Talk:Matt Smith

Why not move this

Is there any reason why this page shouldn't be moved to Matt Smith (actor). Dmn € Դմն 18:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also Matt Smith (voice actor) which appears to have been at the location for over three years.

By the way I've put move protection on as well as temporary edit semi-protection because IME articles that suddenly become high profile are prone to getting moved all over the place without discussion first. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There is also (at least one) American actor by the same name, See the talk page at Talk:Matt Smith for further discussion on page naming/moving instead of splitting across multiple articles. --AlisonW (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely the section about him being cast is fine, but the pieces presupposing that he'll actually complete filming and it'll be aired presume a lot about the future? Shoudl we be predicting the future, irrespective of how likely it will be? --Hugorudd (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Credited with Doctor Who

Why is he credited with the TV role of Doctor Who? He hasn't done it yet? Original air date 2010! This is not a verifiable fact. He has only just signed the contract. I suggest this is either changed to indicate this is a proposal or is removed completely. --84.112.111.89 (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that unless something exceptional happens between now and when they start filming the next series (which will probably be in the next few weeks or months), he is likely to remain the next Doctor. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 21:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Filming isn't due to start until "summer 2009" (which could be anything up until August, logically) and, whilst I wish him no harm whatsoever, one doesn't know what might happen in the meantime. As such crediting him as the Eleventh Doctor is seeing into a murky future; all we can say is that he is cast in the part, nothing more. --AlisonW (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC, an extremely reliable source, credit him as the Eleventh Doctor, thus logically so should we. If, and of course I don't wish this, anything should happen to change this, there's no reason why we couldn't remove this at that point. Until that point, however, the fact that he is the Eleventh Doctor is well sourced. _TalkIslander 22:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a 30-minute show on BBC One, on (British national television), dedicated to his new role as Dr Who...I think it's pretty safe to say he has the role! GiantSnowman 23:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like the objection being raised isn't that he's not officially in the role, it's that the article is documenting the future instead of the present. That is, nobody's arguing that we shouldn't say he's been given the job. We just shouldn't say that he's actually done it, which is what "crediting" an actor is. --67.105.209.72 (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's seems fair enough. Delete Doctor Who from "Credits" but leave the info about him being cast as the Doctor in the rest of the article. DonQuixote (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to leave for later

• Prose length before announcement: 1308 bytes
• DYK eligibility: 6540 bytes
• Current prose length as of 00:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC): 1691 bytes
• Expansion needed by: 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 00:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the way this man has been in a number of well known productions over the years yet his article only suddenly appears once he is announced as the new Doctor. --78.146.26.87 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the Weird Al effect. There are plenty of musicians who are well known, but didn't really "make it", or become famous, until Yankovic parodied them. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I created this page 16 Oct 08, people only started going berserk with adding and editing the day before the announcement, on 2 Jan 09. I created the page because I thought the fact that he "has been in a number of well known productions over the years" meant he should have a page, not because he was the next hottest thing i.e. Dr Who. That said I am extremely pleased for Matt and to see that lots of people have finally taken an interest in him. (I'm also pleased that page I started has taken off so much.) -- Philoyonder (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

he played for dynamo football club —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skip17171 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK eligible now; 5.25x expansion. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of semi-protect

nuff said, this is being used FAR TOO WIDELY these days, have some .'ing respect for your fellow contributors admins... try remember the motto (under "Welcome to Wikipedia")... It's supposed to be only used when there is widespread vandalism, not slapped on whenever someone feels like it... --87.113.0.21 (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeated violations of WP:BLP are grounds for protection. If you have something to add to the article, discuss it on the article's Talk page. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article before but I wanted to.... I won't now, since obviously you regard contributors who won't submit a registration as lowest of the low. Whatever. And I looked in the history and I didn't see any messages about vandalism... --87.113.0.21 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did I say that? Discuss your edits here. You can see the history of the vandalism and the reason for the protection at the article's history page - [1]. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I also object to semi-protection of this page as being heavy-handed. I found maybe three of four edits that could be counted as vandalism by anon-IPs, all of which were quickly reverted. Hardly evidence of a concerted campaign to violate BLP. Some accusations of vandalism were made when anon-IPs were adding information about his casting based on the announcement in Dr Who Confidential (but before the written statement), but calling that WP:vandalism is itself out of line. This will be a very popular page over the coming days, I fully agree, but that is no reason to semi-protect it. GDallimore (Talk) 11:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to BLP, it's much, much better to protect too cautiously than when it's too late. Having said that, the history of this page doesn't appear to me to be littered with either vandalism or BLP violations. I've left a note on the protecting admin's talk page, User talk:VegaDark, alerting him to this conversation. If he doesn't respond in a reasonable length of time, I will unprotect this page. _TalkIslander 11:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all. the page was listed at WP:RFPP where someone had requested its protection. Looking at the history, there had been almost no edits for 2 whole months, then suddenly tons of edits starting January 2. I'm looking over the history right now and the first 13 edits in the start of the surge were all unhelpful. The 14th edit was an attempt to add a source, which was later removed anyway because the source didn't support the claim. I'm not going to disect each later edit, but many subsequent edits were additions of unsourced content, vandalism, reverts, undos, and other unhelpful edits, and I felt protection was appropriate (note that the protection reason was not vandalism, but rather additions of unsourced content). Further, someone had just protected the page just prior to me, abiet only an hour (not sure if that was a mistake or not), and when unhelpful edits continued I protected for (only) a week- not that long to wait. I will not be undoing protection, as I feel it was done appropriately, but I won't object if another admin wants to undo it before the expiry. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I originally put the one hour protection on during the broadcast of the Confidential episode announcing him. The clues so far had been strong hinting it was Smith and the page was going wild with instant edits (usually from anon IPs) and reversions that frequently cause problems (not least because when the article changes so regularly it can be difficult for a substantial edit to keep up and often stuff gets lost in transition), so I put a one hour protection on to slow things down, give a breather space and get people to discuss things first. Similarly I put a permanent move lock on because a page with a disambiguation tag that suddenly becomes high profile invariably attracts requests for it to be moved and often gets moved without discussion and just an oblique reference to an unspecified part of the naming conventions. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

School play

"A drama teacher at his school tried to introduce him to acting; Smith was first cast as the tenth juror in an adaptation of Twelve Angry Men, a role he refused because as a footballer, he thought "acting wasn't that cool"." This a misreading of the source. That says that he refused to attend a drama festival for those reasons. He was in Twelve Angry Men. My friends' son was in the same production. Myrvin (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Eleventh Doctor's start date.

"Smith will begin portraying the Doctor in early 2010, in Tennant's last episode." is referenced by the Doctor Who confidental. I can't remember this being said, but perhaps my memory is faulty. Anyone else? Edgepedia (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It might've been in the podcast for The Next Doctor. It's evident he will, mind; Tennant needs to appear in the same episode as Matt Smith to regenerate (they won't do a Stolen Earth), so Tennant's last episode will be Smith's first. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I listened to the podcast as well. I've found where Matt Smith appears in the confidental (24mins approx), and will watch again during my lunch break. Edgepedia (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, didn't hear that. I'm taking it out as not sourced by reference. It did confirm that he will appear in Spring 2010, but it's likely that's Series 5. Edgepedia (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As production of Tennant's last episode is expected to wrap up this spring, we should know for certain then if Smith will be appearing at the end of Tennant's last episode. I can't imagine him not appearing; there almost always a hand-off scene. 23skidoo (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

i know you want to promote your country's doctor who

but that image is just distracting. --AaThinker (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That is an image of Matt Smith and he has a slightly odd face, so there isn't much that anyone can do about the fact that you find him distracting. There are no other images out there that are usable within the realms of Fair use as far as I know, even the one used on the Eleventh Doctor can't be used because it is far too role specific. I agree that it's not the best image of him, but it's better than nothing. If you can suggest a better image, that fits within fair use policy (WP:WPFU), then please point it out :) magnius (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Eleventh Doctor image is *much* better than the current emo-image in use...

Sexuality and supposedly Sub-Culture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Many people are saying that Matt Smith is both: Gay and an emo, though I think he is non of these. I am getting pretty annoyed at seeing tonnes of people's opinions about him being a "gay emo", but the last time I checked gay's and emo's HATE football, is it possible to get some sources to proove he is non of these? Or is there just nothing of usefulness on the internet?

Jonni Boi 17:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonni Boi (talk • contribs)

Ask these people for references to reliable sources to prove their claims and watch them fail!--Joshua Issac (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know whether Matt Smith is gay or not (or whether he is an emo either)- nor do I care if he is or not. But the statment "gays hate football" is utter rubbish - are you aware that there are now a large number of gay football teams in the UK which have huge support fom gay people. and I know lots of gay people who regularly attend football matches to watch their favourite (straight) teams play —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntie babs (talk • contribs) 07:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note this is not a forum. Edgepedia (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

David Knijnenburg

The article currently being used as a source is purely journalistic speculation. If what it says is actually correct, then there is a possibility that Mr. Knijnenburg was considered as a possibility, but nothing to verify that even that much is true. It's irrelevant to the article. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"drama and creative writing at the University of East Anglia"

I was in Matt's drama class at uni. The article current states "Smith studied drama and creative writing at the University of East Anglia". I feel this is a little ambiguous. To me it implies that the course he did was called "Drama and Creative Writing". It wasn't, nor was there any such course at the time. The course he did was simply called Drama. The UCAS code was, if I remember correctly, W400. He may have taken a few creative writing modules during this - I forget whether he did and he wasn't in any of my groups for the creative writing units.

Should I clear this up? Juicebox100 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a case of capitalisation. If the course was called "Drama and Creative Writing", I'd type it in capitals, if it's Drama with Creative Writing modules, I'd put it in lower case as in the article. Though I understand the confusion. Incidentally, how was he as a student? Sceptre ^(talk) 14:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood. He was a nice guy as a student - quite quiet but fairly sociable. I didn't get to know him massively well as we weren't in the same social circles but I never heard a bad word said about him and he was always perfectly pleasant to me. But anyway - as for the article; I'm happy with whatever you decide. Juicebox100 (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian Slater

Also - sorry, only just noticed this. The timeline is incorrect:

"His role in the latter earned him an agent and his first professional jobs: in Fresh Kills opposite Christian Slater; and a short time later in On the Shore of the Wide World."

Christian Slater wasn't in Fresh Kills. Fresh Kills also starred Nicola Walker and Phil Daniels. Matt Smith starred opposite Christian Slater a few years later in a stage adaptation of Swimming With Sharks.

The article then goes on to say: "After The History Boys, he would act in the teen play Burn/Chatroom/Citizenship, and Swimming with Sharks; the latter being his West End début, once again alongside Christian Slater."

All correct except the "once again" part. Swimming with Sharks was his first time acting with Christian Slater.

Juicebox100 (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)