen!"

It's unclear whether the last line was given by Capaldi's character, as it doesn't sound anything like his voice in The Thick of It and he is not seen on-screen until a few seconds later. Even if it is him, he doesn't actually identify as being thirteenth in the sequence, only that there are thirteen of them in that scene. —sroc 💬 06:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I've amended this to say:

On 4 August 2013, it was announced that Peter Capaldi would play the Doctor's twelfth incarnation (he briefly appeared as one of thirteen Doctors in The Day of the Doctor).

—sroc 💬 06:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• I support this. It is ambiguous and uncertain whether Capaldi's voice is actually heard. Published media reports and reviews do say it is, but other reports say it is not. Until it is indicated specifically by a reputable source (Doctor Who Magazine is the most likely place where this will happen), we should hedge our bets. The chart of Doctors later in the article needs to be amended to reflect Capaldi's debut, however. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If its all right could I add to this discussion? At the end of the episode John Hurt's name and character portrayed is positioned inbetween McGann and Ecceltson. By this and the comment in the episode, is that Capaldi will be the 13th. Its just that the media and BBC marketing is out of sync as it was heavily prompted without letting it slip in public. --86.159.183.108 (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Technically, it's still inaccurate to say he's playing the "twelfth incarnation." He's still the thirteenth incarnation of the character, just the twelfth to identify himself as "The Doctor."31.50.83.165 (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The incarnation's name is Twelfth Doctor even though he is the thirteenth incarnation. To avoid confusing newcomers who aren't steeped in Who mythology, editors have adopted the phrasing "The Twelfth Doctor is an incarnation of the protagonist..."Zythe (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Saying he's "the Twelfth Doctor, and the thirteenth incarnation of the character overall" may seem confusing to newcomers, but at least it's accurate. If you're concerned about that, simply clarify it elsewhere in the article.31.50.83.165 (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The other wording is 1) just as correct, 2) avoids being unnecessarily confusing and fannish. We write these articles for people who are not familiar with the programme. For that reason, we avoid going into strange in-show concepts until they have been properly introduced. We can go into the subtleties of numbering the Doctors in a relevant part of the article, with a source, for those Doctors for whom it is even relevant. (Often it's not even important - the name of the character has real world value, but for many incarnations, like the Tenth, expounding on a precise fictional numbering would be a bit like including his fictional date of birth.)Zythe (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that's true, but omitting John Hurt's portrayal from the main "canon" of actors seems misleading rather than a matter of practicality. His incarnation is undeniably significant to the show's ongoing plot arc. The articles should at the very least reflect the Eighth Doctor>War Doctor>Ninth Doctor transition.31.50.83.165 (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I see what you're saying. But that's not important to explaining in as few words as possible who the Twelfth Doctor is, in that article's first sentence. It is certainly important when explaining the War Doctor.Zythe (talk) 13:46, 25 November 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)

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)

Matt Smith is technically the Thirteenth Doctor?

According to a recent media leak, the Doctor actually used up one of his regenerations in "Journey's End", and thus can't regenerate again. Technically, the "clone" Doctor is the 11th Doctor, and with the revelations regarding the "War Doctor" being the "true" 9th Doctor, Matt Smith is supposedly the 13th and last incarnation. The Christmas episode will revolve around his character's "death", and his acquiring an entirely new set of regenerations, allowing Peter Capaldi to take over. What this means for the numbering of Doctors in the future, I have no idea.31.50.83.165 (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Article here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/doctor-who-christmas-spoilers-matt-284750931.50.83.165 (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

better srticle here: at the Radio Times Etron81 (talk) 23:00, 25 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)

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)