Talk:The Doctor (Doctor Who)

Use Wiki Tables?

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

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

Sorry if this is a stupid question about William Hartnell's run as the Dr

It might just be the way series worked in the 60's, but the actor's age table list him as being in 4 series, but only in it for 3 years.

Didn't want to mess with such a loved and researched character's article so just thought I would mention it, in case it is a mistake (probably isn't)

Cheers! --TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

He was in the first two stories of season 4 so there is an overlap. MarnetteD|Talk 09:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahh. Cool. Figured it might be something odd. Thanks! TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

War Doctor not included in the article's header picture

I think the War Doctor played by John Hurt should be included in the article's header picture, between Paul McGann's Doctor and Christopher Eccleston's Doctor, with a hyperlink to his respective article. The War Doctor is very much an accepted incarnation of the doctor so he should be included in the picture. However it would mess up the caption below as it wouldn't be chronological anymore. Perhaps "in-universe order" would be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:AD1B:C900:A860:7268:E28A:B001 (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

In-universe POV is against wikipeida's policy. DonQuixote (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It isn't inherently an 'in-universe' POV to describe the order presented in the fiction though of course.Frond Dishlock (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

In the context of this discussion, the order presented in the fiction (in spite of conflicting historical events) is in-universe. DonQuixote (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Others - Jo Martin

Given developments in "Fugitive of the Judoon", and particularly given what is in the end credits of that episode, should Jo Martin be added along with Michael Jayston and John Hurt in the infobox under others, or should that wait depending on further developments in the current series? She is currently in the Other actors link, but her status would seem to be similar to that of Hurt (especially given the on-screen credit). Dunarc (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's not forget that David Morrissey was also credited as the Doctor prior to his episode. Let's wait until her identity is explained first.77.99.89.230 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I have been accidentally spoiled (no worries, I looked and all my fault :) but from what I've read, yes, absolutely we should not try to slot her into the timeline just yet. Treat her as Hurt as the War Doctor for the time being until we know more. --Masem (t) 23:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with the above by Masem and the IP. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everybody - all sounds fine with me. Dunarc (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Incarnations in the infobox

If we're going to add the Valeyard to the list of incarnations in the infobox (or the Ruth Doctor), then there's no easy in-universe way of ordering the list given the convoluted internal mythology. The internal mythology can be explained in the article body in prose. The simplest list that requires no original research or interpretation is simple alphanumeric order. DonQuixote (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to be neutral on whether the Valeyard or the Ruth Doctor or Jo Martin should be added to the infobox. DonQuixote (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

My issue with alphanumeric order is that, in this particular case, it's not at all clear to the reader that it is alphanumeric order. The section is labelled as a "Character biography", and that biography is both helpful and accurate, except it currently indicates that the Thirteenth Doctor regenerates into the Valeyard, who regenerates into the War Doctor. Since we have a clear biographical position for the War Doctor and none for the Valeyard, I don't see why we can't simply put War between Eighth and Ninth and leave the Valeyard at the end. How about if we add a linebreak to separate the ordered Doctors from the anomalous one(s)? —Flax5 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about regenerating. It just says species, home planet and incarnations. The general reader unfamiliar with the internal mythology won't probably jump to that conclusion. DonQuixote (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

My point isn't that it suggests regeneration, it's that it suggests the Valeyard and War Doctor follow the Thirteenth Doctor in the character's biography. Some readers will leave with this impression, though I suspect a lot more will just wonder why the War Doctor is in the wrong position. I would go with something like this - keeps the ordered incarnations in order, with War in the position he's been in for years, but leaves the Valeyard on a different line to show that he's not part of the character biography in the same way War is. —Flax5 17:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes are for simple summaries. Anything complicated like that should be mentioned in the article body. And "incarnations" is a general term that doesn't imply a strict linear chronology; any reader who jumps to that conclusion can read the article proper and get straightened out. The infobox isn't the final word on the information but the starting point. DonQuixote (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The way the list is now : with the 13 known ones in order, and the "others", along with the year(s) of their appearances, is the simplest way to do the infobox, but the structure of the article needs to be clear so that if I am wondering about those "others" I can tell immediately what section to go to. So for example, while there is an H3 "Actors" section I'd actually elevator this to a "Portrayal" section, which would include the rational of how they came up with regeneration (out-of-universe info) and has "Main actors" and "Other actors" subsections. The other stuff under "Changing Faces" is all principle in-universe detail. (A wholly separate problem is this article does have far too much in-universe detail, knowing we have separate articles for the 13 main Doctors). --Masem (t) 16:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds great! DonQuixote (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with above as the way it is at the moment seems to work (and otherwise things could become very complicated and confusing). Dunarc (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

So who wants to take a run at this?

So bits that need working in:

• The Doctor is of an unknown species
• The Doctor has unlimited generations
• Time-lords gain their abilities from a genetic splice of The Doctor's abilities.

Cameron Scott (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Timeless Children does not exactly say that the Doctor has unlimited regenerations, highlighting that the Timeless Child only regenerated 12 times but leaving it open whether the next regenerations were granted by the Time Lords or not. But as established in The Time of the Doctor, even if they had more than 12, they never had unlimited regenerations. Regards SoWhy 12:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

We need to remove ALL mentions of "first" doctor, "second" doctor, and any other numerical system since last night's episode explicitly rejects such a counting. 98.190.223.50 (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective, so no. All reliable secondary sources use the ordinal numbers. DonQuixote (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. In-universe the Doctor rarely if ever mentions their regeneration number or amount and does not refer to themselves as "Xth Doctor" (10 mentioned he regenerated "half a dozen times" when meeting Sarah Jane again and 11 mentions that with War and 10's first abortive regeneration he is actually in his 13th regeneration but those examples are rare and far-between). Regards SoWhy 16:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Doubly agreed. There is probably fair wording that we can borrow from when we had to adapt after the intro of the War Doctor's intro of how to refer to 9th and onward as to not retcon the common numbering system that can be used here. (And for pretty much 1-12, I would leave this as a footnote on their pages unless a new series episode later comes to address it). But we're still going to call Hartnell the First Doctor even if the character is the 13th regeneration or whatever. --Masem (t) 19:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. As far as we're aware, the Doctor chose their name in their earliest known incarnation (i.e. the child version of Hartnell, after having his memory wiped by Division). There's no explicit reference to any pre-Hartnell incarnation actually being called 'Doctor', therefore until any such reference is made, any incarnation is still the Xth incarnation to be referred to as 'the Doctor', the same way we count the War Doctor as an incarnation but not an actual numbered Doctor.