Talk:The Doctor

Years in 'Series leads' (infobox)

Go on then, I'll start this. What years should be on the Doctors in the infobox? There's a bit of dispure over Jodie Whittaker as the moment. Excluding her, there are only two other Doctors whose first appearance was not the same year as their first episode - Davison (who appeared at the end of Logopolis, broadcast 1981) and Capaldi (who appeared at the end of Time of the Doctor, broadcast 2013). Both of these are currently listed as being from their first episode. So should we go with first appearance (which would mean Davison 1981, Capaldi 2013 and Whittaker 2017) or first episode (which would mean Davison 1982, Capaldi 2014, Whittaker 2018) 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:69CB:B885:9CE8:6E6E (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It is from when they take the lead role. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 12:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I would be open to revisiting this, although I continue to lean in favor of listing the actors' time as the Doctor as referring to the span of years in which they were series leads. My main questions with this are: 1) is this original research on Wikipedia's part, i.e. are we the only ones who seem to use this more limited definition of when actors portrayed the Doctor? 2) is it proper to use this criteria to exclude Whittaker, whether she is listed as beginning in 2017 or 2018 (there is already a page for Doctor Who (series 11) listing her as the lead actor, so it does seem a bit silly to pretend she doesn't count as a series lead yet, in my opinion)? -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

well on all bout on DVD release the Davison years are given as 1981 to 84 and on the doctor who website run by BBC worldwide Davison is listed as 1981 to 84 and capaldi 2013 to 17 109.181.21.200 (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Luckily we're not the DVDs, and even luckier that we're our own website, so we have our own set of rules and guidelines made through consensus. -- Alex^TW 20:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

12th and 13th Doctor tenure

Hi all,

Could the 12th Doctors tenure be changed to staring from 2013 rather than 2014. 25th December 2013 is when Capaldi officially took over the role of the Doctor and made his first appearance full appearance as the Doctor and that should be when his tenure therefore starts. Same with Whittaker. They are both credited in these episodes as appearing as the Doctor, therefore, that should be when there tenure officially begins.

Thanks, FD96 (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It is from when they take the lead role. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 12:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To summarise the current consensus (and also mentioned in the inline note), the years are for the series that the actors were series leads and not for the appearances of the characters (eg, first episodes, cameos, etc.). Capaldi was series lead from Series 8 to "Twice Upon a Time". Whittaker will be series lead from Series 11 onwards. DonQuixote (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with this proposed change. I think it should be from when they both made their first appearance in the role and when they were both credited as such which was the regeneration episodes when they took over from their predecessors. JJJones1996 (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn’t be when they start their own series. Jodie took over last night and was credited as such as the Doctor last night therefore her tenure started last night and she should not be placed as ‘other’ until she starts her own series. Just to add thanks JJJJones1996. Thanks FD96 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FD96 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Personally believe that a policy change is needed. John Hurt/The War Doctor deserves better than to be just listed under "other" considering his impact to the Who' storyline. Also believe that the new Doctor's should be listed from the moment they takeover, and not the moment they lead in a new series as it doesn't reflect previous appearances made which is misleading. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2017 (GMT)

I agree with the above. I think it also applies to McGann's 2013 appearance. I think there's a distinct difference between guest appearances of multi-Doctor episodes, and the situation of McGann and Hurt where in Night of the Doctor, McGann's Doctor was the lead character and Day of the Doctor was Hurt's only full TV appearance, where his story drove the plot, and he plays one of the fourteen canon incarnations of the Doctor - he isn't a recast or non-canon actor, he is one of the fourteen actors to play the role. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 20:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Paul McGann (1996, 2013)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AlexTheWhovian - McGann returns to that episode as the lead actor - he is not guest appearing in another Doctor's episode. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 19:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if it was an actual episode. Is it listed on List of Doctor Who serials? No. Hence, he was only the lead actor in one actual episode of the series. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Arguably the TV movie isn't an actual episode either, it's a TV movie. That page doesn't count as a basis of what counts as an episode. The only difference between Night and the TV Movie is length. It's still otherwise fully-produced, part of the canon. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 04:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

And the fact that the movie counts towards the total Story Count, per the List of Episodes page, dictating it as an actual "episode" of the series, whereas Night does not. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

To add another reason not to include Night or the other appearances - if we do it for these revived series shows, we also then need to do it for the Three Doctors, the Five Doctors, and the Two Doctor episodes, and that's going to look very very messy. The dates should only be the period where that actor was the principle actor for the Doctor, regardless of other cameo spots. --MASEM (t) 04:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Masem please look at what was said previously - this episode is not Paul McGann guesting in another Doctor's episode - this was a McGann episode. He was the lead actor in that episode. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 00:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

And yet, Night of the Doctor isn't counted as an actual episode, else it'd be listed on the List of Serials page. How many episodes are on the List of Serials page where McGann is the lead? One. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

But it wasn't a broadcast episode, much like the Davidson/Tennent one. While Night is "canon", it's also not in chronological order of the episodes that we are presenting the Doctor's stories in. It's a special appearance. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no. Night of the Doctor is thought as an episode by the BBC. Many other wikias and media consider Paul's era as (1996, 2013), even in Official Books and such. Paul's appearance's isn't a cameo, it's an important piece in the Doctor's story. Like so, we wouldn't add Ten as (2005-10, 2013), cause he was in Day of the Doctor, oh, yet many others do. Ten's appearance isn't a cameo, or we would include War as a cameo Doctor. "How many episodes are on the List of Serials page where McGann is the lead? One." Nope, two. And way more if you include Big Finish, but you wouldn't. Night is a serial, just shorter than normal. Clawraich (Dalek) (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

For one, "Night of the Doctor" doesn't have a table entry listed at List of Doctor Who serials, as it wasn't televised (yes, it may be an episode, but it was not a televised episode), so, yes, only one episode is listed at List of Doctor Who serials where McGann is the lead. And we have our own sets of guidelines and policies here at Wikipedia - we do not base our content based on that of other user-generated wikis. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

But if the fans and literally the BBC see it as a serial, why aren't you? Call you a man with too much power. Clawraich (Dalek)

Because we run the Doctor Who pages on a certain set of guidelines. Was it televised? No? Then it's not a serial or episode in the typical meaning. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Where on Wikipedia does it say an episode needs to be televised? You get episodes on Netflix, Amazon Prime and so, they're not televised! It's streaming. clawraich (Dalek) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clawraich (Dalek) (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The infobox dates are for the tenure. In 2013, the incumbent lead was Matt Smith. Paul McGann starred in a short special, but he wasn't the then series lead and counts as Other appearances. DonQuixote (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm that's an interesting point - but I think there is an argument to be made that McGann is the series lead for this short. He is given main billing in that episode. He leads the episode. Technically his other only TV appearence in 1966 isn't part of a series, but was itself a special one-off episode. One could say he's as much a series lead in Night as he is in the 1966 movie. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 20:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronoun use

Is it worth re-evaluating what pronoun we use when we refer to the character, at least in the general sense and not any particular incarnation, seeing as they are neither male nor female (although maybe we'll have to wait until Whitaker's episodes, as the Doctor might still continue to refer to themselves as 'he')? Is it worth changing the pronouns to the gender neutral 'they'? The same for other Time Lords who have been played by male or female actors. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 04:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The platonic ideal, I think, would be to write around pronouns inasmuch as possible when referring to the character generally (collective incarnations thereof) and continue to use gender-specific pronouns when referring to individual Doctors. For example, "his companion Clara Oswald" or "when he regenerated into the Fifth Doctor, played by Peter Davison". -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. There is, I think, an ideal three-tiered strategy here:

1) As above, try to phrase around pronouns. Use proper or descriptive nouns (e.g., "The Doctor"; "the character") unless it's disruptive or confusing. Let style dictate when to vary.

2) When referring to the character broadly, use the "singular they," as encouraged by Merriam-Webster (e.g. "... that although the Doctor is a technical pacifist, often they are forced into a difficult choice.").

3) When referring to a specific incarnation of the Doctor, use the appropriate gendered pronoun (e.g., "The Doctor threw back his head as arcs of energy -- not just streams, but fingered bolts -- shot from his arms, his face, tearing at the ship where they fell. For just a moment all was dark. When the Doctor regained focus, and peered into the smoke and flickering light of the console room, it was like she was had only now seen it for the first time. Which in a sense she had."). --Aderack (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It has been established that The Doctor does not possess a gender. Therefore the Singular they should be observed at all times. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 15:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not sure what you're looking to when you say that. Could you be more specific?

The Doctor's individual incarnations clearly are gendered, and always have been. Never mind all of the "Good Man" business the show has been doing since 2010; the whole rooftop-chip discussion in the second-most-recent episode goes against what you say:

DOCTOR: She was my first friend, always so brilliant, from the first day at the Academy. So fast, so funny. She was my man crush.

BILL: I'm sorry?

DOCTOR: Yeah, I think she was a man back then. I'm fairly sure that I was, too. It was a long time ago, though.

BILL: So, the Time Lords, bit flexible on the whole man-woman thing, then, yeah?

DOCTOR: We're the most civilised civilisation in the universe. We're billions of years beyond your petty human obsession with gender and its associated stereotypes.

BILL: But you still call yourselves Time Lords?

DOCTOR: Yeah. Shut up.

If you notice, this does not refute any recognition of gender. What it purports to refute is gender-based stereotyping. The Doctor is very clear in his distinction about men and women, and his use of pronouns... except for his absent-mindedness about which he or the Master happened to be at a given moment.

Ergo, when speaking of an individual incarnation, it is appropriate to do the same thing that the show does: use gendered pronouns.

When speaking of the Doctor in a more general sense, it should go neutral. --Aderack (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it may be similar to articles like Monarchy of the United Kingdom, which accept the possibility of male and female monarchs. Tangerine Cossack (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting point of view. However, there's still a problem. With the reboot of the series, there have been various gender-mixing elements in Doctor Who which is confusing as a whole. Most of the Time Lords we have grown accustomed to seeing, specifically the Doctor and The Master, were portrayed by men, so we could easily refer to them as "he". Later on, however, with the Master becoming "Missy" and the Thirteenth Doctor being female as well, we have a problem addressing the Time Lords as "he" anymore, as it is now apparent that they can change sex upon regeneration.

Whether it is morally right or wrong is not so much the issue; the issue lies in how to address the Time Lords. Should we be flexible and say "he or she"? This makes it sound like more than one, when we address just one Time Lord. Should we use "they"? Again, this makes it sound like more than one Time Lord when it should be just one. Are they "its" then? The problem with "it" is that the word implies that the Time Lords are objects or unintelligent beings. Should we introduce a new pronoun? This would make speech very confusing, as it would sound like a foreign word in referring to a Time Lord.

IMO, the new writers and staff for Doctor Who should have left Time Lords the same gender from incarnation to incarnation. Mixing genders was a terrible mistake. ILoveWikis (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Portals

I have changed the link to the England Portal to the United Kingdom Portal. The latter seems to me to be more appropriate, not least as three Scottish Actors have played the Doctor and the series has been primarily produced in Wales since 2005 (Also from 2005-2017 the main writer was not English). Dunarc (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

family

The current doctor mentions having had sisters and 8 grandmothers but no mention in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.11.184 (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Source? -- Alex^TW 10:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Use Wiki Tables?

Perhaps in an effort to clean up the article, which still has multiple issues, we should use tables? I'm not sure how to approach this, and I'd be afraid to tackle it myself, but I've added this section in an effort to open up the possibility. Also, perhaps we should research the places where citation is needed as we add these tables. Just a thought; let me know what you all think. ILoveWikis (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A) What problems are you referring to? B) Where would they be needed in this article? C) Why does you signature hide your username? MarnetteD|Talk 01:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)