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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --Ronnie42 (talk) 12:36, 27 November 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)