Talk:Doctor Who

Jenna (Louise)

Morning! This is more of an informal RfC than anything else, but I'd just like to bring up the whole "missing-Louise" issue as far as the current companion goes. It would be my personal opinion to maintain the Louise in her name until such a time as she is credited differently, just as we kept the Ponds listed as the companions until they left. As precedence for this, see The Matrix, where the directing team is still listed as "The Wachowski Brothers", despite their new status as "The Wachowskis". However, I'm open to other views, and I'd like to see consensus reached before this becomes an edit war. Do you think she should be listed as "Jenna Coleman", because that's what she's calling herself now? Or, like me, do you think we should stick with her credited name until that changes? Thanks!  drewmunn  talk  09:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It seemed to me that, when uncertain, we should reflect the individual's wishes, as is the tone of much of WP:BLP. However, WP:BLP does not address this issue directly. WP:NCP seems the most relevant policy here. It doesn't precisely comment on this situation, but says (of changed surnames), "If a name is the evident choice of the article subject, it is likely to be common; but evidence of actual usage is to be preferred if available." By extension, that would suggest we use 'Jenna-Louise' as she is still commonly known as such, until such point as 'Jenna' is better established. (However, MOS:IDENTITY is clear on transgender individuals: it should be "the Wachowskis", not "Brothers".) Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)#Choice_of_first_name. Bondegezou (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue. She is still billed as Jenna-Louise Coleman at present on Doctor Who. The media indicates she will change the billing in future. We need to continue with Jenna-Louise until she makes the change, at which time we can, too. This is a minor issue. --Drmargi (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

At present, no-one is being billed as anything on Doctor Who as no new Who is being broadcast. We only have past Who (with Jenna-Louise) and future Who (with Jenna). However, official announcements from the BBC currently already call her Jenna: see [1] as an example. So, ISTM that current official practice is already Jenna. Bondegezou (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Further BBC cites using "Jenna": [2], [3] Bondegezou (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks for that Bondegezou, good sources, that seems settled. Rankersbo (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it settled. No consensus has been reached; I remain of the opinion that, as this article is about the television programme, the most current information available from said programme should be the information used. As the credits of the most recent episode call her Jenna-Louise, that is what I believe she should be noted as here. Unless Drmargi has had a change of heart, we're 50/50 split on the matter at this time, so the change should not have been instigated. I'll put a note at WikiProject Television to try and sort this out.  drewmunn  talk  13:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The lack of activity for 7 weeks kind of gave the impression that consensus had been reached! However, OK, let's re-examine this issue. With respect to your argument, I don't see any Wikipedia policy to support it. We should follow what reliable sources say, and reliable sources refer to her as "Jenna". What Wikipedia policy supports favouring "the credits of the most recent episode" over what current reliable sources (the BBC) say? Bondegezou (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't very much get how a previously billed name has any more weight than the individual stating the change. Waiting for a new episode with a new billing? That's not how names work. Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The BBC may refer to her that way, but my point is the programme Doctor Who doesn't. As I said above, The Matrix refers to the directing team as the Wachowski Brothers, despite more recent events meaning they are no longer credited as such in new productions. They are credited as such in the most recent release of that production, so that's how they're credited on Wikipedia. I have no problem with Jenna's article calling her Jenna, but within the programme Doctor Who (which is what this article covers), she has always been Jenna-Louise. Reliable sources prove that her name is now Jenna, and I don't dispute this. I look at this in a similar way as the name of the current Doctor is listed. He is currently (see "most recent portrayal") portrayed by Matt Smith, and will be until he regenerates (or changes his name in the credits…). By that theory, Clara is currently portrayed by Jenna-Louise Coleman. Her name may have changed in the meantime, but how she is credited has not yet changed. See all of her other roles, where the articles still credit her as Jenna-Louise.  drewmunn  talk  16:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On the other side, there are numerous cases were actors are "credited as" some variation of their name or even a pseudonym, however I can't think of a standard where they are credited as that on wikipedia. Your example of the Doctor being credited as Matt Smith when Capaldi has been hired on as the next actor is irrelevant; for all intents and purposes those are two different characters (11th and 12th, respectively). "How she is credited" has absolutely no bearing on what the person's name is.Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

My point isn't regarding Capaldi, it's regarding the fact that Matt Smith is still The Doctor, despite the programme being off the air, and other actors still portraying him in various other media. I agree how she's credited has no bearing on her name, that's my point. We list who the companion is, which is the person credited (Jenna-Louise), whatever their other, more current names may be (Jenna). Also, it could easily be argued that WP:COMMONNAME makes her current name irrelevant. She's known as Jenna-Louise more prominently than she's known as Jenna. There's probably something from WP:RECENTISM to do with that…  drewmunn  talk  16:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Another option might be to use her own article as a reference. That is, don't change it until her article changes or don't change it until she's credited as such, whichever comes first. DonQuixote (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I still struggle with Sonicdrewdriver's position. Clara is not currently portrayed by someone under the name Jenna-Louise Coleman. She was portrayed by Jenna-Louise. She is currently not portrayed by anyone because the show is off air, but the BBC's Dr Who website and press announcements all call her Jenna now. I don't see a reason to privilege the last episode to be broadcast over what the BBC's current pronouncements say.

And we know she will be credited as Jenna in the anniversary special, in about 50 days time, at which point Sonicdrewdriver would presumably support the use of Jenna. I can't see much point in hanging on to Jenna-Louise for 50 days! Bondegezou (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

But it doesn't say "currently portrayed" in the infobox, it just says "currently". Perhaps some editors are seeing this as "currently credited"; after all it's generally the rule that cast lists in the infoboxes on episodes follow the credits. Another argument is that her article is at Jenna-Louise Coleman, looking at the article's talk page I see there's discussion on opening a move discussion after the 50th Anniversary Special has been broadcast.

Can't speak for Sonicdrewdriver about when they would be happy seeing the name in the infobox changing. I can't see the need for speed on something that is clearly controversial. Edgepedia (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy to see the change the moment she's credited as such in an episode. As far as website and press statements go, this article is about the television programme. A list of cast credits (as in the infobox) can only go on the credits for the programme, not how a person is credited outside it. She may currently be credited as Jenna in other media, but other media are not our concern in this article. The television programme "Doctor Who" is our concern, and the most recent credits read "Jenna-Louise". This will change, and when it does, we should reflect that.  drewmunn  talk  07:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about a particular episode, where the particular episode's credits are significant. It is about all of Doctor Who. Reliable sources -- the BBC's own official Dr Who website -- call her Jenna. What Wikipedia policy says credits from many months ago trump multiple current reliable sources? Bondegezou (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Look at the article for The Ark in Space. John Lucarotti is listed in the infobox as a co-writer even though he is not credited on the episodes. That's because reliable sources are more important than simply copying out credits. Reliable sources call her Jenna, not Jenna-Louise. Bondegezou (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The difference there is that he was not credited, despite having a verified role. Jenna is credited, as Jenna-Louise. Her status will change when the on-screen credits change, because currently her on-screen credit is Jenna-Louise. If she weren't credited at all in the episodes (see Spooks), then it would be different. However, the primary source on which this article is based (the television programme) currently refers to her as Jenna-Louise. Other sources (the BBC, for instance) may use a different name, but it's neither the most current primary credit, nor her COMMONNAME, so it doesn't warrant the alteration at this time.  drewmunn  talk  08:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You are quite right that the on-screen credits are a primary source. What does Wikipedia policy say about primary sources? See WP:PRIMARY. Well, that's clear: secondary sources take precedence over primary sources. Other sources (the BBC, for instance) are what Wikipedia policy tells us to use in preference to a primary source like an on-screen credit. WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles, which is not what we are discussing here. One could generalise the principle, but then it seems to me that "Jenna" is her common name, it is how everything in the last several months refers to her. Here are two recent examples: [4], [5] Bondegezou (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

But "the last few months" doesn't take precedence over the rest of time, which still outweighs just "Jenna". Anyway, the difference between a good primary source (in this case, an episode of the programme this article is about), and any of the references you've supplied is that none of the secondary sources specifically override the primary. She is referred to as Jenna now, as the sources note, but they do not change the existence of her credit within the show. You can't change something that has occurred when it won't be overridden by something that will occur in the future, until said future action does occur. In my opinion, we wait until the 50th broadcasts. Then the credits will have altered, so we can reflect that. Until then, as I've said above, she is still Jenna-Louise in the eponymous programme.  drewmunn  talk  14:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

She's been Jenna for several months in multiple reliable sources and shows every intention of sticking to that: I think that's plenty of time. The rest of your reply does not engage with WP:PRIMARY, which explicitly and specifically states that we should look to secondary sources over primary sources. Wikipedia policy does not give any special weight to a "credit within the show" and, indeed, favours secondary over primary sources. You have repeatedly talked about her credit within the show as having some special significance, but you've not provided any support for that position and I have shown you Wikipedia policy contradicting that. I don't know what more to say. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The point I'm attempting to make is that no sources specifically deal with changing the fact that she is credited as such currently. They note that she will be come the special, but not now. The secondary sources are of no use proving that her current status as Jenna in the professional world has any bearing on her past work, only on her future. Most currently, Clara was portrayed by Jenna-Louise. In the special, she will be portrayed by Jenna. The sources make that clear (although they only presume anyway. She may have a change of heart and go back on it all by the time we get there. Does that make presuming the change OR on our part?). I draw your attention to this time 11 months ago, when this article noted there was no current companion. Clara would be introduced in the next episode, and we'd already seen her character previously, but she had no standing as companion. Articles already referred to her as The Doctor's companion, but we didn't. Think of it this way: Imagine Jenna-Louise quit, and Clara was recast. The new actor would not be introduced until the next episode, and Jenna-Louise would not return to explain the alteration in any way. Who would be the reigning companion? If we apply the same rules as we do with the Doctor, we would not change the billing until it occurred on screen. Anyway, I can see we're not going to agree on this matter. So until other points are brought in by users other than simply us two, what say we let it lie undecided?  drewmunn  talk  15:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I see I came up in the discussion and thought I should weigh in. You know, boys and girls, this will all be over on November 23, when the new episode airs, and this issue shows no signs of being resolved before then. Given that, wait and see seems to be the best way to go.

The primary v. secondary sources policy isn't as sweeping as portrayed above, and much of it is more about how to handle primary sources than a global secondary-over-primary rule. There is at least one major exception, and that's for television, where on screen and the network sources (versus secondary media sources) are considered the most reliable (see the debate over a character's name on the U.S. show Elementary (TV series), which is similar). Right now, the most recent on-screen billing for Coleman is Jenna-Louise as far as I can recall. My feeling is that there's your reliable source for now. Once the next episode is broadcast, and if she appears as Jenna Coleman (and it seems reasonable to expect she will) the change can be made. Easy. --Drmargi (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree… This is a lot of bother over something so soon to be a non-issue.  drewmunn  talk  15:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Show me a Wikipedia policy that supports this repeated assertion that a past on-screen credit has some special primacy over WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. The person who plays the companion in Dr Who is generally called Jenna Coleman, as attested by multiple, reliable, secondary sources. The idea that we must wait for an on-screen credit change before making a change to this article seems like, if I might use the term, fan cruft and not the actions of an encyclopaedia. Bondegezou (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

If it were down to fancruft, then it would have been updated the second any hint of a name change were found. I explained above my view that a secondary source that doesn't cover the same subject as a primary one is not more valuable in the circumstances, and your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY is not quite the same as mine. In this case, the primary source is the only one we have. Secondary sources exist that confirm the name change of the actor, but not in relation to the current status on the programme. Saying "Jenna will be credited without 'Louise" in the anniversary special" is not the same as "Jenna is now called Jenna." They do not veto anything prior to the anniversary special, but refer to her as she wishes to be referred to in a descriptive manner, not in a manner that qualifies them as a secondary source on the confirmation of her naming currently within Doctor Who programming. If she'd legally altered her name, this may be different, but it is merely a crediting decision, and not even one that her own article considers prominent enough at this time to warrant a move.  drewmunn  talk  18:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested if you could spell out how you interpret WP:PRIMARY to support your position.

It is your overriding concern with the credit "within Doctor Who programming" that seems to me to be the wrong approach. The article should describe who plays the Doctor's companion at present. That person is someone generally known as Jenna, so that's what an encyclopaedia should call her. The idea that her credit "within Doctor Who programming" overrides how she is generally known or is of any particular importance to anyone but fans feels wrong under Wikipedia policy. She's a real person with a real life, with a name attested by multiple reliable secondary sources, as Wikipedia policy clearly says we should favour. Forgive me if I am mistaken in this matter, but you seem to have never shown me any policy that says an old on-screen credit should override all that.

Clearly there's no consensus here. I recognise that the article is going to stick with Jenna-Louise until 23 November, when it will be changed to Jenna. Bondegezou (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

My point is that none of your secondary sources deal with the matter in hand, which is how she's currently credited. They deal with her name change.  drewmunn  talk  15:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to say who currently plays the part of the Doctor's companion. I see nothing that says the role of the infobox is to note "how she's currently credited". That focus on the on-screen credit appears to be your interpretation of what should go in the infobox, rather than something derived from a Wikipedia guideline or policy. Nor it is the result of a discussion that led to WP:CONSENSUS. Please do point me towards the relevant text if I am mistaken in this matter. Bondegezou (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

An episode has aired, crediting Jenna under her revised proffessional name. I assume this issue is now resolved. Rankersbo (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

TV Channel

It was originally broadcast on BBC TV from November 1963 then it was on BBC1 from April 1964 and the 2005 relaunch was on BBC One, see BBC_One wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will1701 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are, basically, all the same channel though. Does this article need to worry about those distinctions? Bondegezou (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. Thats like saying that a baseball player played for the Florida Marlins and then the Miami Marlins. Its all the same, just different names.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In the main text I'd say yes but only when referring to the channel it is broadcast on, eg it started on BBCtv and the relaunch was on BBC One. 1701Will (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

They are all the same channel it is just the name that is different. Read the first paragraph of the introduction to the BBC One wiki page which states this explicitly. it is not misleading to just use the current name of the channel and attempting to distinguish between the two different spellings of BBC1 is ludicrous => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

BBC1 and BBC One are the exact same channel. It was a rebrand rather than a rename.Blethering Scot 20:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no difference between a rebrand and a rename in this case. You can make the same distinction between the change from BBC Television Service to BBC TV to BBC1. The fact that BBC2 appeared being the cause of the rebrand/rename in the mid sixties.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A rebrand and a rename are not the same thing in all cases. BBC One and BBC1 is the same name, but rebranded. There is no difference between them and stating BBC1 or BBC One is clearly acceptable.Blethering Scot 21:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, BBC1 to BBC One is a rebrand but on 20 April 1964, BBCtv essentially split & BBC2 was born & that's what I'm talking about, BBCtv renamed itself to BBC1 & that's not a rebrand.1701Will (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Table of doctors

In the 'Change of appearance' section of the article, there is a table of incarnations to play the Doctor, with actor and dates. Directly under this, there is a sentence saying, "The BBC has announced that Matt Smith is to leave the show after the 2013 Christmas episode, to be replaced by Peter Capaldi.[68]"

The last row of the table reads...

The Doctor	Portrayed by	Tenure
Eleventh Doctor	Matt Smith	2010–

Several people have edited this to give Smith's tenure as 2010-2013, and others have edited the table to add Capaldi as twelfth Doctor. These edits have been reverted without much explanation. I'm here to ask why?

We have reliable source citations that Smith's tenure ends in 2013. We have reliable source citations that Capaldi will be playing the 12th Doctor. It is, I suppose, possible that Capaldi will be run over by a bus and they'll re-write everything so Smith stays on, but is that really sufficient reason to leave the table unchanged. Why not change the table and include a footnote if you want to note these are future events? But it seems bizarre to me to have a table stating Smith's tenure is open-ended when we have RS citations saying when it ends.

Or what about having "2010-incumbent" for Smith? That, at least, doesn't imply Smith might stay on beyond this year. Bondegezou (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This question has crossed my mind (wrt a few articles) recently. I think it's a discussion that needs to be had with a wider remit. There are a number of places that things are reverted regardless of reliable sources. I think this discussion needs to be had at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who (or at least a note added there to point people to this discussion). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Listing "incumbent" seems reasonable. As to why a lot of people are against listing Smith's final year and Capaldi in the table is because the fact that Smith is leaving by the end of the year and Capaldi taking over is already mentioned in the article as something that has been announced, and so far that's all that is. Those two facts have been announced but haven't actually happened yet. The table is for displaying tenures, so Smith's hasn't ended yet and Capaldi's hasn't begun yet. DonQuixote (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

My only issue with putting an actual date is until the filming of the Christmas Special is finished we don't know how long it will be (and therefore if they decide to split it over two episodes and nudging into 2014). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• We have an article at Twelfth Doctor. It is nonsense to not include it in this article.

Capaldi is to be the twelfth doctor. This is well sourced, the BBC having gone quite over the top with their unusual pre-announcement of him. The reader interest is obvious. Our policy about WP:CRYSTAL rightly exists to exclude fanboy speculation. However we are well beyond that stage by now. If Capaldi does not play the Doctor, maybe he's exterminated by Daleks in the next month, that would itself be notable.

We should include Capaldi and the relevant links. Dress this up as "to play the Doctor in the future" as much as you wish, but continuing to ignore Capaldi is ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Capaldi isn't being ignored. He's mentioned in the article...at least twice (once right below the table). Within the context of the table, please read the section in question and see how he doesn't fit the context of the table. It has nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL. DonQuixote (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed recently at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#Future_Events_with_reliable_sources. Edgepedia (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The 12th Doctor belongs in that list just about as much as Charles III, William V, and George VII belong in List of British monarchs. Rubiscous (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Your situation is only similar if we know when it is Elizabeth II and each of Charles and William is going to complete their term as monarch. Given the non-linear nature of the show's stories there exists the possibility of over-lap after the initial term is completed; no character's end is really known and each cast member's end is only secured by their death save for the use of archival footage which can keep them recurring well after their demise if the writers so wish. That is where The Five Doctors comes in and also this forthcoming episode featuring the 10th and 11th Doctors and introducing the 12th Doctor. To compare that to the terms of the British monarchs is to suggest their non-fictional resurrection / vampire / zombie has been activated. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:CRYSTAL. The 12th Doctor falls under the part about info that is "verifiable" and "notable and almost certain to take place", thus IS allowed. Those monarchs fall under the "a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names" part, thus is NOT. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

For course it's allowed, that's why the 12th Doctor is mentioned under the table. As CRYSTAL also says that "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place", prose under the table allows for the information to be qualified by how we know – at the moment we have a sourced announcement, we could add filming, etc as this becomes available. Edgepedia (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand where you are going on this. It's unlikely with all the fanfare over the announcement, and the fact PC has already been seen in the role that there is any kind of bait-and-switch in place, or that the Christmas episode won't air on Christmas day, but the Christmas schedule has yet to be announced. It's a month to Christmas day now, can't we be patient and leave it as it is until then? Rankersbo (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't know when Matt Smith is going to complete his term as the Doctor. We only know roughly. Has Moffat said explicitly that there's a single episode regeneration story on Xmas day? Would be a first if true, and even then things don't always go to plan. Rubiscous (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The decision won't be made as to whether there is one or two episodes until the filming has finished. The length of the 50th anniversary special wasn't confirmed until the filming for that was finished and the christmas episode will be the same. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The table should be changed when the new doctor is officially on the show and only then — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.137.194 (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

We know now that Capaldi will actually be the thirteenth doctor as we've seen Paul McGann (8) re-generate into William Hurt (9) and presumably if Hurt regenerates to Christopher Eccleston then that'd make Capaldi the thirteenth doctor. Matt Whitby

You will want to read this item where Moffat says that the "war Doctor" is not changing the numbering of the doctors who come after McGann's 8th Dr. MarnetteD | Talk 17:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Not too sure what criteria you are using to select actors who have played Dr Who, and also what qualifies as a Dr Who film, but I notice that there is no reference to the two films made in 1965 and 6 starring Peter Cushing. The characters portrayed in these films were the same characters that were in the first series. The Films are listed on IMDB80.111.155.138 (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

They're mentioned in Doctor Who#Adaptations and other appearances. DonQuixote (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't have any choice. John Hurt officially played "The Doctor" so he will be listed. This will require adjusting the numbers for Ecclestone and on. Also we need to add the new Doctor, as Peter Capaldi appears in "Day of the Doctor" Watch the scene where the Tardis fleet surrounds Gallifrey, and the General complains about first three doctors, then twelve, and then "THIRTEEN" at which point a partial view of Capaldi's face is shown. BBC has declared Capaldi #13. The page should echo the BBC's definition. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs) Rusted AutoParts 15:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I will review this. Rusted AutoParts 15:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review Doctor Who, I look forward to reading your review thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to have been much progress on this, but I just looked at the article (since the 50th anniversary is a little over a month away). If you want, I'm happy to take over the GA review, as I think at the very least a DYK on this on 23 November is a very worthwhile goal. A quick look through reveals the following issues :

• The lead pays too much attention to the swap between Matt Smith and Peter Capaldi. I would expect in time for David Tennant's name to drop off the lead, and for Smith to follow.
  • I looked closer into this and...William Hartnell isn't even mentioned in the lead. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Numerous sentences (mostly at the end of paragraphs) are not cited to reliable sources. The "episodes" section contains several completely unsourced paragraphs.

• Content in the "History" and "Episodes" sections seems to be duplicated - for example, the explanation that the show was supposed to be educational and not contain "bug eyed monsters".

• The article has one {{verification failed}} tag and one {{citation needed}} tag.
  • I also spot some very small paragraphs and many paragraphs/sentences without references (see "episodes", for instance). Glimmer721 ^talk 02:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

In my view, all of the above issues need to be resolved before this article can meet the GA criteria. I can carry on reviewing the article in more depth if that's of any help. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Added a couple of quick comments as well. This article certainly has a lot of potential - and there have been so many books written about the programme's history (take [6], for instance, which very recently has a second edition) and analyzing it; often, things have happened because of production reasons, and the whole show is broken up into many eras and many have their reason for existing (exploring what the show can do, capitalizing on monster popularity, capitalizing on Earth-bound stories to save the show from cancellation, dialing back the horror, etc). There is History of Doctor Who, but this article needs a brief overview of everything production-wise instead of focusing, as it seems, on the beginning and the revived series. Overall, this article often reads like many pieces of information stitched together over the years, which can make it hard to read and find information. There is a large amount of information on the characters (do we need a separate sections on meetings between the Doctor in this article?) and "this happened then" things, rather than why they happened. For example, there are reasons behind the companions and their roles in the show, which have changed over time, and that may be better for an overview article than a list of notable companions (without understanding why they are notable). Also, there is notably not a reception section, which would admittedly require a lot of research to make a concise overview of the entire 50-year history: the pluses and minuses to everything. A themes or genre section would also be interesting and probably has received coverage (now I'm just brainstorming, sorry). This article is a good start, but it's got a long way to go and I honestly don't believe it is at its best yet. It is no doubt intimidating and I salute anyone who is willing to overhaul this article into something that matches the quality articles being produced today, and would help with any advice and research to the best of my abilities. It could be a project-wide task if many are willing to pool resources. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Since there's been no progress on this for over a month, I am going to boldly close the review, though Glimmer721 makes excellent points and Kelvin 101 should carry on improving the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Mirror reporting 100+ episodes just discovered

[7]. As I understand that the Mirror is a tabloid and thus reliable, we should wait until validation comes from another source. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This sounds eerily close to the rumours that were flying in June (started by BleedingCool and attracting commentary from Ian Levine) - maybe they just picked up on these rumours a few months late and turned it into a story? Comics (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Mirror article appears to be regurgitating the exact same rumour as has been going around for months. I think there's enough reliable source reporting that we should say something about the rumour (probably on the missing episodes article rather than here), but I suggest we make clear it is a rumour and not report it as fact without better substantiation. Bondegezou (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Rumors are a dime a dozen and are not notable nor are they encyclopedic. There is no need to add them to the article. MarnetteD | Talk 19:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd hold off until the BBC makes some sort of official announcement. --Drmargi (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not 100 but the radio times is now reporting that two episodes will be available for download next week. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I was just coming to say the same as Spudgfshl. What great news! Bondegezou (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

To quote the article (which I skimmed first time) "It is understood that other episodes have also been found, although it is not yet known whether these will be made available." but it doesn't say what the two are or how many others. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a shame they don't say which episodes have been recovered. This is good news because any time we can avoid the current animation style (sorry very WP:POV I know but the style is leaving me cold) it is a benefit to future DVD releases. Cheers for keeping us up to date Spudgfahl. MarnetteD | Talk 19:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Mirror is now reporting that there will be a press conference and screening on tuesday.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If you read the radio times article closely it's a bit misleading. It says that "BBC Worldwide will put the previously lost episodes from different stories – both believed to be from the Patrick Troughton era – for sale on digital platforms such as iTunes from Wednesday, RadioTimes.com understands.". It could either one episode from two stories or it could be two entire stories. It originally said two episodes but now doesn't. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• There is a parallel thread at Talk:Doctor Who missing episodes#UK Mirror reporting more than 100 just found. In my view we should not permit any of this in the live articles, since its presence will merely fuel the rumour mill. We should wait until the BBC actually make an official announcement.

Remember also that The Underwater Menace episode 2 is not yet available on DVD. If it is true that "recently recovered missing Patrick Troughton episodes will be made available digitally on Wednesday morning", isn't it possible that TUM episode 2 might be one of them? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Not even Doctor Who Online will commit themselves. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree we should be cautious (probably more than my suggested recent edits have been!) and we need sufficient reliable source citations to support edits. However, I cannot see why we should necessarily wait for the BBC to make an official announcement if there are sufficient other sources. Nothing in WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY etc. seems to support such a position. If, say, The Independent, Le Monde and The Washington Post all reported missing episodes found, that would clearly be sufficient, irrespective of whether the BBC had made an announcement. (Not that I think that is a particularly likely scenario.) Bondegezou (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that non-BBC sources might be recycling the rumour. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of recycled reports about at the moment and we must be careful not to fuel the rumours by adding anything unofficial. Speaking of stuff that is unofficial it appears that there is something more to these rumours than others in the past. I would point anyone who want to read some of the best of the rumours to read this and also to read Ian Levine's twitter feed (where he had a good rant earlier claiming 9 episodes (I assume from two serials) were to be released. He also half confirmed the RT article by talking about an embargo (not an unusual occurrence for a major announcement). sadly, none of it is from reliable sources. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've imposed a semi-prot for one week, by which time the BBC should have announced something, even if an official denial. If the BBC do make an announcement, I'll lift that semi; but if people feel that a full prot is needed, please take it to WP:RFPP, since it would be inappropriate for me to raise the prot level further. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

this appears to confirm a find - but I feel that wiki should wait till we find out what has been found before including info. I mean you can't really put "something has been found, but we don't know what" 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I am willing to take Lizo Mzimba (a correspondent often seen on BBC One News) somewhat more seriously than any Mirror-group tabloid, he does state "BBC Worldwide is expected to confirm the find at a press conference in London later this week." which is not exactly a final word; so I would prefer to wait for that press conference before lifting the semi-prot. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

While it's still uncertain what precisely has been returned, semi-protection may be sensible anyway, but I think you're parsing the BBC News article wrongly. It says, "A number of early episodes of Doctor Who, which were believed to have been permanently lost, have been returned to the BBC. / BBC Worldwide is expected to confirm the find at a press screening in London later this week." The "expected to" only implies uncertainty about when BBC Worldwide will confirm this. The article's first sentence is definitive that a "number of" episodes "have been returned to the BBC". Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The press conference is supposedly going to be on Thursday and will have Deborah Watling and Frazer Hines in attendance http://kotwg.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/deborah-watling-and-fraser-hines-to.html Shiroi Hane (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a bit of info that may not be immediately obvious for some, film stock has a tendancy to degrade quite badly. After over fifty years, it's not readily certain that the film stock will be of a quality that would be considered viewable. For that reason, the exact number of 'episodes found' may not necessarily equate to 'episodes complete and available for viewing'. My point being, expect some uncertainty in the figures here.Justin.Parallax (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

BBC Worldwide is "expected to announce" the recovery of something. Just watch for the announcement instead of adding something vague. Dr.Who (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In summary yes, my thoughts exactly. We don't know what they've recovered, how many episodes are actually viewable or how many are just smudgy lumps of vinegar-smelling degraded celuloid. All one can do is wait and see.Justin.Parallax (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There is finally a reliable source here for the rediscovered episodes. but do I add it seeing as there is an official embargo until midnight? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that, they've pulled the article.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This Independent article says that The Web of Fear and The Enemy of the World are now complete! Although the headline says "two episodes", the article itself clearly refers to two stories. It puts the number of missing episodes now at 97, from 106. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And now that article has been pulled too! I guess they broke the embargo.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears from this source that the nine are the five remaining missing episodes of Enemy of the World, and four of the five missing of Web of Fear, so the latter is not quite complete.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• You can now use this source, for example. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note, we should follow what reliable sources say. If a RS has broken an embargo, that's between them and the embargo-er: it's not our problem. We don't have to follow an embargo, just what RSs say. Bondegezou (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

In theory yes. However, in practice reliable sources do not break embargo, else they will not get information in advance again. What can sometimes happen is what happened here: something is posted only to be pulled, but in that case we can't rely on an archive or cache, as it could have been pulled due to an error. Edgepedia (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. The effect of an embargo is generally going to mean that Wikipedia can't cover anything until the specified time/date. But if a reliable source breaks an embargo and sticks to that (as occasionally happens), then we can use it. Bondegezou (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem, at least in this instance, is that if the article gets pulled, then it's not verifiable. DonQuixote (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Was looking for in which epi...

85.229.248.251 posted this comment on 18 October 2013 (view all feedback).

Was looking for in which episodes the Doctor regenerates from 10 to 11.

Any thoughts?

Jorge Becerra Garrido (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC) It happened in "The End of Time", the last of the 2009' specials. Here you have: The End of Time Jorge Becerra Garrido (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The List of Doctor Who serials is indexed by doctor. Maybe this needs to be more prominently linked? Edgepedia (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

GA

Hi, If anyone has spare time there is a lot that needs done to the Doctor Who article see Talk:Doctor_Who/GA2 to make it a Good Article if anyone could help me I would be much appreciated. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

hello,i am superdude122 and i'm kinda a big fan of the Doctor Who series. but i'm here because it does'nt have a list of actors on the Doctor Who article. (i mean,it does,but,it needs,well,improvements). i'm worried that the article might degrade over 20 years and basically,it practically is. i would suggest that somebody at Wikipedia would update it and make better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdude122 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. sorry, i ruined your page,kelvin 101.Superdude122 (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Superdude122, and welcome to wikipedia. Can you please be more specific as to the improvements you would like to see? Edgepedia (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page

hey there,Edgepedia. kinda got your message,but i think you got a point. i should really do some editing on that one. send me a message if you know what i mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdude122 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Superdude, I copied your message on my talk page here as I'm busy with real life at the moment and if I'm not around someone here can help you. However, I would like to point out there many articles on wikipedia about Doctor Who, including 15 Lists of Doctor Who characters, and this article can only ever an overview. Edgepedia (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The night of the Doctor

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01lhhv4/Doctor_Who_Mini_Episode_The_Night_of_the_Doctor/, establishes that John Hurt is in fact the ninth doctor, and regenerates from Paul McGann. How do we deal with this?Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

We deal with this from a real world perspective and also wait for more information to be revealed (avoiding WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR and WP:POV). DonQuixote (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

How is this WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR and WP:POV, you can watch the minisode and see the regeneration? http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-11-14/doctor-who-the-night-of-the-doctor-mini-episode-reveals-major-primer-for-50th-anniversary-special

"The Doctor is then revived and, with only four minutes to live, drinks a potion offered to him by some mysterious witch-like women, the Sisterhood of Karn, which sees him regenerate into John Hurt, the War Doctor. He declares "Doctor no more", claiming the universe has more need for a warrior than a Doctor."Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If you check the relevant articles, you'll see that it's mentioned. I was pointing out that we should avoid any crystal, or and pov in future edits by waiting for more information as they are revealed. DonQuixote (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

So we can see that Paul McGann regenerates into John Hurt, as that is shown in the episode.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again you are assuming facts not yet completely shown. Beginning with "The Christmas Invasion" the Doctors regenerative energy last beyond the moment of the body change. That episode states that it is a few hours but in "The Angels Take Manhattan" the Doctor mends River's broken wrist. Remember that all references to Ecclestone's Dr is that he is the ninth incarnation. So, Hurt could be a temp incarnation before the Drs body settles into its true Ninth form. Also Hurt's Dr could still be akin to The Valeyard. Thus, we need to wait and see how things play out in "The Day of the Doctor" before we make any final statements about these events. MarnetteD | Talk 17:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

We also know that the Valeyard was an incarnation after the twelfth, but we don't log that in there because that would be considered WP:INUNIVERSE, which is frowned upon. I suggest we treat the War Doctor similarly to the Valeyard. Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If ultimately following the 50th anniversary episode he is referred to as the Doctor then thats what we will have to do. However its not exactly clear at the moment what he is therefore we cant crystal ball it especially as in Doctor Who it is never exactly what you think its going to be.Blethering Scot 20:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that if unless the 50th anniversary calls out the new inconsistency in naming and addresses it, that it seems reasonable to refer to Hurt's version as the "War Doctor" (as credited), assuming that credit stays for the 50th. Thus Eccelston's version remains the "Ninth Doctor" (which we have to note is 10th canonically), etc; we don't have to change anything but a few leads to explain that. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the writers added the line saying the War Doctor is "not deserving the title of Doctor" specifically so that they wouldn't have to re-number the 9th, 10th, and 11th. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Again thats speculative. Teasers are just that teasers. Wait and see, what harm does that do, answer is nothing. Doing anything else is nothing but crystal balling and hypothetical.Blethering Scot 21:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Moffat is apparently on record ("Moffat: "The Doctor numbering stays exactly the same"". Doctor Who TV.) as saying the numbering hasn't changed. Edgepedia (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Could I suggest that folks weigh in over on Talk:War_Doctor where I am trying to keep things consistent. Thanks. Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The Valeyard was never a proper incarnation like Hurt, rather he's described as a distillation of all the evil that the Doctor has done, a lot like the Dreamlord. Hurt's Doctor on the other hand regenerated from McGann's. Had he chosen to call himself the Doctor, he would have been #9, If the Valeyard would have chosen to call himself the Doctor he would have been called impostor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.130.75 (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Irrespective of What Moffat says the numbering has changed

Well it seems the time Lords (in universe) consider him the Doctor (and say that capaldi is the 13th Doctor).Slatersteven (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

John Hurt now has a formal regeneration beginning from Mcgann as seen in the prequel, and a regeneration ending (as seen in "Day of the Doctor". He is called "Doctor" multiple times in the episode, and Galifry leadership recognizes there are 13 in orbit. In the final credits of the episode, the Doctors are show in order, including John Hurt. He meets more criteria than Mcgann did, so I do not understand what the debate is, except reluctance to accept a change because we're use to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.241.128 (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, we are saved by Stephen Moffat - http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/moffat-the-doctor-numbering-stays-exactly-the-same-55354.htm states that the numbering does not change due to John Hurt. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

With respect Moffat is not infalible. If Moffat were to say really the Daleks have been misunderstood and are actually a bunch of good guys we would not change their listing. The fact s are the facts and it doesn;t matter what the author intended merely what he wrote. The story as written without doubt makes John Hurt the 9th and Capaldi the 13th. Capaldi has now also appeared in a canonical television programme and must be credited as 13th doctor from 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.191.199 (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I just now watched the episode again. The Time Lords say of the incoming Doctors, "All twelve of them." Then immediately, "All thirteen!" with a cut to a close-up of Capaldi. And Hurt does indeed refer to himself as, "the Doctor again". I agree about the supernumerary Tenth Doctor. Tenth and Tenth'? And how does Doctor-Donna fit in, as she is a semi-iteration of the Tenth Doctor, imbued with his total knowledge from contact with his well-traveled severed hand? I can see where there will be debate about this numbering stuff for a while. Although I have great respect for his imagination and ability to tie neat bows around complicated story arcs, Moffat has overlapping projects going on all the time. It wouldn't surprise me if some details slipped past him. Thank you, 24.47.173.120 (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize that my log-in had timed-out. It's me, Wordreader (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hurt does refer to himself as the The Doctor and accepted recognition as being The Doctors when called by that title by another Doctor. At one point in The Day of The Doctor it is pointed out there are 13 of them around the planet. Furthermore the official post show at one point said there are 13 Doctors total. Seems that with the rewrite of the storyline Hurt's War Doctor should included as a legitimate Doctor and The Doctor linage changed to reflect this.

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.79.120 (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Whatever way you look at it, unless the BBC (for financial reasons) is going to completely mess around with the story arc then Capaldi is to be the last doctor. It is perfectly fine for the namings of the doctors to remain eighth, ninth, tenth whatever those are the names given to the character by themselves. Thus the table should be updated to include "War Doctor" before Eccleston and now with his appearance Capalda added as twelth or (more controvertially) final. Much as parliament does not get to interpret its own laws (thats why we have judges) Moffat does not get to explain his own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.robinson (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Steven Moffat, after the showing of Day of the Doctor, has now revealed that David Tennant used up two regenerations, John Hurt is officially a numbered doctor, and Matt Smith is the 13th doctor.(http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-11-25/steven-moffat-is-rewriting-doctor-who-folklore-to-produce-a-christmas-cracker) Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC) and reported here . This is also been indicated in the Day of the Doctor page. As such, I will change the table to add Hurt to the official list of doctors. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Season/series

The infobox indicates: No. of seasons - 26 (1963–89) plus one TV film (1996) No. of series - 7 (2005–present)

Is there a reason both terms are used? I understood "season" to be an Americanism and "series" to be the equivalent Britishism. I would have assumed the first 26 years of the show were also called "series"; if this is being used as a backdoor way to show both incarnations of the show separately, it should probably be done both in the "series" field simply with a -br- html tag between them for new lines (also, the TV film is not a season/series, so it doesn't need to be referenced in this infobox) 70.31.12.237 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. The BBC used the term season for this show early on in its history. Please see this Talk:List of Doctor Who serials/Archive 10#Series vs seasons for further information. MarnetteD | Talk 16:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

use of the word "programme"

In many instances, the word "programme" is used, which is the french translation of "program". This is likely a spelling error made by a french writter and should be corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.206 (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Programme" is a UK spelling of "program" and thus appropriate here (since a british show). --MASEM (t) 19:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Masem is correct. For the relevant policy please see WP:ENGVAR MarnetteD | Talk 19:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I second all above, it is how us British write the word when referencing in such a way. We do use "program", but it has a different meaning. American linguist pioneers were just too lazy to write it in full...  drewmunn  talk  20:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It still reads oddly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.111.77.190 (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It only reads oddly to those unaccustomed to reading British English. As an American who regularly reads online pieces from England, I didn't even notice the spelling difference in reading the article; moreover, much of the English-speaking word is accustomed to British English, which appears not only in the countries comprising the UK, but in many countries with historic ties to the British Empire (e.g., India, many African countries) or visited heavily by the British (e.g., Portugal). Keep reading and you'll adjust. Lawikitejana (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Programme is French spelling of Program....*chuckles* Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a more universally accepted word such as "series" or something else. JOJ ^Hutton 00:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Can't really do series, as that means a year's worth of episodes in British English. Programme is fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

External links

Just wondered if it was appropriate to list fan sites such as the Tardis wikia here, as I thought fan site links were generally not allowed at Wikipedia. 88.104.120.158 (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this falls under WP:ELMAYBE #4, i.e. "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."; this includes such sites as IMDB that are not reliable sources. Edgepedia (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The site you have given as an example is exactly the kind of thing that should be included in external links. Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Numbers

I noticed that the Twelfth Doctor link (god Twelfth is an awful word) is now the Matt Smith incarnation. While this may now be technically correct, should we not go with the fact that for 95% of his time as doctor, he was #11? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see someone copypasted. Rollbacked. -mattbuck (Talk)

I think now that they rewrote their history and saved the Hurt Doctor from breaking the promise he should be counted as the 9th Doctor. And the other's need to be reordered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.162.224 (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who edit request

Please change "A BBC audience research survey conducted in 1972 found that by their own definition of "any act(s) which may cause physical and/or psychological injury, hurt or death to persons, animals or property, whether intentional or accidental," Doctor Who was the most violent of all the drama programmes the corporation then produced" to "A BBC audience research survey conducted in 1972 found that, by their own definition of violence ("any act[s] which may cause physical and/or psychological injury, hurt or death to persons, animals or property, whether intentional or accidental,") Doctor Who was the most violent of the drama programmes the corporation produced at the time." Thefifthbeatle14 (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who edit request

Please change "A BBC audience research survey conducted in 1972 found that by their own definition of "any act(s) which may cause physical and/or psychological injury, hurt or death to persons, animals or property, whether intentional or accidental," Doctor Who was the most violent of all the drama programmes the corporation then produced" to "A BBC audience research survey conducted in 1972 found that, by their own definition of violence ("any act[s] which may cause physical and/or psychological injury, hurt or death to persons, animals or property, whether intentional or accidental,") Doctor Who was the most violent of the drama programmes the corporation produced at the time." The commas are incorrectly placed, and they obscure the sentence's meaning. The parentheses allow the sentence to present the same information while improving its flow. "Then produced" should change to "produced at the time" because the former sounds clumsy. Thefifthbeatle14 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

 Already done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who 'Day of the doctor' need's to update Doctor status for John hurt, all regenerations status from 9+

At the start of the episode he is at first known as the 'War Doctor', at the end of the episode both David, Matt (Doctors) refer to the John Hurt as the just the 'Doctor', officially the BBC has even classed the Doctor as an official regeneration of the Doctor lined up here and the image linked:

File:Http://www.radiotimes.com/uploads/images/original/42195.jpg

50th anniversay Doctor Who Regeneration list

--Ronnie42 (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't see what harm it would do to add the War Doctor to the table, in between Paul McGann and Christopher Eccleston, but listed as the War Doctor.Blethering Scot 12:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't have any choice. John Hurt officially played "The Doctor" so he will be listed. This will require adjusting the numbers for Ecclestone and on. Also we need to add the new Doctor, as Peter Capaldi appears in "Day of the Doctor" Watch the scene where the Tardis fleet surrounds Gallifrey, and the General complains about first three doctors, then twelve, and then "THIRTEEN" at which point a partial view of Capaldi's face is shown. BBC has declared Capaldi #13. The page should echo the BBC's definition. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There's 13 Doctors, but remember in-universe they are never named via the cardinal ordering (eg Tennant is never named as the "Tenth Doctor") - that cardinal ordering has been the benefit of the fandom to track the Doctor's history. As such given that nearly every source is still calling Tennant's version the "Tenth Doctor" and Smith "Eleventh", and Hurt "The War Doctor" there is no need to change the cardinal numbering for the Doctors. Capaldi will still likely be called the "Twelfth Doctor" once he takes over, even though he is the 13th version of the Doctor. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It didn't actually say Capaldi was the 13th thats reading between invisible lines. It said all twelve of us then something along the lines of no 13 of us. There were certainly 13 doctor's whether one was called the War Doctor and the rest numbered or not. Saying the BBC have declared Capaldi is the 13th isn't the whole story and that would certainly need something far more official to say that. The majority of todays press is asking the same question speculatively, for instance the mirror which asks But following the regeneration of John Hurt's War Doctor, will new Doctor be the Twelfth... or number thirteen?. As I've said we know where John Hurt's War Doctor should be listed and we should of that, but i think its too early to do any renumbering.Blethering Scot 19:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A couple points: the BBC did nothing but broadcast the episode; the show's producers gave John Hurt's character the label "The War Doctor". Steven Moffatt has been very clear that the War Doctor does not interrupt the ordinal numbering of the other twelve, so Capaldi will be the Twelfth Doctor, with no reset of numbering from Christopher Eccleston forward. As Masem notes above, those ordinal names are functional, not actual, and Hurt's character has a functional name. Second, Capaldi was never labeled the thirteenth; rather when the general was counting Doctors he noted there were thirteen out there, leading to the surprise appearance of a few Capaldi parts. He was one of the collective, not given a number. --Drmargi (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly @Drmargi: it didn't say he was the 13th only that he was one of 13. Do you object to the War Doctor being listed in the table as the War Doctor in between Paul McGann and Christopher Eccleston with no numbering change.Blethering Scot 20:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

We have to wait for "The Time of the Doctor" since it has been rumored that Matt Smith's Doctor will reveal that he is the Thirteenth Doctor. No changes should be made until then. But afterward, I would put John Hurt into the list as the Ninth Doctor and renumber all after him. This is because in "The Day Of The Doctor", Matt Smith's Doctor confirmed that the "War Doctor" will no longer be a shunned version! (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the War Doctor should be footnoted and have a section elsewhere in the document, but not appear in the table. His presence there would be misleading. He doesn't fit into the ordinal chronology and was never the standing Doctor as Matt Smith is; he's an additional feature and should be explained accordingly in narrative. Anything else would be confusing, and would mislead the reader. --Drmargi (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

We know exactly where he fits in the chronology ordinal or not. The world of Doctor Who is misleading we all know that, however sources are well and truly available to show he fits in chronologically there and given this is an encyclopaedia and we go with what sources why should we label it as a footnote simply because we think him not fitting in to ordinal chron would be misleading. Thats just making out our readers to be dumb when we know they are not.Blethering Scot 20:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(ed) I think placing the War Doctor between the 8th and 9th Doctors would be in-universe; he appeared in 2013, not between 1996 and 2005. I suggest including him in the introduction to the table. Edgepedia (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no reason to not include the War Doctor in regeneration order within the table. We're going to have to explain how this became known out-of-universe somewhere, but in the table makes sense. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Surely that is what a note ref is for. I see where you are coming from but thats where in the chronology that is Doctor Who he should be listed. Placing the years correctly alongside and using a footnote ref would be the best way to handle it.Blethering Scot 20:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No that is not what a ref note is for. A ref note is for including sources, not explanations. Mezigue (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Eh no theres a difference between a source and a note. A note explains a source does not.Blethering Scot 21:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

<ref group="note"> are for notes... They just happen to use the ref tag. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this is one thing where people are getting a bit too caught up. It's never been made clear whether the First Doctor was the first incarnation; he was only the first one to leave Gallifrey. During the seventies, there was a plot thread through stories such as The Deadly Assassin and The Brains of Morbius, even up to The Caves of Androzani, that the Fourth Doctor was actually the twelfth incarnation. This was later pushed backwards in Trial where the Valeyard was an amalgamation of the Doctor's evil between his twelfth and final regenerations. Hell, it's only in "The Name of the Doctor" that Eleven was explicitly mentioned as the eleventh (and, five seconds later, twelfth) incarnation.
The point I'm making is that the ordinal number is just a pointer to the audience with regards to how the Doctors are ordered. And no-one's going to really call Hurt the Ninth Doctor, he'll be always the War Doctor or, in ordinal terms, the Eighth-and-a-Half Doctor. He's in the official continuity as an official Doctor, having as much screen time as McGann, but Capaldi's Doctor will probably still be Twelve to the audience. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

So where are we going with this. There isn't a reason not to include in the table anymore as we know where he is placed, we either do in universe which given we know exactly where he is placed in regeneration order makes sense and use a note (my preference) or we go real world and put him between Smith and Capaldi. As we are labelling as War Doctor neither is wrong. We cant continue with the add revert cycle going on at the main page.Blethering Scot 23:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(comment removed)

(EC) "The" list is for leads of the show. You can go and create the in-universe list that you describe and place it in the appropriate place in the article. (The quotes are intentional as some people are under the impression that there can be one-and-only-one list...it's not.) DonQuixote (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The table, as it is now, is for series leads. There is no reason to change it. If you want, we can create a table for in-universe chronology as we already have tables for List of actors who have played the Doctor which include Hurt. There is no need for every table be an in-universe table. DonQuixote (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That's clearly not true. If the table was for "series leads" only, then Paul McGann should not be on it. And if it's for "leads" only then Peter Cushing and many other actors would be on that list. (Cushing actually appeared twice, so if your criteria is true then Cushing has to be added, or McGann has to be removed.) The table is clearly "in universe" and a reflection of canon. If you don't want it to be, then you need to propose a change. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

McGann was the star of the first attempt to revive the series. He's a series lead. Cushing is the star of the movies. Those were based on the series and not a part of the series. So no, it's not in-universe. DonQuixote (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is purely semantics. Whatever the producers may have hoped, McGann was the star of a stand-alone TV movie. Nothing more. It's the fans (and later producers) who have decided to include him as a canon Doctor -- and that's the only reason he's on the list. If what you're saying about the list is true, then he needs to be removed from it immediately. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

He was still the star. And sources, such as the BBC, consider the TV movie as part of the series. If you disagree, you can start a discussion on how McGann should not be considered as series lead and be removed in spite of secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Your wrapping yourself up there ah, series leads thats a piss take in itself. No its for The Doctors as it says. He is a doctor, he is recognised by the series, by Moffat, fans and the people thats being edit warring over it. Im sorry but first you said its for real world, then you say its series leads. There is no excuse whether its done in Doctor time or real time we should include it. Theres more than enough people wishing it to be included and there are plenty of reliable sources to support it. The only thing that isn't clear is in which order we should include it. If the sources say it as we are an encyclopaedia and there is enough editors wishing it then it should be included.Blethering Scot 20:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:INUNIVERSE specifically warns against listing by fictional chronology; before last week there was no difference been fictional and real-world chronology so this didn't matter. Hurt doesn't fit between Smith and Capaldi as he played alongside Smith and Smith will appear in the Christmas Special. Edgepedia (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC) (after thought) and you can't really take McGann out as he's no. 8. Edgepedia (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(@Blethering Scot)I'm sorry that I had to explain step-by-step what writing about fiction is. The point is that Wikipedia articles are written from a real-world perspective. From a real-world perspective, the series leads are the most important (see List of Doctor Who serials#Series overview). I'm sorry that you can't see that and that from your POV everything has to be in-universe. But the fact remains, it has always been about real-world perspective and the history of the programme, which in this instance is about series leads.

As I have said, summarising in-universe is fine, and you can go off and make an in-universe list as long as you can place it in the appropriate place in the relevant articles, but not at the cost of real-world perspective. McGann was cast to continue the show in 1996 then Eccleston in 2005. Capaldi was cast to continue the show after Smith in 2013. Hurt played a version of the character in one episode whilst making a cameo in another as a guest star. That's real-world.

Again, feel free to create an in-universe list that has the progression as Eighth-War-Ninth because Wikipedia articles can have more than one list of different types. DonQuixote (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For fuck sake. You are taking the piss. We don't need to change the numbers, we can write in universe or real life there isn't an issue. Personally i would rather it was real life and its very possible, you aren't open to either option. Your the issue, you don't want it included so you have changed your story about a hundred times whilst edit warring on the main page with editors i may add. Real world would list along side capaldi and smith. No one is changing numbers at all he is listed as War Doctor so no chronology change is needed just pure real world. I couldn't give a flying fuck about in universe at all.Blethering Scot 21:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Er...yeah, thanks for the straw man. I'm sorry that I assumed that everyone knew what I meant when I said "real-world perspective" and didn't need to explain further. If I had known otherwise, I would have elaborated from the get-go, which is "series leads". So, no, didn't change my story at all. DonQuixote (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You most certainly did change your excuse.Blethering Scot 21:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, calm down. Blethering, whether you care to recognize it or not, there IS a third option: omitting Hurt from the existing table altogether. You can twist and turn the DQ's arguments all you care to, but he's been quite consistent in saying that from the beginning. It's also the option I favor, leaving you two options: construct a time-line including Hurt or explain him in narrative. Treating Hurt as the others when he was a guest character in one episode is inaccurate, misrepresents his place in the show chronology and will confuse the reader. --Drmargi (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

He has not and i will fight that to the hilt, he's changed the statement several times to suit. It confuses no one at all, you say he was a guest character in one episode, thats two episodes, your trying to say he isn't a real doctor. Your hypothesising so ill ask again back that up with up to date reliable sources.Blethering Scot 22:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok...can you show me examples of how I have changed my statement several times to suit?

And what we've been saying is that Hurt is a guest actor in one episode and not a series lead--nothing about him not being a "real" Doctor or anything like that since that's in-universe POV. DonQuixote (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand the basis for your argument, and it does have some merit. The problem is that it hinges entirely on the phrase "series lead", which you have created and seen fit to give it the definition that apparently suits your tastes, but - ironically - not what you claim to be arguing for. McGann appeared in a single stand alone TV movie. He cannot be considered as "series lead". The fact that the producers hoped the TV movie he starred in *might* lead to a new series is completely irrelevant -- it never happened. And even if it had, we have no idea if Paul McGann would have continued the role. In other words, it's pure speculation and not a reflection of the "real world" at all. (Someone might as easily argue that Moffat hoped DOTD might spawn an entire series starring John Hurt as the War Doctor, so therefore he deserves a place on the list.) Making your "real world" argument even more dubious us the fact that Peter Cushing played the doctor in TWO movies, which very literally makes him a "series lead" -- and yet he is not on the list purely because those movies are not considered "canon". In fact McGann is only on the list because he numerically fits into the currently accepted series universe. All this points to the list being a reflection of "in universe" and NOT "real world". If you wish to change it to "real world" then it cannot be left as it is. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't create the term nor did I give it it's definition. Cumberbatch and Freeman are the series leads for Sherlock, Miller and Liu are series leads for Elementary, etc. Also, see this article [8].

As for McGann, (stated above) if you disagree, you can start a discussion on how McGann should not be considered as series lead and be removed. And Cushing was the lead for the movies. That's not part of the programme, so he's not series lead of the programme. And in context of the programme, (from the article itself) "Introduced into the storyline as a way of continuing the series when the writers were faced with the departure of lead actor William Hartnell in 1966, it has continued to be a major element of the series, allowing for the recasting of the lead actor when the need arises." So Cushing doesn't fit that context. DonQuixote (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You gave "series lead" its definition in this discussion -- I'm not sure why you thought I meant you gave it its definition in the rest of the world. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I used the same definition that the rest of the world uses...so, no, I didn't give it its definition in this discussion. The meaning of "series lead" in other shows is the same as the meaning of "series lead" in this show. DonQuixote (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well it's official: steven-moffat-adds-twists-regeneration-riddle At the end of The Day of the Doctor, John Hurt was officially named as a doctor, representing him as the ninth incarnation. According to the BBC article, Tennant used up two regenerations, one being after Eccleston and the other from his hand (although this still desperately needs clarification). This puts Matt Smith as the Thirteenth, leaving Capaldi as the mystery Doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.136.124 (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Tables

Think this needs to got to a RFC if we cant get consensus one way or another then thats where i will take it very shortly. For now these are the two options. The table currently uses a footnote with further explanation re the first doctor and this is what we would use again if going down in universe route. In the real world table it is exactly as laid out and there is already sufficient text in the article to support it. I disagree that we cannot list the War Doctor between Smith and Capaldi as text support statement they appeared concurrently as does the date appeared but again further explanation can be made through footnote as is already the case for first doctor. What cannot continue is edit warring on the basis of take to talk page when there isn't strong consensus for it not to be there.Blethering Scot 21:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Real world

The Doctor	Portrayed by	Tenure
First Doctor	William Hartnell	1963–1966
Second Doctor	Patrick Troughton	1966–1969
Third Doctor	Jon Pertwee	1970–1974
Fourth Doctor	Tom Baker	1974–1981
Fifth Doctor	Peter Davison	1981–1984
Sixth Doctor	Colin Baker	1984–1986
Seventh Doctor	Sylvester McCoy	1987–1989, 1996
Eighth Doctor	Paul McGann	1996
Ninth Doctor	Christopher Eccleston	2005
Tenth Doctor	David Tennant	2005–2010
Eleventh Doctor	Matt Smith	2010–2013
War Doctor	John Hurt	2013

In Universe

The Doctor	Portrayed by	Tenure
First Doctor	William Hartnell	1963–1966
Second Doctor	Patrick Troughton	1966–1969
Third Doctor	Jon Pertwee	1970–1974
Fourth Doctor	Tom Baker	1974–1981
Fifth Doctor	Peter Davison	1981–1984
Sixth Doctor	Colin Baker	1984–1986
Seventh Doctor	Sylvester McCoy	1987–1989, 1996
Eighth Doctor	Paul McGann	1996
War Doctor	John Hurt	2013
Ninth Doctor	Christopher Eccleston	2005
Tenth Doctor	David Tennant	2005–2010
Eleventh Doctor	Matt Smith	2010–2013

I find it troubling and a bit disingenuous that Blethering Scot has framed this RfC as a false choice: choose which table with Hurt is better. There is a third alternative, leaving Hurt out, which he fails to recognize here. Hurt appeared in one episode plus a brief appearance in a second. He did not appear as a numbered Doctor, that is, as the sitting Doctor at any time in the series chronology. He was a guest character used to tell a story, nothing more, and as such, adding him to the table is misleading, given the table is a list of series leads, not the chronology of Doctors. Hurt's position in the chronology relative to the leads can be explained in narrative below the table. He does not need to be placed in it. Therefore, a third alternative is to retain the existing table:

The Doctor	Portrayed by	Tenure
First Doctor	William Hartnell	1963–1966
Second Doctor	Patrick Troughton	1966–1969
Third Doctor	Jon Pertwee	1970–1974
Fourth Doctor	Tom Baker	1974–1981
Fifth Doctor	Peter Davison	1981–1984
Sixth Doctor	Colin Baker	1984–1986
Seventh Doctor	Sylvester McCoy	1987–1989, 1996
Eighth Doctor	Paul McGann	1996
Ninth Doctor	Christopher Eccleston	2005
Tenth Doctor	David Tennant	2005–2010
Eleventh Doctor	Matt Smith	2010–2013

--Drmargi (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you argue that using sources please. Reliable sources as far as i can see list him as a doctor not a guest character used simply to tell a story, nothing more. He appeared in two episodes as The Doctor. Also there was consensus above to include and i would strike your bit disingenuous comment. Back up with sources otherwise your hypothesising.Blethering Scot 22:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we're going to need to recognize that when we are talking about the show, there have only been 11 actors as Doctors, along with other instances like Hurt as the War Doctor in guest spots. So when talking about the show and outside the fiction of the series, no, he should not be included. But when talking about the Doctor as a character, it is absolutely appropriate to list the War Doctor in his proper place, since we're focused on the character, not the actors. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If Moffat classes him as a real doctor, real life or not then thats good enough for me and I'm sure most people interested in the show. Im going to start creating a list of sources here. Blethering Scot 22:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Also real life and show when it comes to Doctors are one in the same, thirteen people will have played the doctor come christmas day. Although we are talking about the character not the actors. And as to other so called Guest spots they were never actually classed as the Doctor officially, which is the case with the War DoctorBlethering Scot 22:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A couple of comments in the AFT5 feedback section below are also asking for the table to be updated.Blethering Scot 22:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually at least 15 - The Valeyard is a Doctor amalgam, and then there was that creepy guy who trapped the Doctor/Amy in the TARDIS who turned out to also be the Doctor. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Even The Valeyard wasn't officially classed as a official Doctor regeneration by the series though. The Valeyard was a separate character as distinct in its own right as the master. Blethering Scot 23:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Masem is correct in stating that we're talking about the show. From the real-world perspective of the show, as Drmargi pointed out above, we have the option of retaining the existing table, and the sources for those are all the articles and news clips that mention that Capaldi will be replacing Smith where there is none that says that Hurt is replacing Smith.

That doesn't mean that we cannot talk about the character as well. From the perspective of the character, as I have suggest above and in other places, we can have a second table written from an in-universe perspective. That is, there's no need to change this real-world table when we can just create another one. DonQuixote (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been convinced that Hurt can appear in the table for the reasons I have already mentioned. The guideline WP:INUNIVERSE shows we should write from a real-world perspective, and I don't see how we can fit Hurt in from a real world perspective without confusion. I think This comment by an IP summarizes the position succinctly. Edgepedia (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:INUNIVERSE and indeed WP:RS/WP:OR/WP:V are clear guidelines here. (And from a real-world perspective, I'd be more concerned about including Peter Cushing than worrying about Hurt!) Ultimately, the solution to this problem is not us arguing over what would be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but to seek out reliable source citations and reflect what they say. If books/magazines/newspapers (i.e. reliable, secondary sources) start doing lists including Hurt between McGann and Eccleston, we should do the same. If books/magazines/newspapers do lists excluding Hurt or relegating him to a footnote, we should do the same. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I was asked here to make a comment on here so a compromise should make the War Doctor to have a number since he is technically the 9th regeneration, regardless of name he is still the same person but with a slightly different nickname, later just classed as the 'Doctor' so it would make sense for the table to say 9th/War Doctor. This would bump up all numbers of the regeneration, making Chris = 10th, David = 11th, Matt = 12th, Peter = 13th, the current date's should stay the same but the 9th/war doctor should fit between Chris, Paul regenerations. It's all commented on by Matt Smith, David Tennant, refer to the War Doctor as the Doctor after changing the Doctors past also they also say this when the 3 Doctor's talk to the time-lords about their plan --Ronnie42 (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronnie, with your renumbering proposal how we explain things such as this? Edgepedia (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As an impartial observer, and someone who isn't a Doctor Who fan, I would point out that ALL of these proposed tables appear to be IN UNIVERSE. They reflect a fan's interpretation of which actors and roles are important, and which aren't. The fact that they have fan-created names in them (like "Eighth Doctor") is a telltale sign: The years the actors portrayed the doctor is a more accurate *real world* reflection than a fan-derived nickname (and, indeed, looking at earlier edits of this page, that's exactly how they were listed). The individual pages should be titled "Doctor_Who_(1963-1966)" or perhaps "Doctor_Who_(William_Harnell)". Outside of the DW universe these fan created nicknames are meaningless. And worse, they are inaccurate: As mentioned previously, Peter Cushing was technically the "Second Doctor" -- the only way that Patrick Troughton can be considered the "Second Doctor" is by selecting which portrayals are canon, and which are not. Arguing that one occurred on TV, while the other occurred in the cinema is meaningless. Other shows exist in several mediums (e.g. The X-Files, Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, Star Trek and many others). The only reason Doctor Who has chosen to focus solely on the TV series is because that's what is considered important by the fans (i.e. canon). Again, I say this as an impartial observer, and someone who isn't a fan of Doctor Who. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the need for an out-of-universe perspective (and that there is an argument that Cushing should be included), but I would say that "First Doctor" etc. are established terms used by secondary reliable sources (including newspaper articles and books about Dr Who). They are not purely fan-created terms. Bondegezou (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As well as the BBC, [9], a search of Amazon gave several examples of doctors being known by ordinal numbers, for example Jon Pertwee's Third Doctor, an Eleventh Doctor and you can get a Seventh Doctor's jumper here. We haven't made the names up. Edgepedia (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The names were coined by fans first, I believe, and accepted and used in the current canon -- but I'm no expert, and I take your point that they are now recognized on official merchandise (although I understand such terms are never mentioned in the show itself?). Unfortunately it just reinforces that the table is a list of presently accepted canon, and not actually a reflection *real world* portrayals, as some insist it is. I don't see how anyone can claim that any portrayal of the Doctor is not as appropriate as anyone else's -- provided it's substantial enough (i.e. not a Comic Relief sketch). Given that the current distinction is purely based on canon it's hard to understand why some are clinging arbitrary notions: John Hurt played the Doctor in a one-off special, as did McGann. The "lead" status is a debatable matter -- one could argue that entire episode is actually Hurt's story, much like A Christmas Carol is Ebenezer Scrooge's, another could argue that it was just a cameo. From an outsider it feels like some fans are drawing arbitrary lines to suit their tastes (lines which cannot be understood from this outsider's perspective). Either the table should truly be a reflection or *real world* portrayals (and so Cushing should be included -- or McGann removed), or it should remain a reflection of fan-accepted canon (so Hurt should be added). At present it's the latter, with some trying to claim it's the former. 20:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to complicate matters, but as an outsider, it would seem to me that the following is the only actual REAL WORLD table, which truly represents substantial portrayals of the Doctors through the life of the character. Everything above appears to me to be IN UNIVERSE, choosing certain canon to be included or excluded -- including only certain mediums is equally arbitrary. (See my comments above for a better explanation as to why.) It could be debated if John Hurt's portrayal should be included on this table.

I've lost all respect for Wikipedia now. You accept McGann but not Hurt? Even though he has more formal credentials within the series (both regenerations shown and accepted by the other Doctors), and declared real by the show writers/producers? Exactly what would it take for you to accept a retro-active timeline new Doctor in a time travel series? What did that NOT do that you are demanding? User:kgbarrett:kgbarrett

Be the lead in the show? No, seriously, I know that sounds sardonic but that's what it comes down to, kgbarrett. It isn't about how 'accepted' the actor is (if anything, he's a far more recognised and respected actor than many who are on the show, so that's certainly not the issue), the point is that he has not 'headlined' the show - he's been a guest star. A big guest star with an important role (indeed a titular role) but a guest star nontheless. WP is about the real-world, not in-universe details. It's just not what this website is about. Justin.Parallax (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

|- ! Accepted Nickname !! Portrayed by !! Tenure |- | "First Doctor" || William Hartnell || 1963–1966 |- | "Dr. Who" || Peter Cushing || 1965–1966 |- | "Second Doctor" || Patrick Troughton || 1966–1969 |- | "Third Doctor" || Jon Pertwee || 1970–1974 |- | "Fourth Doctor" || Tom Baker || 1974–1981 |- | "Fifth Doctor" || Peter Davison || 1981–1984 |- | "Sixth Doctor" || Colin Baker || 1984–1986 |- | "Seventh Doctor" || Sylvester McCoy || 1987–1989, 1996 |- | "Eighth Doctor" || Paul McGann || 1996 |- | "Ninth Doctor" || Christopher Eccleston || 2005 |- | "Tenth Doctor" || David Tennant || 2005–2010 |- | "Eleventh Doctor" || Matt Smith || 2010–2013 |} Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well firstly that's a lot of comments, anyway I strongly believe that the War Doctor need's a number, I don't recall anywhere in 'Day of the Doctor' where anyone called him the 'war doctor', he's frequently called the 'Doctor' by the new 11th,12th Doctor and the 'Bad wolf girl/box conscious' all called 'John Hurt' the Doctor, the episode 'name of the doctor' called him the 'doctor', the 'war doctor' is only a controlled regeneration but is still known as the 'Doctor'. I don't know how I can be more clear, I accept John Hurt may have the name 'war doctor' but the fact the title 'doctor' is still in the name which makes him technically still the 'doctor', so the fact is he is the 9th Doctor. The time-table itself should put him between 8th, Christopher Eccleston so the table should be about the order of the regenerations. --Ronnie42 (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you see how your argument is based on an in-universe perspective? Hurt played the character of the Doctor, as did Hartnell, Pertwee, Cushing and others. Within the story, he is not referred to as a number. In "Day of the Doctor", he is credited as just the Doctor (along with everyone else). In "Night of the Doctor", he was credited as the "War Doctor". To assign him any number then is to construct an argument based in the story's continuity, and WP:OR and WP:INUNIVERSE suggest that's a bad idea. What Wikipedia policy says we should do instead is to look at what reliable secondary sources call him. So, that's not looking at the show's continuity, that's not even looking at how he is credited by the BBC, it's looking at how newspapers and periodicals and (reliable) websites refer to him. If you can show us examples of reliable secondary sources calling Hurt's character the 9th Doctor, then that's what we should use. If they call him the War Doctor, then that's what we should use. Bondegezou (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The BBC is calling him the War Doctor here; we can't make up another name, but only reflect what sources are saying. Edgepedia (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"John Hurt is officially now a doctor" It would seem to me, he was iniitally billed as the "war doctor", but its quite clear from the way he is portrayed, his dialogue, the fact he is standing with all the other doctors in the line at the end of the ep, that he is a doctor of equal standing, just like the rest.Additiionally, the BBC have included him in the "line up" graphic of the doctors (http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2013/11/john-hurt-doctor-line-up-picture-241113154317.html) Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC) ...plus the line from the show, once Peter Capaldi appeared “All 13 of them.”....pretty hard to dispute! Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia favours reliable secondary sources. We need to move away from our own textual analysis of the episode and focus on how reliable secondary sources report the matter. Bondegezou (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a BBC source AND quoting Steven Moffat...so its pretty clear. "Speaking to the Daily Mirror, he pointed out that the Metacrisis Doctor (generated when the Tenth Doctor was shot by a Dalek and he diverted the excess regeneration energy into his own severed hand) counts as one regeneration, and now so does the War Doctor. So the Eleventh Doctor is now the Thirteenth Doctor (despite what Mr Moffat may have previously clamed). And Peter Capaldi is lined up to play a man who cannot exist." http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2013/11/steven-moffat-adds-twists-regeneration-riddle/ Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If Steven Moffat confirmed that the War Doctor counts as a regeneration just a couple of sentences above the table, we should present him as a regeneration. Nothing can trample what the show's production team says. Therefore, he should be added to the table. Chunk5Darth (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In what order do you add these regenerations? Are they any more we don't know about? Surely what we do know is who played the Doctor?

How do secondary sources write about the Cushing Doctor? The BBC doesn't include him here. Edgepedia (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Chunk5Darth, what you're advocating is that we present the fictional history of the Doctor as thought it had been the show's history. What the table was intended for was to show the official real-life succession of actors to play the Doctor - hence it excluding mentions of the Valeyard and so on. Yes, John Hurt is a real Doctor, but according to Wikipedia's writing about fiction guidelines, we should steer well clear of presenting a fictography (this is actually the explicit guidance to be found in WP:INUNIVERSE) and instead, discuss how the character was added at a later date as a big retcon for a guest starring role. The guidelines are so crystal clear on this point that it's frankly distressing that so many editors seem to think Wikipedia is for the other thing - presenting a "current" view of a fictional person's "true" history.Zythe (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Cushing's character was "based on The Doctor", but he wasn't the same Doctor. Hurt's, however, appears on BBC's list and is confirmed as a regeneration by Moffat himself. As for the order issue, he was the "black hole" between the Eighth Doctor and the Ninth Doctor, so I would imagine we should stay true to the production's intentions. Chunk5Darth (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding Cushing would be downright silly. In fact, it would be WP:POINTY. The Cushing movies were separate films (covered in a separate article!) which happened concurrently with the TV series (i.e., Doctor Who (1963–present), which is inclusive of the movie.) There was never a time when the role of the Doctor was handed over to Cushing and then back to one of the other actors, as it was from McCoy to McGann to Eccleston. Still to this day, there has been a straightforward baton pass from actor to actor - and those actors' characters just happen to be commonly known as the Nth Doctor, but if one of them wasn't then that would be fine. It has nothing to do with canon whatsoever.Zythe (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I recognise Zythe's comment that, "The guidelines are so crystal clear on this point that it's frankly distressing that so many editors seem to think Wikipedia is for the other thing - presenting a "current" view of a fictional person's "true" history." I would go on to say that, even more so, Wikipedia's focus is on reliable, secondary sources. This table should reflect reliable, secondary sources. I've seen reliable secondary sources list the Doctors as 1st/Hartnell, 2nd/Troughton, ... , 11th/Smith, so that's what we should do. It would be nice if any suggested change from that is supported by a reliable secondary source showing a different approach (be it including Hurt in a particular position, re-numbering Eccleston seq., etc.). Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

For example, here's a recent newspaper article: it lists Hartnell to Smith (no Hurt, no Cushing, but also no "1st", "2nd"). This one doesn't give a list, but calls Capaldi "a 12th Doctor". A quiz that gives the 11 actors to play the Doctor as Hartnell to Smith (no Hurt, no Cushing); This one lists Hartnell to Smith (no Hurt, no Cushing) as 1st to 11th Doctor. There you go, a pretty random set, but all recent. They suggest that the table should be 1st to 11th or 12th, Hartnell to Smith or Capaldi, with any references to Hurt or anyone else made as subsequent notes. Bondegezou (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's try to stick to the subject, please. Cushing's character is irrelevant at the moment. Since Hurt is an official Doctor according to the show's producers, the table introduced in this entry in the article's edit history should work fine. Chunk5Darth (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I would remind you of WP:INDY and WP:PRIMARY. While what the show's producers say is interesting, Wikipedia policy prefers reliable secondary sources independent of the show's producers. Bondegezou (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As Zythe pointed out to you at 09:54, that order is contrary to the guidance at WP:INUNIVERSE. Edgepedia (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of sources that now clearly state that John Hurt is a doctor, including the BBC, "The Independent", quotes from the producer/Head writer, "The Mirror", "Radio Times", the Doctor Who website and Doctor Who News, and various other media. All these are acceptable sources, as per wikipedia guidelines, covering both WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY and together with what is indicated in the actual episode itself

• http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2013/11/steven-moffat-adds-twists-regeneration-riddle/
• http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2013/11/john-hurt-doctor-line-up-picture-241113154317.html
• http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/doctor-who-peter-capaldi-debuts-2846485
• http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/27/doctor-who-50th-day-doctor-box-office-hit
• http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/445655/Steven-Moffatt-opens-up-about-Peter-Capaldi-s-Doctor-Who-debut-at-Christmas
• http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/doctor-who-day-of-the-doctor--who-says-it-has-to-make-sense-its-a-triumph-8960416.html

On top of that, the BBC have included him in the official pic of all the doctors, in order.

• http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/24/doctor-who-steven-moffat-clears-up-the-whole-doctor-regeneration-problem-sort-of-4199592/

Seriously, what more do we need?Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As for which table to use to invlude John Hurt, my personal preference is for the in universe table, as it makes more sense to me, but I agree with Edgepedia and Chunk5Darth, as per Wikipedia policy WP:INUNIVERSE, we need to present the order in real life as opposed to in Universe/fan viewpoint, so we should use the "real life" table with John Hurt in it (despite my personal whovian feelings :-) ). As for Peter Cushing, that's another argument, lets keep it simple for the moment.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I favor the other table, for the simple reason that this article describes the history of a fictional character. We could make a footnote in either case. Chunk5Darth (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As this is my first post I hope you'll forgive its shortcomings.

I don't pretend to have fully mastered yet the details of Wiki's policy on in-universe versus real-life descriptions; in view, however, of the unique interconnection between the Whovian universe and the real world through the concept of regeneration, it seems to me that any worthwhile table must include elements of both.

Since the War Doctor is clearly intended to be as much of an incarnation of the Doctor as any of those currently listed in the table (see further below), I am strongly of the view that he should figure in the table itself. My personal preference would be to include the War Doctor in his in-universe place (between McGann and Eccleston), but in the final column make it clear that he first appeared in 2013, and in a few lines of text immediately after the table explain the circumstances of this incarnation's creation. In my opinion this would offer the best of both worlds, and would be the most helpful approach for those consulting the article.

The placement of the present textual mention of the War Doctor - i.e. after the Valeyard and the Dream Lord - seems misleading. I haven't checked what was said in the episode about the Dream Lord, but the description here of the Valeyard is inaccurate. He is not 'described as an incarnation "between" the Doctor's twelfth and final forms'; what the Master says to the Doctor (in episode 13 of 'Trial') is that 'The Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnations.' The term 'amalgamation' suggests a hybrid entity - whether created by accident or design we are not informed - rather than an actual incarnation of the Doctor. The War Doctor, on the other hand, is a genuine incarnation of the Doctor, on a par with all the others; the only difference is that, for a long period, he declined to use the title of 'Doctor'.

For these reasons, I would respectfully recommend both the inclusion of the War Doctor in the table (preferably in the way I have suggested above), and the reordering/revision of the subsequent text (a) to mention the War Doctor at the start, and (b) to modify the description of the Valeyard to quote the actual wording of 'Trial', rather than the current, somewhat inaccurate, paraphrase.

My apologies again for any errors in this post. Chronarch (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Yes, Chronarch, I agree..and well put. The valeyard character is clearly more ambiguous and not decribed by primary and secondary sources as an actual incarnation of the doctorDeathlibrarian (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The placement of the textual mention of the War Doctor isn't misleading because it's not about the character, it's about the other actors who have played the part. The actors Michael Jayston and Toby Jones guest-starred on the show and played versions of the Doctor before John Hurt guest-starred on the show and played his version. Everything makes perfect sense from a real world perspective. DonQuixote (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, thank you for providing some secondary sources. Yes, those show that Hurt has played a version of the Doctor. However, one might suggest that they do not show that Hurt is treated as an equivalent to Hartnell, Troughton ... Smith and no-one has yet provided any secondary sources that give a list of Doctors covering Hartnell to Smith and including Hurt. From that point of view, and taking WP:UNDUE into account, I personally still feel secondary sources do not support including the 'War Doctor' in such a table in this article, although a footnote or something certainly seems sensible to me. Bondegezou (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

While I'm grateful for the responses, I'm concerned that we now seem to be blurring things by talking about 'versions' of the Doctor. I cannot see that, whether from an in-universe or a real-world perspective, it is terribly helpful to the reader to treat the Valeyard, the Dream Lord and the War Doctor as being all on a par, when this could easily be avoided, without losing anything, by a simple rewording. Moreover, as I said before, it is far from clear that the Valeyard is a 'version' of the Doctor in any meaningful sense. Surely there is nothing in Wiki policy which prevents our describing the contents of a fiction accurately, if we are to speak about it at all? Chronarch (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

We're not treating the Valeyard, the Dream Lord and the War Doctor as being all on par--we're treating the actors as being being all on par in that they're guest actors. From a real-world perspective, it doesn't matter whether the Valeyard is a version of the Doctor but that guest-star Michael Jayston played a character who is believed to be a distillation of the Doctor's evil, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But isn't the problem that John Hurt played the Doctor, whereas Michael Jayston and Toby Jones played 'versions' of the Doctor (in the sense of amalgamations/manifestations of his dark side)? Why is the 'guest role' aspect so important? Isn't it more helpful to list all the actors who have played the Doctor in the series, and who also constitute 'incarnations' of the Doctor in the fictional universe? Shouldn't the latter be covered somehow in this article, in a separate table if absolutely necessary? Chronarch (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and make a separate in-universe table. However, be mindful of the context of whatever section you place the table in. DonQuixote (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

We are still forgetting this table, which is not at all in contradiction with WP:PRIMARY, as in case of fictional characters, it is best to look for answers with those who wrote that fictional character. Jones, for example, didn't play another incarnation of the Doctor, he was merely a manifestation of the Doctor's dark side in a collective dream. If the BBC decided that these are the Doctors and included Hurt, we have absolutely no right to decide otherwise. It would be extremely disrespectful towards the show's writing and production team, to say the least. Chunk5Darth (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Chunk5Darth. While Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, that does seem like a significant citation showing how to do this table, and it places Hurt after Smith and calls him the War Doctor. Bondegezou (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The table cited by Chunk5Darth is very helpful, though I suspect it is only a temporary solution - as more and more Doctors are added (assuming the programme continues, as I trust it will!) it would look increasingly odd to keep pushing the War Doctor to the end of the list. The BBC can get away with it for now because he's still next to the tenth and eleventh Doctors, with whom he's just appeared, but I suspect that, in the longer term, he may well be inserted between McGann and Eccleston. Chronarch (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

How about a template then? Something like Template:List of Doctor Who incarnations. I also tend to agree with Chronarch's suggestion to place the War Doctor between the Eighth and the Ninth. Chunk5Darth (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm actually working on a draft table which I'll post on here once it's ready to see what you and others think. It shows not only incarnations of the Doctor, but who played them (and when) as either lead or guest actors, so it'll be a bit bigger than the current version, though hopefully more informative for everyone. Failing that, it's back to the idea of two tables; I still hope, though, that it might be possible to find a solution which meets all needs, and covers both in-universe and real-world aspects in a clear and comprehensive way. Anyway, I'll press on with it. Chronarch (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's how it should look, clearly people have conflicting opinions on the naming of 'John Hurt' so I strongly believe that both names should be counted, I have already previously provided proof so here's how it should look.

Order of Regeneration

The Doctor	Portrayed by	Tenure
First Doctor	William Hartnell	1963–1966
Second Doctor	Patrick Troughton	1966–1969
Third Doctor	Jon Pertwee	1970–1974
Fourth Doctor	Tom Baker	1974–1981
Fifth Doctor	Peter Davison	1981–1984
Sixth Doctor	Colin Baker	1984–1986
Seventh Doctor	Sylvester McCoy	1987–1989, 1996
Eighth Doctor	Paul McGann	1996, 2013
War Doctor/Ninth Doctor	John Hurt	2013
Tenth Doctor	Christopher Eccleston	2005
Eleventh Doctor	David Tennant	2005–2010
Twelve Doctor	Matt Smith	2010–2013
Thirteen Doctor	Peter Capaldi	2013+

As you can see all 13 doctors are accounted for, already stated here. that there is only 13 doctors, making Moffat's statement about Matt being the 13th being false since Peter is clearly noticed as an Easter-egg as the 13th Doctor, it should show this in the list because he was officially shown before Matt's regeneration. --Ronnie42 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

We have multiple secondary sources that list the Doctors as Hartnell to Smith (no Hurt, Cushing, Jayston...) and some primary sources (BBC) that include Hurt, with the clearest being the one provided by Chunk5Darth above that places Hurt after Smith. Given the Wikipedia policies detailed above, it seems to me we should stick to a table without Hurt for now until secondary sources act differently. If we do include Hurt, it has to be after Smith. There is no support for an in-universe listing of Hurt after McGann at this time. Bondegezou (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope you'll forgive my asking, as I'm new here, but I'm not entirely clear which precise policies this would violate. I've been looking at Wikipedia's Manual of Style page 'Writing about fiction', which I note includes the following statement: 'This page is a guideline, not policy, and it should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception.'

Further down, there is a section on 'The problem with an in-universe perspective', which includes a list of bulleted features to avoid. I'm not clear how it would offend against this guidance if we were to preface an in-universe listing of Doctors with a statement along the following lines:

'Within the context of the programme's current mythos, twelve incarnations of the Doctor have now been seen; these, together with the actors who have played them, are listed below.'

How would this breach the guidelines?

With regard to sources, I see under 'Primary information' that it is permissible to take certain information from primary sources, such as 'the birth and death dates of fictional characters', 'background information on fictional creatures', and 'the plot itself'. I would have thought that much of the information required for an in-universe table could be sourced from the programme itself under one or more of these headings, especially as the guidelines state that 'Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source.'

The term 'primary information' is said to describe 'information that originates from primary sources about the fictional universe, i.e. the original work of fiction or an affiliated work of fiction (e.g. another episode of the same series)' (emphasis added). On the face of it, this would appear to mean that pronouncements about Doctor Who by its creators or by the BBC are to be regarded as secondary rather than primary information - so why can we not use them as such?

My apologies for raising so many queries; I'm just trying to put my finger on the exact nature of the problem. If you and/or others can shed any light on these points, I'd be most grateful. Chronarch (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

While a guideline is not a hard and fast rule, we should try and adhere closely to guidelines where possible. When writing about fiction, some in-universe perspective is indeed unavoidable, but I would suggest in the context of this already rather long article (see discussions later in this Talk page), a table of Doctors should focus on the real-world perspective. Details, which I suggest would include the in-universe perspective you wish to take, would fit better in the article on the character of the Doctor perhaps? Were we to have such a table (in whichever article), I like the wording of your preface.

"[P]ronouncements about Doctor Who by its creators or by the BBC" on BBC webpages would not meet the expectations of independent coverage expected of reliable secondary sources, I would have thought. I am not dismissing the value of primary (BBC) sources on this topic: rather, given both BBC sources and secondary sources, I suggest it is in keeping with Wikipedia policy and guideline to favour the secondary sources. Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Why? The requirement for secondary sources is for the sake of neutrality. There is no justified reason why primary sources cannot be used for this sort of information. If the BBC are saying he is the Doctor - He is the doctor! If we like it or not. -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY is policy and warns we should be careful with using primary sources. The BBC is, in some sense, 'selling' its wares. It has a vested interest right now in promoting "The Day of the Doctor" and the War Doctor, in drumming up enthusiasm and interest in these fictional goings-on. In the fullness of time, reliable secondary sources may all come to see Hurt's Doctor as a footnote. (See also WP:RECENTISM.) When it comes to decisions about which 'Doctors' warrant high-profile coverage in a table here from a real-world perspective, it seems to me that policy and guidelines are clear that we should favour secondary sources. (However I can see more argument for a table including Hurt in his in-universe position at Doctor (Doctor Who).) Bondegezou (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The BBC said that Hurndall is the Doctor. The BBC said that Grant is the Doctor. Neither warrants inclusion in the table now. Does this not suggest that what the BBC says can't be the sole criterion? The way to avoid these complications is to follow reliable secondary sources, I suggest. Bondegezou (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"The BBC is, in some sense, 'selling its wares'." Please provide a source that concurs with this assertion, because it seems that you are trying your best to disprove the validity of the BBC table. As explained to you by Chronarch and MisterShiney, WP:SECONDARY is less relevant in this case, as we are describing a fictional character and should rely on the people who created that character, rather than how it is interpreted by whomever. Besides, the story fills the black hole in the Doctor's history, thus confirming the War Doctor as an incarnation that has a defined time frame, that until now was intentionally repressed by the Doctor due to his guilt over the apparent genocide. None of the others fall into that category. Chunk5Darth (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed that is true about basing articels on policies. But that section also goes on to say that "primary sources that have been RELIABLY published may be used in Wikipedia;" none more reliable than the BBC, especially when they are talking about their creative content. Unless of course magazines who INTERPRET the Primary source as something completely different are more reliable? I can see it now. BBC says the Doctor is a time lord. But because he destroyed the time lords leaving the Daleks still around but no more time lords, I decide to write an article saying that my "careful 3rd party analysis" with my "conversations with key cast and crew" comes to the conclusion that The Doctor was indeed, all along a Dalek Collaborator and his journey through time and space has been one racked with guilt. A slightly more reliable newspaper, sees my article, see's the internet chat, agrees and then publishes the findings. So all the secondary sources are now saying something completely different to what the original BBC article says. But here, we have the situation where the Secondary sources and the Primary source are all singing from the same hymn sheet. But we have a group of editors who have started spouting a load of rubbish saying that everyone else is wrong and the the table is "just for TV Stars" when the guy who originally set up the article probably just wanted to show clearly who was the doctor in relation to events. Don't forget...in the context of Doctor Who, time is relative and it's a Timey Wimey big ball of string after all. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

“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?

I just think we're taking this way too seriously. *shrug* Sceptre ^(talk) 20:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Bondegezou - many thanks for your reply. I agree with you entirely that we should follow the guidelines wherever possible; my concern is that those very guidelines are being misapplied, and that we are needlessly tying ourselves in knots.

As quoted in my post of yesterday, the Wiki guidelines for writing about fiction make it quite clear that quasi-biographical information about characters, as well as details of the plot, can be validated from the primary source (i.e. the fiction) itself; indeed, it would be astonishing if that were not the case. If I am writing about Moby-Dick, I don't need to validate the statement that 'Moby-Dick is a whale' from any secondary source, but rather from Melville's great novel; equally, in the present context, it is perfectly clear from the fiction itself that John Hurt played the Doctor. No validation from any secondary source is required, or even appropriate.

Your concerns over possible future reassessments of the relative 'importance' of the various Doctors need not, I would suggest, actually trouble us here - I am merely saying that, within the fiction itself, he was the Doctor. That status does not depend on any subjective value judgements, or assessment of importance.

I'm currently finalising a possible table, which I'll post as soon as I can for comment.Chronarch (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What is this table? Is it to explain who the Doctor is from an in-universe perspective? Or is it to talk about the character and the key actors who have played the part from a real-world perspective? I suggest it is the latter.

Listing specific actors and real-world dates they played the part suggests to me that the function of this table is to offer a real-world perspective. I note the current table doesn't list Richard Hurndall, despite him playing the first Doctor in an official BBC production. It doesn't list Richard E Grant, who was the BBC's official 9th Doctor within the fiction of "Shalka" and in BBC press releases. This makes sense to me because these actors are not generally recognised as being the Doctor by the public and by secondary sources.

WP:INUNIVERSE is also a very clear steer that we should prefer a real-world perspective.

It is clear, and supportable from within the fictions and by secondary sources, that Hurt played the Doctor. I agree with you there. Exactly the same can be said about Hurndall, Grant, Cushing, Capaldi, Trevor Martin and Geoffrey Bayldon. Yet you don't want to include those names, and you can't exclude those names by relying on primary sources alone. My solution is simple and is an absolutely standard approach on Wikipedia: we follow what secondary sources do. (As I said before, something more in-universe may well fit better in the Doctor (Doctor Who).)

MisterShiney: your example is rather extreme and I'm not certain how it helps. However, it is Wikipedia policy that we look to secondary sources over primary sources. Bondegezou (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm basing my draft table (at present!) on actors, in order of first appearance, but including guest appearances as well as series leads - thus both Hurndall and Hurt are in. I feel perfectly entitled to exclude Cushing, Martin etc., as the work of fiction (and hence the primary source) I'm talking about is the BBC TV series, plus other BBC items (the TV movie and the recent McGann minisode) which the creators of the fiction (i.e. the BBC) currently clearly regard as part of the same continuity. I don't see that I'm obliged to include stage plays, etc., any more than, if someone opted to write (e.g.) The Further Adventures of Moby Dick, I'd be obliged to include that in an account of Melville's magnum opus. An introductory sentence to the table will make its remit quite clear; anyone wishing to do so is, of course, free to compile a list of spin-off Doctors (unless one already exists). Chronarch (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A table listing all the guest Doctors would be useless for someone coming to Wikipedia, though it may well fit right in on a fansite. It would also vastly overstate the significance of the actors like Martin and Cushing who, in the context of explaining the concept Doctor Who-the-TV-series to general audiences, lie on the spectrum from footnote to irrelevancy. Listing the main actors who headlined the series—so as to expediently cover the show's unusual casting history—makes the most sense. We can also be very fair in explaining the specific circumstances of other actors being cast in the role for special purposes, where and when these are even worth mentioning (WP:Notability does have to come into play).

A list of spin-off Doctors would also be absurd and probably wouldn't have a home on Wikipedia, as it would be a work of WP:Synthesis. Wikipedia is not for producing tables covering every available cross-section of information, even cross-sections of information which involve notable things, such as actors who played the Doctor. For an article to be any good, it requires at least some degree of editorial standards, i.e. the cultivation of worthwhile content suited to a general and not-necessarily-informed audience. Thankfully, the table as it is is already self-explanatory, clear, and informative without being misleading. We must not entertain every compulsion we might feel to tabulate everything for the sake of doing so.

Just to emphasise my point some more, we can by all means include Hurt in a fictional timeline of the Doctor's regenerations on this article (or preferably on Doctor (Doctor Who)), but utterly destroying the function of the existing list of lead actors in the title role table is not the answer—prose is always preferred for oddities and anomalies.Zythe (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

But the War Doctor is not a spin-off Doctor. It's not some kind of odd manifestation of one of his characteristics. It's an actual incarnation that has a defined time frame. It's the first time in the show's history that something like this happens. The only reason he just appeared is because in the story, the Doctor was so deeply ashamed of that time in his life that not only did he renounce the Doctor title for that incarnation, but he intentionally repressed him in his own memory. Following the events of "The Day of the Doctor", he comes to realize that his memory was false, and learns to accept that it was yet another Doctor, just like the other eleven. Again, this is unprecedented in the show. The show runners confirm it, and include him in the table of all the Doctors that appeared on screen so far (him being the only one aside from the other eleven). Multiple secondary sources confirm it. What else do we need? Chunk5Darth (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The fictional story of the Doctor is not relevant nor in question for the purposes of this table. You do not need to regale me of it. Nevertheless, John Hurt was a guest star in the period when Matt Smith was the lead actor. This means he doesn't get mentioned in the table which shows the lead actors in the programme, but due to his prominent place within the fiction, can be mentioned in any run-down (say) of all the reasons the Doctor has officially regenerated. To repeat: The fact that John Hurt is a "real" Doctor does not mean he was the show's lead actor, which is what the table is for—this serves a useful real-world function of summarising 50 years broadcasting history and gives equal importance to all the main actors in the show, which happens to include McGann (whether or not he had more/less time than Hurt). Played the Doctor ≠ main actor. Zythe (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this an existing yardstick for inclusion? Is there a policy that says that only those who were billed as main actors get to be in the table? Otherwise, it's Wikipedia according to Zythe. Chunk5Darth (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's us representing the show in terms of its real-world casting over 50 years, rather than according to the fictional life of a character, which guidelines explicitly warn against, thanks.Zythe (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The "main actor" bit still seems to be your own invention, since there have been provided more than enough primary and secondary sources that suggest otherwise, but even that doesn't matter right now, because Hurt is billed in the main cast of The Day of the Doctor. Therefore, by your own standards of inclusion, he should go in the table. Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Zythe. Chunk5Darth, yes, there is policy/guideline supporting this approach: it's WP:INUNIVERSE. That clearly favours a real-world perspective over any arguments based within the fiction. Hurt, from a real-world perspective, is not the same as Hartnell->Smith. Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. Including non-leading actors who have played the Doctor in the TV series doesn't automatically mean one is following an in-universe perspective. The table on which I'm working includes both Hurndall and Hurt, but makes clear that these weren't lead actors by listing their tenures in a separate column; it also includes Hurt after Smith, so again there's no queston of an in-universe perspective being followed. Surely the idea of having lead actors only isn't as inviolable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians, provided (a) one follows a real-world perspective, and (b) clearly distinguishes leading roles from guest appearances? Chronarch (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC) (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. Yes, I see your point, but we already have the detail in List of actors who have played the Doctor, so I think it would be more appropriate for the table under discussion here to be briefer and focus on the main cases. Keep it simple, in other words, particularly given this feels like an overly long article as it is. And how do we know who counts as the main cases: we follow what secondary sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think adding two extra lines, and one extra column, to the table would inflate the article much - on the contrary, it might help to shorten it, as some of the material currently scattered elsewhere (e.g. in footnotes) could possibly then be deleted.

I'm not clear about your 'main cases' point; as I've said before, all I'm talking about is who has played the Doctor in the TV series - I'm not making value judgements as to their relative merits or importance.

I also think that anyone consulting Wiki after watching the anniversary episode could reasonably expect a somewhat more 'up-front' reference to John Hurt's Doctor than something tucked away after material on the Valeyard and the Dream Lord.

All I'm trying to do is help find a workable and informative compromise between those who insist on absolutely no change at all, and those who want the table rewritten in an in-universe style. Such a compromise ought to be achievable. Chronarch (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I offered a workable solution a while ago, which is the BBC table, with Hurt listed after Smith. From a real world perspective, Hurt is an incarnation according to primary and secondary sources, and he is billed in the main cast, therefore, he is a main actor like the other eleven. Is there a different real life perspective that I seem to be missing? Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Chronarch, if you would like to post your suggested new table here, that would help us see better what you envisage.

As per WP:RECENTISM, I am less concerned about providing an immediate reaction to "anyone consulting Wiki after watching the anniversary episode". We should have a long-term focus and past experience (notably with Scream of the Shalka) suggests that it can be difficult to judge the significance of short-term events in particular stories. Anyway, the article on "The Day of the Doctor" has plenty of detail for those interested in that particular story.

Compromise is a good thing and the way to work towards compromise is through a discussion like this, respecting WP:AGF etc. I am happy to see that this discussion has unfolded in a friendly and peaceable way.

Chunk5Darth: it seems to me fairly obvious that Hurt is not like Smith, Tennant... Hartnell. He has never been the current Doctor to the BBC or the public in the way other actors have. I have seen no secondary source listing him like Hartnell->Smith. Bondegezou (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"It seems to me fairly obvious" is still original research. I understand that you personally don't value him as much as the rest, but MoS is pretty clear when it says that main cast is determined by the show's production and not by popularity or screen time. Also, "never been the current doctor to the BBC or the public"? I proved several times that the BBC lists him equally with the other eleven, and as for the public, I still don't see who that public is. In any case, MoS takes precedence. Chunk5Darth (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The run-on list of every actor to ever play the Doctor would serve no function at all, alas. And Chunk5Darth, yes, Hurt was a cast in a Doctor Who production, with similar billing to any other actor in the role (Tate, Minogue, etc) but he never led it! The BBC includes his face in a portrait of past Doctors in a promotional image showing the fictional character's life, yes - so what? It includes him along with other biographies of the Doctor - again, we're not disputing "whether" he is a Doctor. That's not what this table is for. "Changing faces" (as it has always been named!) isn't for covering the fictional faces of the Doctor, it's showing how the lead role has transitioned from actor to actor over 50 years. A fictional run-down of the Doctor's lives probably isn't even appropriate for the Doctor Who wiki article, but it exists nevertheless and in it Hurt technically sits outside that process as he was a retcon. He is already listed in other tables and run-downs on the same page, however, such as when the Doctor's regenerations are recounted - and for that purpose, he is listed between 8 and 9 procession of Doctors. Everyone gets what they want. Zythe (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please support your claims with reliable sources. Example: "The BBC includes his face in a portrait of past Doctors in a promotional image showing the fictional character's life." Is that your own conclusion? Also, in one of your previous replies you insisted that the relevant Doctor actors must be a part of the main cast, but when I showed you that Hurt fulfills that requirement, you changed it to "leads the main cast". Which one is it anyway? And again, which part of WP:INUNIVERSE are you citing? Chunk5Darth (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've not been at all inconsistent. No argument you've said has been so inventive or full of new information that I've had to squirm or back-track. I've had to try explaining the same thing to you again and again, as it happens. But anyhow, one more time.

The table has a real-world purpose of showing the casting history of the lead actor. This person is not defined by being "in the main cast" (your adjustment of the requirement) but the lead actor. (Hurt is in the cast just like any other actor, and receives star billing in much the same way as Lindsay Duncan, David Morrissey and John Simm did.) Once again, WP:INUNIVERSE warns us against presenting what is true within the fiction of the show as if it happened in real life. Of the various points which are relevant to this one, "Ordering works by their fictional chronology, rather than the actual order they were published" stands out (for those saying to insert Hurt in between 8 and 9), as does the point about fictography. Hurt is a significant guest actor, but your keenness to represent a face because it is important in the Doctor's fictional history is clouding your judgement on how to appropriately write about history from a real-world POV. The Doctor's fictional history is, after all, described (including Hurt's incarnation) in other parts of this very same article. But there's no point putting (the wonderful) guest actor John Hurt up there with the stars who headlined the show. It would be misrepresentative. It would be equating them, as a fan might, rather than as sources do.Zythe (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting back to basics for a minute, one problem with the current table is that, while people keep saying its function is to list lead actors. in fact it starts off (left-hand column) with a list of incarnations of the Doctor: it is surely this feature which has muddied the waters and tempted people to try to insert 'The War Doctor' into the list in the appropriate in-universe place. If people really want to be able to defend the current list on the basis that its purpose is to show lead actors, why not delete the first column altogether, and in the next column replace 'Portrayed by' with 'Lead actor'? At the very least, the order of the first two columns should be switched, so that the first column is headed 'Lead actor', and the second 'Doctor'.

I also still think it is misleading and unhelpful, in the text after the table, to have John Hurt (who played the Doctor) mentioned after Michael Jayston and Toby Jones, neither of whom actually played the Doctor himself. The fuzzy word 'version' is used to justify this, but would it really be so terrible, if we are not including John Hurt in the list of lead actors, at least to bring the mention of him to the start? The same is true of the article 'List of actors who have played the Doctor', where one has to wade through Mr Popplewick et al. to find the War Doctor. In both cases, I don't see why actors who played actual incarnations of the Doctor - as opposed to manifestations of his dark side etc. - should not be brought to the fore. That way, the order in both places would be: Lead actors who have played the Doctor - Guest actors who have played the Doctor - Guest actors who have played alternative versions of the Doctor. Wouldn't that be both more logical, amd more helpful to the reader?

What about the two ideas proposed above - making the current table itself look less in-universe by dropping, or at least moving to the second column, the references to incarnations of the Doctor, and, in the following text (and in the article 'List of actors who have played the Doctor') adopting the order I have suggested above (Lead actors who have played the Doctor - Guest actors who have played the Doctor - Guest actors who have played altenative versions of the Doctor). Would this be a reasonable compromise? Chronarch (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2

All things considered, the best and the most plausible solution would be to create a Wikitable based on the BBC table in a template, and use that template in all the relevant articles. Chunk5Darth (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

My answer to your earlier comment about original research is the same as my answer to you here. We avoid OR by basing content on secondary sources. Secondary sources (examples given above) give lists of Doctors like the table under discussion, and they list Hartnell, Troughton, ... , Smith, with no Hurt (or Grant, Cushing etc.). The utterly safe and straightforward way of interpreting Wikipedia policy is that we do the same. Secondary sources decide for us who is significant, who is a lead, who should be covered in a list like this. Bondegezou (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Chronarch, I like your thinking in your last comment. I agree about problems with the list of actors who have played the Doctor table: there's a lot of trivia there that could be trimmed. A simpler table in this article with column order switched could work. Would you mind mocking something up and showing it here? Bondegezou (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, secondary sources do not decide who is the lead actor. According to WP:Manual of Style/Television#Cast information, "keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time." The BBC table is still the only table that truly reflects the show runners' intentions. Chunk5Darth (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That appears to be about a cast listing, which isn't really what we're doing here. Bondegezou (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Surely this falls under cast listing: Hurt may have not received as much screen time as the others, but the show runners intended for him to be considered as much the Doctor as the others, so we must report on that as is. Chunk5Darth (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm mot sure where the idea of basing the original table exclusively on the concept of 'series lead' came from, but I'm starting to wonder whether, while that concept may work well for most series, it may be less well suited to the specifics of Doctor Who, with its unique interrelationship, owing to the concept of regeneration, between the lead character and the actors who play him. Moreover, as someone has pointed out, I suspect that what anyone is most likely to be looking for is not a list of 'series leads' per se, but of who has played the Doctor in the series. I'm therefore inclining again to my previous idea of a table which includes (but distinguishes between) series leads and guest actors (in practice Hurndall and Hurt) who have also played the role. This would bring a good deal of information together in a single compact format. I've now prepared such a table, and have also drafted an introductory sentence for it; the only reason I haven't posted it yet is my unfamiliarity with how to do a table on here, which I'm trying to master as quickly as possible. My apologies for that. Chronarch (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

PS - In any case, I've just realised that the section of the article in which this list occurs is headed 'Characters: The Doctor', not (e.g.) 'Cast: Lead actors'. In view of this I wonder whether an in-universe order of listing might not be appropriate after all. Before anyone pings yet another chunk of the guidelines at me, I should point out that there is a clear difference between writing in an inappropriate in-universe style and simply listing the quasi-biographical progression of a character in the order indicated by the fiction itself, especially if we also make clear (by dates and text) the stages at which the Doctor's various incarnations appeared on TV. As I've pointed out before, the guidelines clearly state that quasi-biographical information about a character can be sourced from the fiction itself. Chronarch (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be entirely inappropriate to stick a biography of the main character in any article about a TV show, so it clearly should not be about anything other than the lead actor's transitions - the confusion is until now these have always correlated fully with the "official" BBC TV narrative. I say, rather than create a huge, useless table full of trivia and information people aren't looking for, we reframe the headings. The entire article is going to be rewritten to conform to guidelines, anyway, as it's a right mess. Zythe (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to say this bluntly: Hurt and his version of the Doctor isn't important to the history of the show, so it's highly inappropriate to feature him prominently in this article, which is about the show. Hurt was a guest-star who played a younger version of the character, and like any other programme where a younger version is depicted in one episode, the actor playing the younger version isn't the series lead and shouldn't be treated as such. And as Zythe pointed out, we're going to start a massive edit of this article anyways, and we're going to start trimming all this in-universe stuff so that this article can retain Featured Article status again.

There comes a time when an editor stops editing Doctor Who articles and starts editing Wikipedia articles about Doctor Who. DonQuixote (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a great way to consider it. That is, in context of the show, out of universe (eg talking about its history, production, reception, and legacy), Hurt's a blip in the sequence, just as much as the Valeyard. So for this page, Hurt's inclusion should be limited to "others that have played the Doctor". However, in talking about the character of the Doctor, in-universe, there is a spot to slot Hurt into the progression, and in that specific context, Hurt's version is significant (even if a short tenure). So over on Doctor (Doctor Who) we can get into much more detail about his version. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A few stray observatations. Firstly, I'm certainly not suggesting featuring Hurt 'prominently'; equally, however, he did portray one of the (so far) twelve incarnations of the main character, and so it seems somewhat perverse to ignore him on the basis of subjective value judgements as to his 'importance'. Second, this section of the article proclaims itself to be about the character of the Doctor, and it does indeed include information about his fictional character, so why should it then morph into being actor-led? Wouldn't the logical thing be to list the various incarnations of the Doctor and then say who has played them? This is, in fact, what the current table does. Is the argument therefore now about (i) the placement of Hurt's Doctor, or (ii) his inclusion at all on grounds of 'importance'? Is anyone arguing for McGann to be excised on similar grounds'? I don't see that it is for us to rewrite/undermine the fiction in this way.Chronarch (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The section on the Doctor on this page should be a brief summary, since we have a whole article on the character. The highlight for this page is that the character regenerates so several actors have played the Doctor (including non-canon works like Curse of Fatal Death), and thus the focus should be on those that have starred as the Doctor. This immediately distinguishes McGann since he has starring credit in the movie (and post-"Night", all the Big Finish productions). Hurt has only been a guest star and thus should be treated that way when talking actors that have played the Doctor. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the account of the Doctor's character here should be a brief summary, but I don't see how including Hurt in the table would really prevent that. The fact that the Doctor regenerates explains Hurt's playing him as much as it does those who have 'starred' as the Doctor, since in the fiction Hurt played the Doctor too. Hurt didn't play an 'alternative' Doctor like Jayston or Jones, after whom he is currently mentioned; he played the Doctor himself, and stands as one of his incarnations. If the table is to be all about 'lead actors' rather than a full list of the incarnations of the Doctor, them just delete the first column with the (incomplete) list of incarnations. I did in fact suggest that yesterday, but then I realised that this would jar with the actual headings and stated purpose of this section.

The whole problem is that the current table is trying to have it both ways. It starts off (left-hand column) with a list of the Doctor's incarnations, which leads one to think that it will include all of those and then say in each case who actually played them; however, this apparent purpose is being cut across by the insistence of some that only 'lead actors' can appear in the second column. Why are we making such heavy weather of the fact that one of the Doctor's incarnations happens to have been portrayed by someone who was not the lead actor at the time? In its present format, and given its apparent purpose, the table is confused and confusing. Chronarch (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, the media calls them First Doctor, Second Doctor, etc. It's not First Incarnation Doctor, Second Incarnation Doctor, etc. That first column is completely real-world and the table is not trying to have it both ways. It is completely about series leads and is not confusing at all. Any and all reasons to try and shoe-horn Hurt into the table is completely in-universe and inappropriate and completely contravenes Wikipedia's goals. DonQuixote (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Chronarch this time, for all reasons stated above. Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really cannot understand precisely why one can say 'The First Doctor was portrayed by William Hartnell', but if one says 'The War Doctor was portrayed by John Hurt' it suddenly becomes totally in-universe and a total betrayal of Wikipedia. Haven't 'the media' also referred to John Hurt as 'The War Doctor' (or even perhaps as the Doctor)? This all seems an overzealous application of guidelines (which are in any case clearly said by Wikipedia not to be policies, and to be capable of flexible interpretation). Chronarch (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's another way to view this. In talking about the show, we are saying that they used the aspect of regeneration to account for actor changes, and as such there have been 11 actors that have had a tenure as the Doctor on the show (noting that McGann's tenure includes the intermediate material generated by Big Finish and canonized by BBC, and conclusding with "Night"), and so here's the table with those actors and their tenures. In addition, there have been actors playing the Doctor in one-off roles , both canon and non canon, and here's a prose summary of that, with Hurt definitely being mentioned there. That handles the situation out-of-universe. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"noting that McGann's tenure includes the intermediate material generated by Big Finish and canonized by BBC". Er, no, please do not write this because it is nonsense. Mezigue (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to write it exactly like that, just that we recognize that McGann has a "tenure" on the show, and not just a "guest spot" like Hurt. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Masem - thank you for your very helpful explanation. I can see what you mean, but I still have some problems.

In the text before the table we read that 'a Time Lord can only regenerate 12 times, for a total of 13 incarnations'. Shortly after that, we are presented with the table, which starts off by listing 11 incarnations of the Doctor. There is nothing to indicate that this is based on lead actors, and so anyone unfamiliar with the detail would think, having read thus far, that the Doctor has two incarnations left. In fact, we know (because of the War Doctor) that he has only 1 left (subject, of course, to whatever the Christmas special may reveal!), but this would not be apparent to the reader.

A few lines later on we do finally get a mention of the War Doctor, but the way in which this is presented - lumped in with 'versions' of the Doctor (the Valeyard and the Dream Lord) which do not count towards the Doctor's regeneration limit - hardly makes his status clear.

If we can talk about the number of the Doctor's incarnations in the preceding text, why is it forbidden to say clearly, in tabular form, what they actually are in the context of the series' current mythos?

I hope this helps explain my own concerns - this section currently switches, abruptly and without notice, from talk of the character and his regeneration limit to a table which is, allegedly, based on lead actors instead, even though it does not say so. The implications of this list for the preceding discussion of the regeneration limit - which would be obvious were Hurt's Doctor included - are not made clear, and the subsequent textual mention of Hurt as playing a 'version' of the Doctor hardly helps in this respect.

My apologies for writing at such length, but I wanted to explain just why the table seems unsatisfactory to me, especially in relation to its context. Chronarch (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In context of the show article we shouldn't be worried about how many incarnations of the Doctor there are, just that they devised regeneration to account for different actors. Add that we have no idea how they're going to handle this in the future, so its simply better to leave the exact # unstated. In context of the character, obviously we need to include the number of regenerations, and that we have to include the War Doctor as exhausting one of those. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I fear I'll have to disgree with you on this. I realise we don't know what's going to happen in future, but for now we surely ought to aim for the text to be readily intelligible to a non-expert reader. As it stands, the text mentions the regeneration limit, and the problem caused by its approach, without making it at all clear where things now stand in relation to that limit. We could insert a line of text to make this clear, but then the discrepancy with the table will become even more glaring, and the reader might well wonder why one incarnation has been left out of the table. We are actually talking about the character of the Doctor in this section; surely the present version of the text here - which just doesn't make the position clear in terms of the current number of incarnations, or the status of the War Doctor - really isn't the best we can do? Chronarch (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that this article is supposedly going to have a massive rewrite, the fact he has 13 regenerations is something that can be taken out without losing context about this being a TV show. He has regenerations: very important; the number of regenerations: inconsequential. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The 13-regeneration limit would hardly be inconsequential if its being reached heralded the end of the programme! Naturally, of course, I hope that isn't the case, and indeed it seems unlikely.

If this article is to be rewritten, let us hope that the process can produce a more clear and coherent section on the Doctor and his regenerations than we have at present. Chronarch (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If the 13 regeneration limit becomes critically important to the series (to date, it has not been) then we can consider revising this section to explain this better, and then how Hurt fits in makes more sense. But given there's been nothing in the series that suggests that the next regeneration will be the very last one ever (in fact, seeds have been sown to be able to retcon that), its not necessary for the reader, reading about the series in an out-of-universe manner needs to know that number and further to presume Hurt was considered one of the main actors in the role. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether Hurt is mentioned now or later, I agree it should be made clear he was not a series lead - that could easily be accomplished by a footnote or (better) sentence in the text after the table, if he were to be added to it.

Despite Don Quixote's protestations to the contrary, the current table really is trying to have it both ways. If you want a list of lead actors, then just list the names of the actors and their dates of tenure; but when you say in the table that 'The First Doctor' was 'portrayed by' William Hartnell, then the lead element in the table becomes the various incarnations of the character, not the actors, and in that sense it would be no more or less in-universe to list 'The War Doctor' as 'portrayed by' John Hurt. I really wonder that more people apparently can't see this difficulty with the current table, as it is the root of the whole problem and of the debate we are having.

I see that, in the text preceding the table, there is the following sentence about regeneration: 'The device has allowed for the recasting of the actor various times in the show's history, as well as the depiction of alternative Doctors either from the Doctor's relative past or future.' If this is referring in part to John Hurt's Doctor, the wording is misleading - he wasn't an 'alternative' Doctor (as the term implies unreality, like the Valeyard), but simply another incarnation of the Doctor. A similar problem affects the current mention of him in the text after the table, where he is called a 'version' of the Doctor (like the Valeyard and the Dream Lord). He wasn't a 'version' of the Doctor in this sense at all, but an incarnation of him. Chronarch (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This has been a wide-ranging discussion. However, I suggest it is apparent that a clear majority of those taking part oppose including Hurt. There is clearly no WP:CONSENSUS for the changes suggested by Chronarch and Chunk5Darth. Should the facts on the ground change (we see more of Hurt, secondary sources include him in lists, etc.), then we can re-visit this, but is it time to move on? Bondegezou (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, the issue hasn't been really been resolved satisfactorily. Even if the table is to be unchanged, it still gives no indication of its intended purpose - it just appears after a discussion of regeneration and the 12-regeneration limit. (Am I right in thinking that it was originally intended to show all the successive incarnations of the Doctor - which both its layout, and its placement in a section about the character of the Doctor, suggest - and that now, because they wish to exclude Hurt, some people are trying to 'retcon' it into being a list of leading actors?)

Moreover the table is only part of the story - its context also needs to be considered. Those arguing that the table should be confined to lead actors seem to be looking at it in isolation, and without considering the disconnect that this will create with the preceding discussion of the regeneration limit. As I've pointed out, a non-expert reader would find it well-nigh impossible to make sense of that discussion if one of the Doctors is omitted from the table; at the very least Hurt's Doctor should be clearly mentioned as such immediately before or after the table, so the reader can follow what is said.

Are we really content to leave things in this mess? Even if the table is sacrosanct, what about changing the preceding and following text to make things clearer? Would this not perhaps serve as a reasonable compromise?Chronarch (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I can understand why you feel "the issue hasn't been really been resolved satisfactorily." However, as I said, the majority appear against you on the issue of table. You can, of course, continue to discuss the matter here, but, at some point, I feel it would be useful to move on. As you say, the table's "context also needs to be considered." I, for one, would be happy to see the text around the table revised. I don't see much need to mention the Valeyard or Dream Lord. Details of the regeneration limit are very in-universe-y: I'm not certain they need to be mentioned here at all, but would be usefully addressed in the Doctor (Doctor Who) article. IMHO. Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your argument is purely in-universe. From a real-world perspective, it clearly states "Producers introduced the concept of regeneration to permit the recasting of the main character and maintain the show's longevity...[list of series leads]...In addition to those actors who have headlined the series, others have portrayed versions of the Doctor in guest roles." So no, the table fits the context of the text. It's always been about series leads. Please stop trying to make it into in-universe incarnations because that context doesn't fit anymore. Seriously, the main point is that John Hurt does not have to be in every table on every page. He's not that important to the history of the show. Get over it. DonQuixote (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like we're mostly clear on this. We can perhaps do something about how we cover the fifty-year plot, but I'm a bit sceptical about even trying to summarise more than just the premise and then the briefest of overviews (casting does this), and special mention of John Hurt outside of the table doesn't hurt. You're right about the Valeyard and Dream Lord being excessive, but including mention of them does sort of help inoculate the section by giving readers who know a bit about them some idea of how Wikipedia views such things (from its real-world perspective).

This is probably best discussed elsewhere, but I think the page should be structured "Characters" with subheadings for "The Doctor", "Companions" and "Villains". The Doctor subsection perhaps could feature some trim contextualising text, and the table, and maybe the most salient quotations from production teams. "Companions" shouldn't attempt to list any specific companions, except maybe give mention of Susan/Barbara/Ian, Sarah Jane, Rose etc. for their uniqueness in starting the series at different times or in longevity, and maybe K-9. A second paragraph could then make mention of recurring characters who are sometimes grouped with companions, such as the Brigadier. I suspect "Villains" would do well with a summary paragraph about the Doctor's recurring enemies, and a second paragraph about Dalekmania, Cybermen philosophical ideas, the Master as a foil to the Doctor and maybe one sentence re: attempts at introducing new iconic villains in the new series.Zythe (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Given the number of additional articles around Dr Who, cutting back as Zythe suggests above seems sensible to me. Bondegezou (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

History may have been changed

I'm sure I put on here, but can't find it now. My idea - as history was changed in the 50th anniversary episode, perhaps the War Doctor regenerated into a DIFFERENT body (i.e Peter Capaldi, not Christopher Eccleston) , in such a way that we can consider that the last three Doctors now, never existed! So that gives only 9 regenerations to date......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.183.181 (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Section regarding charity performances

If I am understanding the article correctly, the 1999 parody by Moffat was done during the interregnum, as it were; i.e., the period after the cancellation/pausing of the initial run, but before the present one. I will not be bold and add a gloss about this fact myself for the simple reason that I could be incorrect, but if I am right, then an explanatory phrase noting that at the time the parody was made, the show had been off the air for some years, even counting the 1996 attempts.

Other observations from someone interested in the topic just this week after seeing precisely one episode (despite having dozens of Whovian pals): For this American, at least, the use of "serial" is still quite confusing, particularly in the part of the opening paragraphs in which it appears without explanation. This usage of "serial" is different from that seen in, for example, the theatrical serials that were shown in movie theaters in the '30s to '50s, or other usages I've seen. At first reading the explanation midway through the article, I thought momentarily it might refer to what others call "story arcs," but it appears that's a distinct concept. I don't know whether this usage of "serials" is particular to Doctor Who or is a broader British term unfamiliar to outsiders, but either way, it could use a bit more clarification.

Wikipedia has been moving away for some time from the old model of having a "criticism" or "controversy" section, and I'm all for that change. Nonetheless, the section where it is mentioned that there was talk in the '80s about maybe having an incarnation that was female would lend itself nicely to a couple of lines about the prominent voices within the fanbase who have called for a female and/or nonwhite incarnation or at least the occasional female writer. See for example

• Ted B. Kissell. "The depressing, disappointing maleness of Doctor Who 's new Time Lord", The Atlantic, August 5, 2013.

• "Neil Gaiman hopes a non-white person will take Doctor Who role someday", Sunday World, August 8, 2013.

• Arturo R. Garcia. "Doctor Who moves backwards in time", Racialicious, August 5, 2013.

• Madeline Davies. "Doctor Who 's dude preference Is just creatively lazy", Jezebel, August 6, 2013.

• Rebecca Pahle. "Doctor Who hasn't had a single female writer since 2008, and it's making me angry", The Mary Sue, March 27, 2013.

Lawikitejana (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Some useful suggestions there - thanks. Speaking of which, bits of the article seem to me to spend far too much space on trivia that can be covered in separate articles or simply isn't encyclopaedia-worthy at all. Do we need that much detail on the Children in Need appearances? Does the "Spoofs and cultural references" section really need so much detail (like the paragraph on Professor Justin Alphonse Gamble or so much on Culshaw)? Do we need a subsection on the Blackpool illuminations? Bondegezou (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No - most of the article needs simply wiping.Zythe (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Reframing the document during RFC - Please Don't

While it's been established that the table of doctors should not be altered during the ongoing discussion about its contents, some Wikipedia Editors have attempted to reframe contents of the page to suit their own beliefs. The following sentence was added just above the table: "The following table shows the procession of actors who have thus far headlined as the programme's de jour[sic] Doctor." This tries to establish page's contents while Editors are in discussion as to what that should be. When the RFC began, no such headline existed. Please don't try and dictate its contents until a group decision has been reached. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I was basically oblivious to an RFC, and just doing a standard Writing about Fiction edit. The section went on about the fictional process of regeneration and the biography of a made-up person, rather than discuss the "show".Zythe (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Also you're wrong about the 1-12 list being a "fan's interpretation." There is a real life procession of actors who play the role, billed in the media ("Who will play the Doctor next?") and countless lists to the exact same effect compiled by WP:RS.Zythe (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Such media certainly included Peter Cushing's portrayal at the time. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Cushing was never the Doctor in the same way as the others; there wasn't a point when the show was off the air, when one actor bequeathed the role to him before he in turn passed it on. No media sources count him as a proper Doctor - he only comes up in the context of "Did you know this person also played the Doctor?" For context, Cushing was cast as "Dr. Who" in a very separate movie based on a licensed concept, which came out while the show was still on air; producers of the show wanted nothing to do with it. There is an article for the movie; this is the article for the TV series, with which it shares nothing but the vaguest resemblance of concept.Zythe (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You're talking purely about how fans see the films NOW -- not how those films were treated at the time. The idea of them having nothing to do with the series on which they were based in nonsensical: The films were made for fans of the series. Also, despite what you claim, there have been several attempts by producers to make those movies CANON. Just because you don't like those movies, and just because current canon doesn't include them, has nothing to do with their real world standing. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No, they were always distinct - in their production origins, in what they presented, in the fact that they never did linked to the TV show at all and clearly at every stage from conception through to release it was a distinct work in the way I have said. They were only conflated in the public consciousness, to some degree, but that's not actually relevant. It's not about my personal taste (I haven't even watched Cushing's films, but have read about them) or about canon; it's about them being distinct entities in every sense, with only the faintest of attempts in yet more licensed spin-offs to try and reconcile the stories.Zythe (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no Dr Who canon (as has been debated previously and agreed on Wikipedia). Bondegezou (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)