Jump to content

Talk:Doctor Who

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:645:c300:42d0:e182:1b8f:b199:c723 (talk) at 20:00, 28 March 2017 (Eleventh Doctor is Tenth Regeneration, Not Twelfth: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleDoctor Who is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 16, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 4, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
March 1, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
July 3, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
February 9, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 9, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
September 6, 2013Peer reviewNot reviewed
November 1, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
November 26, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article

Template:Vital article

Time Lord Classification

According to the show and books a Time Lord is specifically someone who entered and graduated the Time Lord Academy. Gallifreyans are transcripted at age eight and taken to see the un-tempered schism, the event that according to legend started the Master on the path to insanity, to see if they are suited to be trained to be a Time Lord. During their time in the academy they are given a second heart which is what allows them to hold regeneration energy. A normal Gallifreyan only has one heart and cannot regenerate, this is explored in the 70's in novelization when a pirate steals the Doctors second heart so that he can regenerate.

Given these details it should be noted in the article that the Doctor is a self proclaimed Time Lord even though by his own admission on several occasions he never fulfilled all the requirements to be a Time Lord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PabloTheMagnanimous (talkcontribs) 17:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real world sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) use the terms Time Lords and Gallifreyans interchangeably. In-universe detail such as the above can be mentioned in the article proper in the appropriate context. DonQuixote (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many doctors have headlined?

The first sentence of the third paragraph of the intro isn't correct. It states that Twelve actors have headlined the series when only eleven have, but thirteen actors have portrayed the doctor. PabloTheMagnanimous (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve actors have headlined the series plural, as supported by reliable sources. The 2005 revival made it a point to refer to both the 1996 back door pilot as well as the classic series. More than thirteen actors have played the Doctor (Richard Hurndall included). DonQuixote (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon Circuit

I believe it should be noted in the first paragraph of the premise that the chameleon circuit may be broken but that it is fixable and the Doctor chooses not to fix it because he likes the way the T.A.R.D.I.S. looks in this form.PabloTheMagnanimous (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is for a short, concise summary of the article proper. This detail can be mentioned in the article body within the proper context. DonQuixote (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctors Fascination with Earth

I think it would benefit to add in the premise that the Doctors fascination with Earth possibly stems from the Doctor being half human as revealed in the 1996 movie. I realize that the movie wasn't originally accepted as canon, but with the inclusion of Mcgann in the 50th anniversary special and the Big Finish audio stories featuring Mcgann, it would seem the events of the movie should be accepted into canon.PabloTheMagnanimous (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. I recommend WP:OUTUNIVERSE. We do not talk about "canon": we talk about what reliable sources say about a TV show. Bondegezou (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to say anything about canon, I was simply bringing up canon to reinforce my point about adding the comment about the Doctors fascination possibly stemming from the Doctor being half human as revealed in the 1996 movie. I think it holds more credibility to point to events from actually released material in the Who universe rather than sources who talk about the show.PabloTheMagnanimous (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite a secondary source that makes that analysis. An encyclopaedia isn't supposed to do that. DonQuixote (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Series 11

A draft has been start for Series 11 at Draft:Doctor Who (series 11); contributions are welcome, but the article should not be moved to the mainspace until the series has began filming. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Five years confirmed

The article states that, "In April 2015, Steven Moffat confirmed that Doctor Who would run for at least another five years, extending the show until 2020." I dispute the use of the word "confirmed" and suggest "predicted" instead. User:AlexTheWhovian disagrees. We've been discussing this at Draft talk:Doctor Who (series 11), but AlexTW pointed out the use of the phrase here.

As far as I can see, the citation given merely quotes an interview with Moffat. He's making a personal prediction of what he thinks will happen. It's not a decision that is within his power, nor is it a decision the BBC would take (when have the BBC ever confirmed a series will still be going five years hence?). AlexTW contends this constitutes an official statement by the BBC because the citation is a BBC News article, but that appears to me to misunderstand the editorial independence of BBC News when it is covering entertainment news pertaining to the BBC. The article is carefully phrased to be clear that this is something Moffat said: it doesn't state this to be a fact about reality. Bondegezou (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Times gives some more context with Steven referencing discussions with BBC Worldwide. However both Radio Times and BBC appear to be sourcing from DWM - so someone might like to track down the issue and get the full reference and context. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the RT article. Those are positive comments and I'm happy to have them in the article, but I still don't think there's anything there that confirms the show will run another 5 years. This is a personal prediction by someone leaving the show. An informed prediction, sure, but not a confirmation. Bondegezou (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eleventh Doctor is Tenth Regeneration, Not Twelfth

The article erroneously refers to the Eleventh Doctor as the Doctor's twelfth regeneration. He was the tenth.

First Doctor = Original Second Doctor = First Regeneration Third Doctor = Second Regeneration Fourth Doctor = Third Regeneration Fifth Doctor = Fourth Regeneration: This is mentioned in The Five Doctors special. Richard Hurndall as the First Doctor asks Peter Davison as the Fifth: "Regeneration?" To which he replies, "Fourth." The First Doctor then says, "So there are FIVE of me now!" Sixth Doctor = Fifth Regeneration Seventh Doctor = Sixth Regeneration Eighth Doctor = Seventh Regeneration Ninth Doctor = Eighth Regeneration Tenth Doctor = Ninth Regeneration Eleventh Doctor = Tenth Regeneration Twelfth Doctor = Eleventh Regeneration Thirteenth Doctor = Twelfth Regeneration

Thus, if The Doctor were not given a new set of regenerations, the Thirteenth Doctor would be unable to regenerate and would die.