Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

BBC Released image of Matt Smith

Not sure where we stand on copyright issues, but this image has been released by the BBC: [1] Can it be used? magnius (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The free content supporters will assert that the WP:NFC means that our current image of his head on his bio page is sufficient (and cannot be used in other articles), and you don't need to see him standing next to the Tardis as he is in the BBC image to know he is the next Doctor. Accepting all that, the BBC image would imo not be appropriate for his bio page. MickMacNee (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the Doctor Who page, I meant is it of any use with the Who articles? magnius (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless it is confirmed that this is how he will dress for the role, it is inappropriate to use on any DW page, and certainly not on his bio page. --MASEM 19:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I never said said anything about his bio page (that image has been removed anyway), and it certainly seems and appropriate image to at least couple with casting announcement of Who articles, if it is usable. magnius (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a non-free image, so unless there's a strong rationale besides, "look nice" (effectively), we can't use it yet. However, if it is confirmed that the emo-black outfit he's got in the pic is the way he'll dress for the role, then that's a different issue. --MASEM 20:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For the people wondering why the collage image keeps changing, see the discussion linked at the top of this section, and discuss that image there (as that is its primary use location). MickMacNee (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the image needs a better rationale. I'm just stuck for ideas at the moment. Sceptre (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

nothing about the massages?

This article is an exterimely log article, perhaps too long, but contains nothing about the masseges and themes. I watch just the 3 first seasons of the new serios, but I got the impretion the the philosophical ideas and wonders about the humen nature, free will, money, amotions, moral, TV and it's effect on our life and so on are an importent issue. I assume that is was an importent issue in all the seasons. no one ever made a research about that? People make researches about everything in now days, and it is quite obvious (the doctor ones said "you brainless ship" or something like that about the humen race). Of course I don't exepect you to make your own commentarys- it is not wikipedia's goal.

sorry for my bad english, נוי (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding any of that into the article would be original research which is a big no no for Wiki. However feel free to search for articles on the subject and then come back to the talk page to discuss whether or not they should be added. Not sure if such information should be added to a long article however. Dark verdant (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL

"Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

Links to be avoided (as listed in WP:EL): Advertising and conflicts of interest, In biographies of living people, Sites requiring registration, Non-English language content, Redirection sites, Rich media. The links you claim WP:EL directs to remove fall under absolutely none of those criteria, and in fact several citations are made to them. Outpost Gallifrey alone is pretty far removed from a "fan site" in the context that phrase is to be used for link removal. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the links are kept, the subsections have to go. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Why? TalkIslander 11:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Subsections are used to split up long sections so that they may be more easily navigated. A list containing eleven bullet points is more than capable of fitting within a single section. Keeping them only encourages users to believe that the individual sections are too short and should be expanded, which is explicitly proscribed in WP:EL. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I like the subsections - it's neater. However, your reasoning is definitely sound, so I'd probably (reluctantly :P ) agree with you. TalkIslander 13:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm a member of fandom myself; but these sites aren't exactly The Guardian as far as editorial control is concerned. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
For starters, "Editorial Control" isn't a stated reason for link removal. These sites are referenced directly by the article, which in and of itself should be reason enough to leave them be. They are far above and beyond what one would call a "fan site" and are old, well-developed pages that do exactly what external links are supposed to do: go into further reliable detail than is recommended for a Wiki. I was hoping that the editor who removed them twice would have responded here already, but it's not really necessary. The links are not called for removal under WP:EL and there is not as of yet a valid argument for their removal. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actors' tenures in the role

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It is clear that the proposed changes have no consensus. Dragging this subject is unproductive, so I am closing this discussion. EdokterTalk 13:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Other actors have also played the Doctor, though rarely more than once."

Surely Richard Hurndall deserves a bit more credit for his role as the First Doctor in "The Five Doctors"?

The article boldly states "The show's lead character, the Doctor, has been played by ten actors over the history of the show." and the panel illustrates the eleven faces of Doctor Who (mysteriously counting Matt Smith, who hasn't appeared yet!). Logically since the 'history of the show' does not yet include Matt Smith, the panel is obviously wrong.

I agree with eleven if you add Richard Hurndall from "The Five Doctors", and delete the as yet to appear Matt Smith! On this basis, Richard Hurndall was the second face of the First Doctor, when he acted the part on the 23rd of November 1983, not merely "standing in for William Hartnell". You don't just stand in for someone who died on the 23rd April of 1975!

Nitramrekcap (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Matt Smith has officially been announced as Doctor 11, so it is only right that his face appears in the list. The picture refers to the faces of the Doctor, rather than the actors portraying them, so it is only right to use the actor who played him the most and not include a one-off. However, I have no objection to the inclusion of Hurndall is others feel it appropriate. magnius (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Richard Hurndall is important in regard to his portrayal in The Five Doctors, but he's not as important as the others in regards to the programme overall. In this regard, the current collage is adequate. Hurndall himself is appropriately mentioned in the Doctor (Doctor Who), First Doctor and The Five Doctors articles. Perhaps an image of him in one of these articles should be added. DonQuixote (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As the image's purpose is to depict the iterations of the Doctor, not the actors, it only needs to display each one once; this therefore clearly means William Hartnell should be used for the First Doctor, as he far more frequently depicted the character. To that end, I find the use of the image of Matt Smith dubious, as nowhere in the source of the image provided is it explicitly stated that the image depicts Matt Smith as the Eleventh Doctor. As the image is used in both the "The Doctor" subsection of this article and the main Doctor article, it is currently constituting original research. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 16:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see the questioning of Matt Smith's inclusion in any historical compilations, including images, of The Doctor. He's been announced, yes, and that should be noted. But he has not assumed the role yet, nor has the first series featuring the Eleventh Doctor entered production. I would agree with those above so stating and argue that he should be removed from the list of Doctors and image of portrayals of The Doctor, which clearly does not and cannot include him as The Doctor as yet, given he's not assumed the role. There's been an awful lot of gun jumping going on here, largely following the wishes of a small but aggressive group of editors. It's past time this was addressed. Drmargi (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right! Matt Smith has not yet portrayed 'The Doctor' and yet he is included as the eleventh face of Doctor Who! But Richard Hurndall - as I was reminded by seeing a DVD of The Five Doctors this afternoon has portrayed The First Doctor' - even if it was only on a one-off basis (much like Paul McGann!) but has not been included....At the moment, we still have four specials of The Tenth Doctor to look forward to this year, so why 'jump the gun' on Number 11? Dare I suggest that a. Richard Hurndall should be counted as one of eleven faces, ie the actors' faces, of The Doctor and that b. Matt Smith cannot as yet be counted as he hasn't even acted the part? To anyone unfamiliar with Wikipedia, the article appears to ignore the role of The First Doctor as played by Richard Hurndall in 1983 - even if he was made up to look like William Hartnell (who had died eight years earlier) and includes Matt Smith, who has not yet performed the role of The Eleventh Doctor and is not going to until 2010! Now the novelty of having a new Doctor prematurely announced has worn off, it's time to address the role's strict chronology please? The article on The First Doctor (First_Doctor) does however fully credit Richard Hurndall as having played the role, and not merely as a 'stand-in' - this only confirms my suspicion that the main article needs to be adjusted accordingly as quickly as possible!

In the meantime, what about Hannah Murray for the 11th Doctor's companion? (See today's News of The World).

Nitramrekcap (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Doctors face will still be that of Matt Smith, unless he has drastic plastic surgery between now and his official taking of the role, so it is still a valid enough image to depict the upcoming 11th face of the character. This image was officially released by the BBC to tie in with the announcement of his casting, so until such time as an in costume shot is released I see no problem with using it. magnius (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What proves to us that that isn't going to be the case, though? Many factors could affect whether Matt Smith will actually play the character, and we shouldn't be speculating in this manner whether the image provided will actually be how the Eleventh Doctor looks when the series starts. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 17:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, Nitramrekcap, I still don't see the need for Richard Hurndall to be depicted in the image in question. The image is meant to depict the Doctors, not the actors, and listing one Doctor twice is just redundant for such a summarising image. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 17:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that Matt Smith may have plastic surgery for the role? About the the only thing that is likely to change will be his hair, and that doesn't affect his face. This is simply a pictorial reference, it is perfectly acceptable for the time being. This whole argument was started by a person who feels that they can add unsourced rumour, allegedly from the News of the World, to Hannah Murray's wiki page. I find that quite ironic magnius (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Yet the image is intended to be of the Doctor, not Matt Smith, and, despite accepting it, Smith hasn't actually assumed the role yet, nor have any images of him as the Doctor been released. Anyway, there's a plausible chance that he could turn down the role, etc. for whatever reason yet, so he might not ever star as the Eleventh Doctor. Therefore, the use of his image to depict the 11th Doctor is inaccurate and purely speculative. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 18:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"The eleven faces of the Doctor" & "The show's lead character, the Doctor, has been played by ten actors over the history of the show."

FACT: Richard Hurndall played The First Doctor on the 23rd of November 1983, i.e. effectively reprising the portrayal previously performed by William Hartnell; QED: Richard Hurndall was a 'face' of The Doctor on a one-off basis in much the same way as Paul McGann was in the TVM.

FACT: Matt Smith has not yet performed the role of The Eleventh Doctor, having (for reasons best known to the BBC) been prematurely announced when David Tennant still has another four DW Specials to be shown; QED: by no stretch of the imagination is Matt Smith as yet a 'face' of The Doctor, so strictly speaking there has been eleven faces - by adding Hurndall's/deleting Smith's - historically!

The article is therefore somewhat misleading and may not upto Wikipedia's usual high standards?

Nitramrekcap (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. What about the image, though? It should depict the Doctors, not the actors, and only Hartnell is needed. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 19:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
We're not going to change the image. Again, the image portrayes the Doctors, not he actors. It represents the faces as they appear in the 'Whoniverse', and as portayed by their main actor. Smith may not have played the Doctor yet, but his face is representative for the Eleventh Doctor. Once he has asumed the role, a new image of him in full character will be available. EdokterTalk 19:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, he hasn't played the Doctor and is therefore irrelevant. If no image of the Eleventh Doctor has been released, then no image should be used. The provided image is insufficient, as it is not explicitly stated in the cited article that it depicts the 11th Doctor instead of just Matt Smith. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 21:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
He is certainly not irrelevant; He represents the face of the Eleventh Doctor. The press release is unambiguous about that, so his image is very appropriate. EdokterTalk 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
That's nothing more than speculation. He may very well not be the Doctor, and merely being confirmed to be the role does not mean he is the role. Time could result in anything happening. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 21:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Now who's speculating? We are citing a very reliable source here. Sure, anything can happen, but that does not concern us. We cite sources, we don't speculate. EdokterTalk 22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course anything can happen, and it does concern us, as we specify with reliable sources what does happen and what is true. Currently, I can't see any justification that the image used depicts the Eleventh Doctor. He doesn't become the Doctor just from being shown standing near a TARDIS in an image at the top of an article which only states he is going to play the Doctor. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 23:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
No, we do not deal with the truth, we only deal in verifiability and reliable sources. BBC released that image depicting Smith as the Doctor; that was their intent and purpose, and the only fact that can be verified. Your reasoning is based only on semantics, based on the fact the press release does not explicitly state that Smith depicts the Doctor in that image. That reasoning is flawed; any other reader will comprihend the intent of that release. Ergo, Smith will the Doctor, and they are showing it. Please do not revert again, especially when consensus is against you. EdokterTalk 23:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Then verify "BBC released that image depicting Smith as the Doctor". I do not see where they have stated that as so. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 23:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Again quite right as Hurndall was really playing Hartnell playing The First Doctor, so yes to avoid confusion I agree there is no need to include an image of Hurndall as well as (on the cover of the DVD I saw this afternoon) he looked remarkably like Hartnell! BUT in the main body of the article, it should acknowledge that The First Doctor was played by TWO actors, NOT one!

So I suggest the summary table be slightly modified to include Richard Hurndall as follows:

The Doctor Played by Duration

First Doctor 1# William Hartnell 1963–1966 First Doctor 2# Richard Hurndall 1983 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 (TVM) Eighth Doctor Paul McGann 1996 (TVM) Ninth Doctor Christopher Eccleston 2005 Tenth Doctor David Tennant 2005–2010

As for Matt Smith,he (in reality) is NOT yet The Eleventh Doctor - he will not be in that august position until the fifth series of the modern era and his first episode has been shown in 2010! I think there is now a consensus for him not be be listed as such until 2010.

I agree that "Other actors have also played the Doctor, though rarely more than once." but Richard Hurndall deserves to be credited for his role as The First Doctor in The Five Doctors.

Nitramrekcap (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no question that Haipas Doragon is correct and Edoktor's posting is blatantly self-contradictory. Compare photos of Colin Baker released in direct connection with the announcement of his casting as Dr. 6 and his actual appearance in the role, beginning in the final moments of The Caves of Androzani. Who knows just what Smith will look like in character, which is what the group of images under discussion are flatly stated to be, "the faces of the Doctor", not the actors who have played him. As for Hurndall, since he played the same "face" as Hartnell, he should not be in this panel. Which is not to say that an image of him in character does not belong somewhere. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This is nonsense, as regards the main article. Richard Hurndall only portrayed The First Doctor because Hartnell had died by the time of the The Five Doctors; this issue to my mind is adequately addressed in the sub-article; for such a major topic, this detail should be appropriately focussed; but discussions of minutiae certainly do not belong in this lead. They properly belong in [[The Doctor {Doctor Who)]] discussion.
As this image was released by the BBC for the purpose of promoting Matt Smith as the 11th Doctor, I feel it is appropriate and within fair use policy (to the best of my understanding of it) to use it in the article. I certainly think it is better to use this image rather than spend a year with a faceless name attached to the Who pages in question. I vote that it stays (if hands are being raised and counted), however, if the consensus is that it should be removed then so be it. magnius (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Yet Matt Smith hasn't depicted the Eleventh Doctor yet, and the image is intended to be of the Doctor, not any potential actors of the character. The BBC have not specified whether the image in question is of the Doctor or just Matt Smith, so it is purely speculative. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 00:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This is nitpickery to the highest level. This discussion has already had people seriously side with possibilities of massive plastic surgery... I'm not sure how much effort I should put into a response if people are going to jump to those conclusions.
As previously stated: barring intervention by the Alien Space Bats, his face is his face. To assume that the face of the actor publicly verified to play the Doctor and officially presented standing in front of the Tardis is somehow inaccurate due to possibilities of plastic surgery or massive special effects makeup... well that's just plain jumping to any remote possibilities and somehow assuming that the possible is the inevitable regardless of relative insanity...
The picture is officially released and is also in-tone for previous full-profile Doctor pictures since the 2005 season. There is no "potential" involved here. Due to the unreasonable leaps of logic, some of you folks have jumped a shark right over Original Research.
If Matt Smith gets a noticeable haircut or is involved in any tragic electric razor incidents, then the picture should be changed. Otherwise you're simply grasping at straws here. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, and this is probably what an anonymous user would want to find here. If they're not smart enough to have been a Doctor Who fan from get go then they're probably not smart enough to follow the Matt Smith (actor) link to his own entry. As a precedent, the BBC widely used the images of Colin and Nicole to depict the "next Doctor" in 1983. Even though he was without the perm or horrible jacket. In this case I strongly suspect Matt dyes.
All the semantics turn on whether this is intended to be an image of the eleventh Doctor or Matt. With the right caption the objections vanish.MartinSFSA (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Much as I want the image to remain, on I think the same logic should apply to the faces of The Doctor as we would apply to a list of monarchs. We're almost certain that Prince Charles will be the next monarch of those sixteen states that Elizabeth II currently is, we know what he looks liked, but we wouldn't put him in a list of monarchs until such a date as he actually acceeds to the throne. PoisonedPigeon (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
That is an irrelevant comparison. For starters, there is not the unknown here of someone having to die. This is a work of fiction and basically revolves around casting information. If you can find an example of where on Wikipedia a post-production movie/show does not list the actors in a similar manner to what you propose, then I'd like to see it. I can't find any myself. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 13:41,

12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Actors who played Doctor Who"

This table badly needs to be amended:

from =

The Doctor Played by Duration First Doctor William Hartnell 1963–1966[40] Second Doctor Patrick Troughton 1966–1969[40] Third Doctor Jon Pertwee 1970–1974[40] Fourth Doctor Tom Baker 1974–1981[40] Fifth Doctor Peter Davison 1981–1984[40] Sixth Doctor Colin Baker 1984–1986 Seventh Doctor Sylvester McCoy 1987–1989, 1996[41] Eighth Doctor Paul McGann 1996 Ninth Doctor Christopher Eccleston 2005 Tenth Doctor David Tennant 2005–2010[7] Eleventh Doctor Matt Smith 2010–[9]

to:

The Doctor Played by Duration First Doctor William Hartnell 1963–1966[40] First Doctor Richard Hurndall 1983 Second Doctor Patrick Troughton 1966–1969[40] Third Doctor Jon Pertwee 1970–1974[40] Fourth Doctor Tom Baker 1974–1981[40] Fifth Doctor Peter Davison 1981–1984[40] Sixth Doctor Colin Baker 1984–1986 Seventh Doctor Sylvester McCoy 1987–1989, 1996[41] Eighth Doctor Paul McGann 1996 Ninth Doctor Christopher Eccleston 2005 Tenth Doctor David Tennant 2005–2010[7]

on the basis that 1. Richard Hurndall played The First Doctor 1n 1983 - so should be added; 2. Matt Smith has NOT yet played The Eleventh Doctor, so should be deleted and can be added in 2010 when he does! (Remember it is still 2009 and The Tenth Doctor is the current one!)

There seems to be some confusion between the roles and the actors; The First Doctor is a role first played by William Hartnell from 1963 to 1966, and then [as a one-off] by Richard Hurndall in 1983. I am sure even the most hard core DW fans can live with this apparent paradox!

Nitramrekcap (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hurndall doesn't need to be in the main list, he only played The First Doctor once, and that is covered by the explanation

"Other actors have also played the Doctor, though rarely more than once (see the list of actors who have played the Doctor)."

If you wanted to start getting too pedantic with that list, you would have to mention that McCoy played the Sixth Doctor. Matt Smith has been officially cast as the Eleventh Doctor, so he belongs in the list the same as everyone else, just because he hasn't yet been in an episode, doesn't make his inclusion any less valid. magnius (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Hurndall was only there because Hartnell had died by that time, and to give him such prominence for one story would be to give him undue weight. His tenure was brief and the article should reflect that, especially in the infobox, which is intended to be a descriptive overview rather than a detailed recitation of the truth. So, no. Matt Smith should be there because he has been reliably-sourced as the next Doctor, and should it never happen, he can be deleted. But not until. This is not crystal-ballery. --Rodhullandemu 16:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps slightly pedantic as far as Hartnell/Hurndall is concerned - but if there is a case for Hurndall's one-off appearance being much better recorded, then it should be made in my humble opinion; "pedantic" is recording William Hartnell's 1983 appearance in The Five Doctors from archive footage!

My idea of a so-called 'stand-in' is the wax model that stood is for Tom Baker, and not a live human being - like Richard Hurndall - i.e. an actor performing the role of The First Doctor...

BUT as far as Matt Smith is concerned, he has played NOTHING, remember 'played' is past tense and Matt Smith's performances are in the future...so by all means include him but change the heading to reflect correct English grammar? Yes, he will be The Eleventh Doctor, but not yet!

Nitramrekcap (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

We could continue this and similar discussions on to their inevitable conclusion. Edmund Warwick, Brian Proudfoot and Gordon Craig all doubled Hartnell. Then there was that head they had moving around the screen in Dimensions in Time. MartinSFSA (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Martin,

So 'who' was credited with playing The First Doctor at the end of "The Five Doctors" in 1983?

(My son and I either met or saw: JP/TB/PD/CB/SM and my son saw DT at Stratford, pre-Hamlet!)

Martin

Nitramrekcap (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nitramrekcap
There is a point to my musings; it's an argument of identity vs reducibility. If I can demonstrate that making an exception for an entire story (the Five Doctors) is the same as making an exception for anything else we end up with a slippery slope were *every* depiction of the Doctor has an equally strong claim to be included.
Or if you will, has anyone ever used Hurndall to depict the First Doctor *over* Hartnell? (Apart from ABC Australia because of sheer fail?)
Nitramrekcap! MartinSFSA (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Nitramrekcap, if you're asking who was credited as "First Doctor"... IIRC, I don't believe any of the actors were credited specifically by numbers. I know there was all of them in a list together, I think it was in chronological order (Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Baker, Davison, then Hurndall), possibly with a header of "The Doctor" or "Doctor Who" over the list. (Will check my DVD shortly.) umrguy42 21:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, okay, got it: Under the heading "The Doctor" they simply list, in the following order: Davison, Pertwee, Troughton, Hurndall, Baker, and Hartnell. Not sure if they were trying to list by most time on screen, or what, but that's what it is.
As far as the table... I would say Hurndall doesn't belong in the primary table. I might say that putting Smith in for the Eleventh Doctor might not satisfy WP:CRYSTAL (he could change his mind, get hit by a bus, abducted by aliens, who knows?) - but I can see it either way. (My preferred method, if a way could be found that doesn't look horrendous, would be a small note in the table saying Smith hasn't appeared yet/done filming/whatever, but I'm not about to quibble.) umrguy42 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
By all means, quibble away.
Hardly a "What if", Matt Smith is more of a "When". The only information that we don't have about him is the exact date that he will first be seen. He is under contract, so he is hardly likely to "change his mind", and if he did he would be sued to the poor house, which he is not going to risk. He could get hit by a but granted, but it's hardly likely.magnius (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to first made a sidenote: Can people please please please learn how to properly format their responses here? I'd nigh impossible to make sense of what some of you are trying to say when you jump in and out of indents, respond as a break in the middle of someone else's comments, etc etc. If you are replying to something, then just make one more indent below the most recent response. Unless you arn't specifically responding allong a tangent or the tangest is indented all the way, that would be a helpful method; if you must, then bring it back out all the way to the start. Thanks.
Hurndall was one thing for this episode: A "Shemp", if that reference makes sense to anyone. Essentially a "body double". He should be mentioned in the article, but he was not the actual actor, and it would be nedlessly confusing to try and make a point of this in the actor list.
As for Smith, it would be omission due to personal bias to out-and-out remove him. The arguments for more than a "he is slated as the next actor, but has yet to appear on film" are frankly grasping at straws by relying on slim "what ifs". --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hurndell, was more than just a body double, he was the man chosen by the BBC to be the official torch bearer for the First Doctor, you argument makes about as much sense as saying that any actor post-connery is a body double because they are not the actor who first portrayed him. magnius (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
For starters, what part of "please follow a reasonable format of replies" sounded to you like "by all means, toss a response between my first sentance and the rest of my response"? "Body Double" is just my trying to elaborate on "Shemping", since I know that not many are likely to be familiar with the term. There are more than a few shades between "lead actor" and "body double", but really not many terms for the gray areas. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of Matt Smith, Human.v2.0, you say the arguments against his inclusion are weak because they say he "has yet to appear on film", yet we are dealing with a purely fictional aspect of the show. Why should we represent a character whom hasn't been depicted in the programme yet with a picture of someone who is set to play him in the future? Despite the perceived likelihood of this happening due to Smith's contract, there is no foolproof guarantee that this will happen. Remember we are dealing with a element of fiction, and if something hasn't been depicted in that universe then we shouldn't make it seem as so. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 20:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The issue itself is not weak, the arguments and logic being used for it are. In the past roughly... I dunno, 12+ inches of this talk page, every argument from "has yet to appear on film" to "he might have massive plastic surgery, so the picture isn't valid" have been used. What I mean is that every possibility is being tossed into this argument simply because of that: it is possible. Not likely, not reasonable, not logical and certainly not based on any kind of sourced evidence; just the fact that it is a slim possibility that still exists in a non-impossible future.
It's comments like "perceived likelihood". For a website that has a whole section on "weasel words" that is stretching things pretty far. Is my red shirt really "perceived red" up to and until it has been certified by a laboratory? Is it "perceived likelihood" that I am working tomorrow based on the possibility that I could always be hit by a meteor during the night? It's not the place of editors to be disputing current information based on ridiculous invented possibilities that are nowhere based on established fact.
Until further events possibly happen, what is just simply is. This isn't like the article is saying that David Tennant bought a lotto ticket tonight and is planning on winning it at whatever date. There are multiple sources confirming that he has the role barring any of the multiple possibilities that have so far been invented, and we have a picture of said man's face that is officially released with a similar background motif to the previously released seasonal Doctor/Companion photos with a TARDIS in the background. There is no even barely reasonably expectation that Matt Smith's face will change, the clothing is not shown, which leaves the hair as the only unverified portion of the face. And again, there is no source to state that it will change and even less rational reason to think that having unsourced hair details invalidates the photo or the Wiki itself.
Basically I'm getting tired of every single relevant Doctor Who page having the exact same arguments with no sound logic behind them other than "it's possible". If Matt Smith gets a blue heart tattooed on his forehead, chin implants and changes his hair to a blond mohawk then I will personally alter the portrait image. Until then "it's possible" is not a valid enough argument in and of itself for removal of images or information based on wild assumptions. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"There are multiple sources confirming that he has the role". No, there aren't. There are sources confirming he will have the role, but nothing otherwise. Wikipedia only states what is, based on the principle of notability, not what will be. It is impossible to state what will happen in the future than what is currently happening, as nothing exists now for us to perceive that future occurrence. The BBC have stated their agreement to work with Matt Smith to depict the 11th Doctor, yet nothing has happened yet. For all we know, the BBC could go out of business, cancel Doctor Who, either the BBC or MS could terminate the contract, etc.; it doesn't matter how reasonable these possibilities are, it matters that they are possible, as they are what make the future completely unwieldy and unreliable. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 22:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, love that your response boils down to one single word of mine. That's a strong argument. How about this: use the exact same concept to go over to the Torchwood Children of Earth Wiki and dispute the inclusion of three cast members and twenty-six supporting cast members based on the theory that for whatever reason they might not end up being in the series. For that matter, go around to every other Wiki on a post-production or in-production entertainment feature and dispute the inclusion of cast based on the fact that Viacom, Time Warner, Sony and the Queen of England might go under between now and then. I'm honestly not interested in hearing more arguments based around how the future is so unpredictable so we should assume the opposite of currently established fact. If anyone can come up with a response that doesn't rely on ignoring all current information in favor of an opposite result, then I'm open to it. If anyone can find a source stating that the officially released photo isn't accurate, then again please bring it forward. Otherwise I'm going to start a new subsection petitioning for the inclusion of John Barrowman being season five's naked mascot based on the fact that we have no way of knowing that the entire BBC staff will have thier brains riddled with syphilis and decide to do that due to the resulting insanity. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You argue against the likelihood of the specific examples I stated, yet you have not addressed their context, which is that of the impossibility of citing the future. It is common sense that one cannot see into the future, so how are you asserting that the source, which contains information about what currently exists, can be used to unquestionably prove events in the future? What is is what is, not what will be. Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I argue against your logic as a whole, and make my point to that fact using specific examples. The context is that people are trying to argue against current information with a point of view as to how the future can and cannot effect them. Just as "what is" is "what is", "what can be" is not equal "what will be". Perhaps the section involving Matt Smith requires the somtimes-used tag stating that the information refers to material still in production. If you can find a way to incorporate that, then go right ahead. I'm not some arbiter of this Wiki any more than anyone else, but the purpose of the discussion page is to discuss edits that can be subject to disagreement based on sourceable fact and Wikipedia policies. I'm not interested in discussing edits based on the philosophical nature of the future and in specific the uncertainty of unforeseeable events, nor is it Wikipedia policy to do so. The article does not cite unsourced info (such as that the 11th Doctor will speak with a Russian accent) any more so than it should reference unforeseen events that contradict current information with multiple sources. When the sourced info states that currently the BBC has entered into an agreement with Matt Smith to take the role of the Doctor at such-and-such time it is not practice to take into account the whimsical nature of Fate. "Likelyhood" is based on unsourced POV that has no place being used to arbitrarily contradict existing fact. Should any contradictions arise, then material can and should be edited to reflect that. It is not uncalled for to say that the current facts are what they are, but it is editor interpretation to insert vague speculation as to future events that you yourself say cannot be known. When I say that Smith "has" the role, I say that in the sense that he "has" the role; he has been offered the job, and I believe it has been stated that a contract has been formed. There have been televised interviews with Smith about receiving the role as well photographic media in following with previous in-character "portraits", and while the in-fictional-universe events have yet to be aired (or possibly filmed, but that is speculation) the role is still his in the sense that my job is still mine even while not in-office and on the clock. Future unforeseen events are irrelevant in this situation where the only information of value is currently sourced fact, and will remain so if and until they may happen. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Part of what I was arguing about, though, was where this "in-character" information is. I found the source of the image in question (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/01_january/03/who.shtml) very dubious as to whether it depicts the Eleventh Doctor or just Matt Smith, and, in the context it was used on Wikipedia, the former seemed to have been assumed. Do you know anywhere else where Matt Smith is depicted in-role as the Doctor? Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 00:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The Guardian[2] reports on the image, and with the combination of the photograph (as I've said several times) being in the same vein as the previous seasonal portraits and I quote: "New Doctor Who Matt Smith will mostly be dressing like the singer of an emo band." The photograph is also directly attributed to the BBC, dissuading any assumptions that it is some independently photoshopped creation. There is also this[3] which specifically mentions "as the Doctor". So far I have not seen anything that mentions that it is not intended to be an in-character image, and more than a few references that this image demonstrates the change in style for the 11th Doctor. To summarize: there are more than a few reputable sources listing this as an in-character image. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Addition: The specific image you linked (which is not the one used for the "group photo" collage) is the same hairstyle and clothing. Interpret as you will (I don't feel like running that photo down as well, especially since it is not the one used in the article), but it is not original research to say "those are the same clothes". --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What this comes down to is the following: The label on the panel is specifically in the past tense, and we don't know for sure that Smith will play the role, be it by the contract being terminated, or he suffering a

  1. disfiguring, maining, crippling or fatal accident
  2. murder
  3. serious or even terminal illness

However improbable any of these may be, they or not physically implausible, and as as been stated, Wikipedia is not to act as a crystal ball. Therefore, Smith should not be flatly listed as having played the Doctor until he actually has. Isn't it true that Paul McGann was announced for the role of Richard Sharpe that in the event went to Sean Bean because McGann suffered a sports injury that rendered him unavailable for the scheduled filming? I see no room for further debate. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been gone over more than a few times, but I'll spell it out clearly in case it isn't getting through: How on earth do you feel that it is less of a "crystal ball" moment to eliminate sourced info based on possible future unlikely events? He should not be listed as "having played the Doctor" simply because he has not played the Doctor, but that is entirely irrelevant to statements along the lines of him having been contracted to play the 11th Doctor starting with the 5th season. If you find a statement saying "he has played the Doctor", then by all means reword it. Since I simply don't care enough about the given example to wade through edit histories, but I would find it highly unlikely that after the confirmation of a contract with McGann such information was not stated. And I would find it equally unlikely that after the injury and change this new information was not added with a note as to why it happened. I don't see how the concept of using current information to state what the current information is is such a difficult one. We have the currently factual information and we have an officially released photo which has multiple news sources stating that it is in-character.
The article is not making any "crystal ball" predictions, it is stating current reality and will continue to do so as reality progresses along. "Current Reality" does not include imagined future disasters any more than it includes unsourced information. If anyone has any further confusion on the matter then I would again direct you to look into any one of many other Wikis detailing in-production or pre-production television/movie projects and that this is simply how things are. If you can find a single one that notes that the main role will be played by so-and-so "unless he suffers a disfiguring, maiming, crippling or fatal accident" then I will eat my shoes. I'm getting rather tired of non-arguments based around non-existent future events that have no basis whatsoever for being thought up; I'm using logic, reason and examples here, and so far the one given example of Paul McGann has no basis for me to believe that pre-accident the information was not treated as every other pre-production film and television show on this site. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
"The Eleventh Doctor will be portrayed by Matt Smith, the youngest actor to portray the role at 26 years old."
That is the only sentence mentioning Matt Smith as the 11th Doctor. "Matt Smith" is mentioned a total of three times; in that sentence, in the casting column, and in the list of actors and their relevant spans. There is no "crystal ball" going on, and if anything the only reasonable edit would be to change "will be portrayed" to "is contracted to be played". Perhaps remove from the actors segment until episodes go on-air, but the section on time spans is both accurate and notable. So seriously, tell me exactly how any of that information is either factually invalid or non-notable? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Edit: by "casting column" I was referring to the portrait section, which is valid as the photograph is stated as "in-character" in several reputable sources.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
This started out debating Smith's inclusion in what you call in your little added-on bit at the bottom "the portrait section." Dealing with your claim to that, no matter how many "reputable sources" allegedly state that Smith's photo is "'in-character'" that situation is physically impossible at this time: No costume, make-up, characterization, etc., has been determined as yet. If it is "in-character," he's playing some other character in it, not The Doctor. Despite the discussion somehow being diverted well off the original topic, we're back on track now. I repeat, Smith's photo should be removed, and I see no room for further debate. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Since when are newspapers not reputable sources? It's a photograph released by BBC PR (and is attributed as such in the link I just cited above and others I haven't bothered to cite) and is specifically listed as "in character", and several newspapers make reference to the changes in attire. I don't see how you're getting that it is "some other character". What is your logic for that? Also, your repetition of "I see no room for further debate" means absolutely nothing. None of us are sole arbiters here, and are supposed to be bringing up valid information in regards to whatever topics are here ("valid" in this case being reputable sources or certified Wikipedia policy). You are, however, free to remove yourself from the discussion at any point you wish. At any rate, costume and make-up (the only issues that matter in regards to a photo: appearance) have indeed been stated by reputable news media (aka - not fan sites), and The Guardian is most certainly in that category. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I found your link well above (nothing but an indication of significant distance intended by that emphasis), and your point to that is well taken, Smith's Doctor's appearance is indeed set, and I apologize for that. However, much of what you have said here seems to at least border on violating WP:Civility, and I advise you to be more careful of that in the future. (Don't deny this, as I've gotten more-or-less informal warnings for much less; on the other hand, when I've posted my defense-to/refutation-of the allegations, the other party has invariably disappeared, though it's sometimes taken a few exchanges before they did.) --Ted Watson (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll fully admit snark; I mean nothing innately rude, it's simply my trying to condense my points, bring people's attention to overlooked issues, and honestly try to keep my sanity in cyclical arguments. It's coming from having to respond to the same statements multiple times in multiple Wikis. The fact that you ended your previous response in such a way when clearly not having seen my notes on that matter (*counts*) five responses up (six, if you count my own addition to where I cited the reference) did not help my frustration in this matter. I'm keeping loads of good faith, because I can see where people are making their points from; something I am remembering as I try to detail my reasoning as clearly as possible. It is a frustrating matter when others don't always try to do the same.
I do apologize for the tone of "You are, however, free to remove yourself from the discussion at any point you wish." The fact remains that this half of the original topic (I can contribute next to nothing on the other half, as I don't have the original episode for reference) has taken entirely too much space for something that could and should have been finalized with "it is cited fact, the inclusions to the Wiki are minimal, and it follows established methods from comparable Wikis". Hopefully this half of the topic can be considered closed, but I am always welcome valid responses that can cite some new source of information or Wikipedia precedent. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I have now gone over the thread, and still have problems. If by "other half" you are referring to the Hurndall/Five Doctors situation, I hardly see it as being half of this. There is also a claim about the text having flatly listed Smith as a Doctor-actor (regardless of whether or not it does now), which seems to have taken up much more space here than the Hurndall question. As for flatly including a photo of Smith among "The Faces...," I stand by my McGann/Bean/Sharpe's... precedent that your dismissing the idea of waiting until he has actually played the role on TV is rubbish: until he gets a performance "in the can" he hasn't played the 11th Doctor and somebody else might actually end up being the official actor in the role. He simply doesn't belong in that photo collection yet. As for restricting yourself to being contradicted by "a new source of information or Wikipedia precedent" is unreasonable. I am unaware of anything truly analogous from which Wikipedia could have a relevant precedent (unless some similar dispute happened upon Eccleston's casting or the transition from him to Tennant). This is a matter of logic and rationality, and it remains a physically plausible if mathematically improbable possibility that Smith will never actually play the 11th Doctor in the series (or between seasons specials). Unless I have been greatly misled as to what happened there, the Sharpe's situation proves this. Until Smith does record a story as the Doctor, it is a violation of Wiki regs (specifically the crystal ball one I linked-in earlier) to flatly include that photo of him—even though it is in costume for the role—as a "Face of the Doctor." That is planned to be the next face of the Doctor, but it hasn't gotten there yet. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Who played The First Doctor in The Five Doctors in 1983?

If you check the covers of the Video (Special Edition 1995) and the DVD, it is Richard Hurndall who is pictured, and not William Hartnell! QED: two actors played the part of The First Doctor.

Listing Matt Smith as The Eleventh Doctor in 2009 is almost as illogical as not listing Richard Hurndall's 1983 performance, in my humble opinion; Wikipedia provides an historical record?

Nitramrekcap (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're so obsessed with Hartnell and the First Doctor that you seem to have missed that Tom Baker is not credited here for his '83 role in The Five Doctors either. Please discuss the merits of crediting an actor that only appeared in the form of archive footage before adding extra years, let's have a consensus first. magnius (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not "obsessed" Magnus, just interested in there being an accurate historical record! If you check the Wikipedia article for The First Doctor, it says (quote): "In the 20th anniversary special The Five Doctors, the role of the First Doctor was played by Richard Hurndall, although the episode began with a clip of Hartnell as the Doctor from The Dalek Invasion of Earth. Where the two specials fit in the First Doctor's chronology is unclear."

In my son's copy of the Five Doctors Special Edition Video, Tom Baker IS credited by the way!

There seems to be little logic in prematurely crediting Matt Smith as The Eleventh Doctor for 2010 (when he has not yet played the part) while not crediting Richard Hurndall who played the part in 1983; I have updated the panel to include Hartnell's 1983 performance - as the above.

Nitramrekcap (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so obsessed with this? You don't seem to fast on adding '83 to Tom Baker, and what about the 2008 Xmas special, are we to add 2008 to all the Doctors because they appeared in archive footage? Do not add '83 again until proper discussion has been entered into, there is a little thing called 3RR, let's not have an edit war here. Agreed, credit where credit is due, but use of archive footage as a validation of being in an episode is debateable. magnius (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


Not "obsessed" Magnus! So why not add '83 to Troughton, Pertwee AND Baker (Tom) and correct it so that Hartnell (posthumously reprising his previous performance from 1964), Troughton, Pertwee and Baker ALL RE-APPEARED IN 1983 in The Five Doctors of course? Unfortunately I cannot play why son's special edition video, so I will have to buy the DVD at ASDA to saisfy my curiousity.

The Matt Smith issue will be resolved by the passage of time, but there is a more fundamental principle at stake with Richard Hurndall, ie that he played the First Doctor in 1983, but the panel only lists William Hartnell as playing him from 1963 to 1966 - which is technically wrong.

But you are quite right: Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee and Baker (Tom) should be credited in the panel for their 1983 performances in The Five Doctors, and Richard Hurndall too of course?

Nitramrekcap (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 Administrator note: Please stop edit-warring about those changes. I have locked down the article for the time being, please seek consensus on how to credit these appearances. And please stop creating new sections for each new sub-problem, use level 3 headlines instead (===). Regards SoWhy 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Richard Hurndall was hired to impersonate William-Hartnell-as-the-First-Doctor for The Five Doctors. He wasn't playing his own incarnation. I'm not certain where that leads us regarding the question of his inclusion in the panel/box, but I do feel that it is a relevant factor that should be kept in mind. As for Tom Baker's 4th Doctor, I think that including "1983" for him might be a good idea as that was the original transmission date for that footage, its having been recorded about three years earlier notwithstanding. Admittedly, among the bottom-of-the-page reference cites there is one (#40) acknowledging these post-official tenure appearances, implying that the box is limited to displaying the regular runs of each, but I find so restricting this info dubious. Check out the similar panel listing all the Who TV stories, and you'll find content-related notes above and completely separate from reference citations; they used to be at the end of the relevant section (by Doctor) or season. I submit that the "other Doctor" appearances here should be noted in a section at, or in regular text just below, the bottom of the panel/box. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Add all of the years of other appearances by actors outside their normal duration?

Magnus, "dates for the Three Doctors, Two Doctors, and Timecrash" YES PLEASE, as I do not have access to the years unless they are on Wikipedia! I did realise there were other years to add.

Nitramrekcap (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Magnus,

Dare I suggest the following years to added to each actor's 'duration' - perhaps in the form of an extra column in the panel:

William Hartnell = 1973 [Three Doctors] and 1983 [Five Doctors]? + Patrick Troughton = 1973 [Three Doctors] and 1983 [Five Doctors] and 1985 [Two Doctors]? + Jon Pertwee = 1973 (Three Doctors) and 1983 (Five Doctors) and 1985 (Two Doctors).

But I am not convinced of the merits of 2007 Time Crash as it was only a Comic Relief special.

Martin

Nitramrekcap (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It was not Magnus who suggested doing that, check: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doctor_Who&diff=277220408&oldid=277220173

And that suggestion was sarcastic. I think including these extra dates is nonsensical, and looks unnecessarily complicated and confusing on the page. I will remove those silly additions unless a Wikipedia administrator stops me.Ratemonth (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the information here should be under the heading of "Keep It Simple". That's the years covering the actor as the primary star of the show, period.
List of actors who have played the Doctor serves to flesh that out and include when:
  1. The actors were brought back to guest star in new footage; and
  2. The production staff dipped into the archives to use existent footage to insert an image of a previous Doctor into an episode.
- J Greb (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My argument is that the article is INACCURATE unless the panel correctly shows the following:

a. both of the actors who played the First Doctor: Hartnell 1963-1966 and Hurndall in 1983; also Hartnell himself 'reappeared' in 1983 by the use of archive material from a 1964 story!

b. logically the other years: 1973/1983/1985/2007 in which these actors played 'their' Doctors outside the normal duration of their roles, even if 2007 was for a Comic Relief special.

Including Hurndall and these extra dates (years) is not "nonsensical" and the addition of the these extra dates does not "look unecessarily complicated and confusing" as it is still valuable, additional information to explain to readers that TWO actors played The First Doctor and that William Hartnell returned in 1973 [Three Doctors] and 1983 [Five Doctors], Patrick Troughton returned in 1973 [Three Doctors] and 1983 [Five Doctors] and 1985 [Two Doctors] and Jon Pertwee returned in 1973 (Three Doctors) and 1983 (Five Doctors) and 1985 (Two Doctors] and finally Peter Davison returned in 2007 [Time Crash].

That is the beauty of Doctor Who, it has always been CHALLENGING television, so the article should reflect the reality of the series, by adding this information; Doctor Who Magazine can handle this level of complexity, so why should the Wikipedia article be dumbed down? Q.E.D.!

Nitramrekcap (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not Doctor Who Magazine. The information can and should be included, but that table lists primary runs. Instances of later cameos or archival footage is actually already mentioned in a few spots and is (more importantly) expanded on in the various "# Doctor" Wikis. Tables are used here because they are a simplistic way to cover information that would be unwieldy in text form; to cover the same information as the table in text you would have an entire paragraph of fragment sentences. If you would like to try adding another column to cover these later cameos then do so, but post it here first so that we can see if it will work instead of edit-warring back and forth. The fact alone that we have Admin intervention should be enough evidence for you that the way you have been going about this is incorrect.
I don't personally think there is a need to alter the table. Your next-to-last paragraph above me does exactly what could be done: Runs through the actors to say when they reprised their roles as well as makes note of Hurndell playing the role for the one segment. Let the table do what it is supposed to do: Cover the main arcs. Not over complicating the table and including the information under it does not make the Wiki any less accurate, it just makes it flow better and convey the information in a more reasonable form. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
That last section nails the point.
Nitramrekcap, as disheartening as this may be to hear, Wikipedia is supposed to be a general access resource, not a specialty one. Comparing it to DWM is, charitably, comparing oranges to limes. DWM is aimed at those familiar with the topic so it needs to start at a point a bit beyond the basics. A base article, which this one is, here doesn't have that luxury.
- J Greb (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I still say that having the information about the post regular-tenure appearances of the Doctors in a note among the reference citations is wrong, and it should be near this panel. --Ted Watson (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
You are completely misunderstanding. I haven't seen anyone state that it should be added in with the reference citations; that is where reference citations go. As I just said, a good place for these cameos would be in a paragraph below the existing "primary run" table. It makes perfect sense to put it there, as that is the only space where it is relevant. So yes, what is being suggested is exactly "near the table, but not in the table. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

How about changing this:

"Other actors have also played the Doctor, though rarely more than once (see the list of actors who have played the Doctor). The actors who played the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Doctors also appeared in 1983 in The Five Doctors special."

To this:

"There have been instances where actors have returned at later dates to reprise the role of their specific doctor. William Hartnell returned in 1973 [Three Doctors] and 1983 [Five Doctors], Patrick Troughton returned in 1973 [Three Doctors] and 1983 [Five Doctors] and 1985 [Two Doctors] and Jon Pertwee returned in 1973 (Three Doctors) and 1983 (Five Doctors) and 1985 (Two Doctors] and finally Peter Davison returned in 2007 [Time Crash]. There have also been instances where another actor has filled in when the original individual has been unavailable, such as when Richard Hurndall played the First Doctor in "The Five Doctors". For more information, see the list of actors who have played the Doctor."

But that's just an example paragraph that could use a little rewording to be a bit more smooth. However I think it makes the point as to how this information can easily be added in without making the current table into a confusing monstrosity. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Human, I think you've got a good start there, although in terms of rewording, I might go by Serials rather than Doctors, just so we're not constantly repeating "Three Doctors", "Five Doctors", etc. (And, to be nitpicky, Pertwee wasn't in The Two Doctors, but still.) Okay, here's my crack at the wording:
"There have been instances where actors have returned at later dates to reprise the role of their specific doctor. In 1973's The Three Doctors, William Hartnell and Patrick Troughton returned alongside Jon Pertwee. For 1983's The Five Doctors, Troughton and Pertwee returned to star with Peter Davison, while Hartnell and Tom Baker were shown in archive footage. Patrick Troughton again returned in 1985's The Two Doctors with Colin Baker. Finally, Peter Davison returned in 2007's Children in Need short "Time Crash" alongside David Tennant. There have also been instances where another actor has filled in when the original individual has been unavailable, such as when Richard Hurndall played the First Doctor in The Five Doctors. For more information, see the list of actors who have played the Doctor."
Feel free to nitpick and tweak it a bit, but, in my not-so-humble opinion, I think this scans a little better ;p umrguy42 00:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I just copied and pasted most of that from above with some reworded bits before and after. After reading the post I figured it could be combined better in the way you did, but was just too tired to edit it right at that moment. Back to topic, are citations going to be needed in this or are the general casting citations already used enough to cover it?--Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
For this paragraph? I would personally think we wouldn't need to cite cast lists or whatever (kinda falls under what I would call the "no duh!" obviousness rule)... might be worth citing something (or just footnoting) that Baker and Hartnell were archive footage/unused Shada footage, but even that's debatable umrguy42 01:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Didn't think so, just covering bases. Barring someone else finishing any necessary polish (like "Doctor" in 1st sentence; "alongside David Tennant" sounds better, partially because Tennant is not reprising a role per say; can't think of anything else), this should be ready to insert unless any voices state otherwise. It looks good to me. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Tweaked per your comment there (plus a minor formatting change). umrguy42 04:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree to "Other actors have also played the Doctor, though rarely more than once (see the list of actors who have played the Doctor). The actors who played the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Doctors also appeared in 1983 in The Five Doctors special." which was incomplete, being changed to:

"There have been instances where actors have returned at later dates to reprise the role of their specific doctor. In 1973's The Three Doctors, William Hartnell and Patrick Troughton returned alongside Jon Pertwee. For 1983's The Five Doctors, Troughton and Pertwee returned to star with Peter Davison, while Hartnell and Tom Baker were shown in archive footage. Patrick Troughton again returned in 1985's The Two Doctors with Colin Baker. Finally, Peter Davison returned in 2007's Children in Need short "Time Crash" alongside David Tennant. There have also been instances where another actor has filled in when the original individual has been unavailable, such as when Richard Hurndall played the First Doctor in The Five Doctors. For more information, see the list of actors who have played the Doctor."

Although the final sentence can still be worded better in my opinion; William Hartnell was more than unavailable (he was dead) and Richard Hurndall did more than fill in; in that he played the role to the extent that he is featured on the covers of both the BBC video and the DVD! NO other actor has ever fulfilled such a prominent part in Doctor Who by playing The Doctor! (The article was seriously wrong by not including a direct reference to Richard Hurndall in 1983.) Adding all the other actors' later appearences (but outside of the panel) is a very good idea.

But by all means stick with the original content of the panel, if this revised wording is added.

Nitramrekcap (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 Administrator note: I take that as a consensus on how to treat the issue at hand and have therefore unprotected the article again. I want to remind all editors here to not edit-war over such changes, otherwise those edit-warring will be blocked for it. Regards SoWhy 10:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed wording has now replaced the incomplete form of words previously used; changing the panel to add another column to show the actors' additional appearances would have been a lot easier - and Richard Hurndall has been acknowledged as an actor who also played The First Doctor; fans need to be reminded that The First Doctor was a role, and not William Hartnell! (The actor on the left of this image is Richard Hurndall in 1983, and not William Hartnell.)

Image:Fivedoctors.jpg

Nitramrekcap (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've unlinked this image per WP:NFCC as it's unfree and can only be used in an article in conjunction with a fair-use rationale. --Rodhullandemu 18:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Nitramrekcap, please tone it down just a tad. If nothing else, stop re-editing your and other people's posts ellevently billion times. We get the point about Hurndall, and it's been mentioned there. In all honestly it is a very minor footnote in the grand scheme of this wiki, hence why it is more extensively covered in more relevant pages (multiple ones, to be exact). The "fans" don't "need" to be anything; the wiki is doing a good job of covering the information in order of relevance, and as you can see we're always making changes to cover material as seen fit. But in all honesty, your statements here are getting more than a little fanatical at time. So for now, the issue seems covered for this article. If you think that the more relevant Wikis should cover it more/differently, then by all means please do elaborate on it there. Thanks. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The credits on the box containing the video of The Five Doctors may give a clue to the relative 'two-tier' status of the respective actors:

"Starring PETER DAVISON, JON PERTWEE, PATRICK TROUGHTON with RICHARD HURNDALL, TOM BAKER & WILLIAM HARTNELL in THE FIVE DOCTORS"

I still think the panel would benefit from an additional column to cover their extra 'years'!

Nitramrekcap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC).

Why? Why exactly do think that it is so necessary? I honestly am wondering why you feel so strongly about this that compromise doesn't seem to be much of an option; even though changes have been made and admin intervention was required you still have such an usually strong reaction that you're tossing in the caps and exclamation marks. Generally that isn't done, so it draws my attention. Moreso, I don't have a clue what you're talking about there as that quote doesn't exist in the Wiki. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


The Doctor Played by Duration
First Doctor William Hartnell 1963–1966[1]
Second Doctor Patrick Troughton 1966–1969[1]
Third Doctor Jon Pertwee 1970–1974[1]
Fourth Doctor Tom Baker 1974–1981[1]
Fifth Doctor Peter Davison 1981–1984[1]
Sixth Doctor Colin Baker 1984–1986
Seventh Doctor Sylvester McCoy 1987–1989, 1996[2]
Eighth Doctor Paul McGann 1996
Ninth Doctor Christopher Eccleston 2005
Tenth Doctor David Tennant 2005–2010[3]
Eleventh Doctor Matt Smith 2010–[4]

I am trying to make a case for the above table to be further improved, but NOT the addition of Richard Hurndall. IF Sylvester McCoy can be shown for 1996 in the TVM, outside his "duration" of 1987-1989, then surely applying the same logic - the extra appearances of the other actors in "The Two..", "The Three..", "The Five.." and "Time Crash" can also be recorded in the same way? Why is McCoy's reappearance in the TVM really any different to that of all the others?

Yes, I admit that putting this additional information - ideally in the form of another column - might make the table look a bit more complicated, but surely isn't that what DW is all about?

The precedent is set by recording The Seventh Doctor's re-appearance in 1996, so why not (logically) extend it to the others? It might just make the panel more useful to Wiki readers..

Nitramrekcap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC).

There is no precedent set. McCoy was the standing Doctor at the beginning of the film. His appearance was the end of his "run" as the Seventh Doctor, and he was seen to regenerate into the Eighth Doctor. The gap in the time of his appearances is explained by the cancellation, then attempted revival of the show. That's nothing like the other, out-of-form appearances you cite as a rationale to include Hurndall's appearance. Drmargi (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. The other examples are effectively Cameos, whereas at the start of the movie McCoy is still the 7th Doctor in the "timeline" of the show. If anything, this discussion should lean towards removing the 1996 mention from the table as there is no way to effectively explain these little single-run dates in the table itself. The fact that in-character McCoy was the "current" Doctor at the start of the movie simply gives it enough separate definition for inclusion. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK so remove 1996 from 7#, but I still prefer adding 1973/1983/1985/2007 to 1#/2#/3#/4#/5#/6# as it would reflect the reality of The Doctor[s] travelling through time! But consensus-time?

Nitramrekcap (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're still attempting to draw a parallel between the end of McCoy's tenure as the Seventh Doctor, which was played out in 1996 with the out-of-tenure appearances by Doctors 1-5 when there is no parallel. McCoy should be listed as the Seventh Doctor in 1996 because he was still the standing Doctor when the series was revived, albeit briefly; removing 1996 would be factually incorrect as it would imply he finished his run in 1989, which he did not. Out of tenure appearances such as in the special programs you cite can be handled via a note or other device, as can Hurndall's appearance, but to list them in the main table is erroneous, inappropriate and downright confusing. Drmargi (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Ther table isn't there to mark the in-character timelines. If so, it would result in the amusing edit of each Doctor having a run of somehwere around 500,000,000BC to 7/Apple-63 to "(End of Time) minus X". The table lists the chronology of the show in regards to which actor had their run when; as has tried to be explained several times, the later cameos are better explained separately from the table because there is no way to do it in the table without turning it into an unreadable abomination. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I stated well back that I feel that having a note about the various Doctors' post-regular tenure appearances among the reference citations is wrong, and Human.v2.0 replied, "You are completely misunderstanding. I haven't seen anyone state that it should be added in with the reference citations; that is where reference citations go." It is he (or she) who is misunderstanding. I previously pointed out the fact that it is already there (note #40 at this writing, as a matter of fact). As Human at least agrees with me that this is wrong, can we get a quick consensus to change that situation? --Ted Watson (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is what a simple, seperate table to show what post-regular tenture appearances would be like; references to The Two Doctors/The Three Doctors/The Five Doctors/Time Crash to be added:

The Doctor Played by Later Appearances
First Doctor William Hartnell 1973 1983
Second Doctor Patrick Troughton 1973 1983 1985
Third Doctor Jon Pertwee 1983
Fourth Doctor Tom Baker 1983
Fifth Doctor Peter Davison 2007
Sixth Doctor Colin Baker
Seventh Doctor Sylvester McCoy 1996
Eighth Doctor Paul McGann
Ninth Doctor Christopher Eccleston
Tenth Doctor David Tennant
Eleventh Doctor Matt Smith

WHO knows in the Steven Moffat era some of the other Doctors might re-appear? Watch this space!

Nitramrekcap (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Um... no.
That's adding a table block in that serves a very, very small purpose. One that the text covers a lot better.
More over, as set it is open to crystal balling - "We assume that, since they are still alive and we hope the show runs long enough, the actors that haven't reappraised their roll on TV will do so."
Deal with what appears to be the consensus: a table for listing "tenure as primary roll", which seems to include pre-regeneration reprises, and an explanation in the text that some of the actors have come back guests and/or appeared in clips and, in on case, a previous iteration has been played by a different actor on TV.
- J Greb (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Two problems:
1. McCoy's 1996 appearance IS in-tenure. He WAS the extant doctor at the opening of the film, and he was portrayed accordingly. His situation does no parallel the out-of-tenure appearances by the actors playing #1 - #5. You continue to ignore this for reasons that defy understanding, and thereby make this process more difficult than it needs to be.
2. We don't need a table. This can easily be handled with a far more parsimonious use of notes below the existing table, which accurately includes McCoy's 1996 final in-tenure appearance as the Seventh Doctor.
I came late to this discussion, but it seems clear to me there is consensus that the table should remain as is, and other appearances/actors be confined to notes and comments in text. I would suggest it's time to cut this discussion off, and not give Mr. Packer any further opportunity to drag this it out needlessly given he represents a majority of one.
ETA. My apologies for spelling your name incorrectly, but it is poor form to edit another's post, something I find very annoying. Please add a comment if there is an error rather than editing what I've posted. I've reverted your correction and made my own correction of the spelling of your name. Drmargi (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think people are being a bit silly here. There is no need to list all appearances after there tenure in the table on this page, nor to add Hurndall for The Five Doctors in the table. Directly after the table, there is a paragraph saying
"There have also been instances where another actor has 'filled in' when the original individual has been 'unavailable', such as when Richard Hurndall played the First Doctor in The Five Doctors. For more information, see the list of actors who have played the Doctor."
this is sufficient to portray the information is a much simpler manner, and avoids confusing the situation by trying to have too much info in the table. One can easily edit this paragraph and section to include the information about future appearances/ replacement actors. 129.215.149.97 (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think someone should nominate this for WP:LAME - It's a prety silly discussion when you have a paragraph RIGHT AFTER THE TABLE giving the information that is being argued over. The table does not need to include everything 129.215.149.97 (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


Forget about the paragraph RIGHT AFTER THE TABLE, this is what the panel would look like with the Later Appearances added (below); but someone else can add in all the references! You don't really need the paragraph when all the additional information can be added in a fourth column, do you?

The Doctor Played by Duration Later Appearances
First Doctor William Hartnell 1963–1966 1973; 19831
Second Doctor Patrick Troughton 1966–1969 1973; 1983; 1985
Third Doctor Jon Pertwee 1970–1974 1983
Fourth Doctor Tom Baker 1974–1981 1983
Fifth Doctor Peter Davison 1981–1984 2007
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–

^1 Played by Richard Hurndall

[Subsequently modified by Ted Watson]
[Second revision/correction by Drmargi]

I have to admit that I am not totally convinced of the merits of adding in William Hartnell's 1983 'appearance' (using footage from a 1964 episode) but why not? It would be fascinating to watch a Steven Moffat story, usng the combined talents of say McCoy, McGann, Eccleston, Tennant and Smith! In other words, another Five Doctors special with the latter five, not the first five? The panel needs to be enhanced with all the information contained in the fourth column.

Nitramrekcap (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nitramrekcap's concern about "Hartnell's 1983 'appearance' (using footage from a 1964 episode)" is misplaced, as this panel is about the Doctors (note first column), and the First is embodied in a major performance by Richard Hurndall. Try the box as it appears now, and note that I have also modified it to agree with the accurate statement that McCoy's 1986 appearance was "in tenure." In particular, see that I've separated multiple post-tenure appearances with semi-colons but put a comma between the end of McCoy's regular run and the telefilm. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd still argue the content of the table is a bit esoteric, but at least it weights the appearances somewhat appropriately. I've modified the table again to correct McCoy's final appearance (1996, not 1986) and close a box. I would argue Hurndall's name belongs in a footnote rather than in the table, and have added one accordingly. Drmargi (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for my typo, and I certainly agree with the footbnote for Hurndall. Nice job. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I assumed that was a typo. I made another small tweak so the note is clearer. Notice I left the note in full-sized text, rather than reducing its size as seems to be customary. Drmargi (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering that a6 of the Doctors have nothing under "later appearances" I would say that it was a bit poitless to have that in the table when it can be easilly noted (and indeed is currently noted) in other ways. What's the point of introducing a colum into a table, when the colum would have less than half of it's entires filled? Eleventh Doctor (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec)
I'm sorry... but to repeat: The extra column is not needed. The table and text as it currently stands is fine.
And looking at it in this state... you do realize that it would absolutely need the text to explain the table and its contents. Making the expanded table redundant.
- J Greb (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm basically giving up at this point. No amount of logical responses seem to be getting through here. You are exactly correct that the added table makes no sense without text to explain what the dates are supposed to mean, which means that not only does the table become confusing, but even more text is required just to explain what the column is supposed to mean. It serves no point. Zero. It brings no tangible benefit to the wiki and in exchange actively makes both the table and the surrounding material become needlessly confusing.
Nitramrekcap, I get what it is that you want here. I see that you want to give more information to these (in all honesty) relatively minor points. But you're going around it the wrong way, and more than a few people (including myself) have both tried to explain why you are going around it the wrong way and tried to work the information into the wiki in ways that work better. You honestly don't seem to get that, and you show absolutely no sense of compromise or even a willingness to acknowledge any other points. This has gone on far, far too long, and I'm frankly tired of it.
I do not agree that adding another column to the table is the correct way to go about things, for many reasons that are explained here in the pages of discussion on this topic. If votes for consensus are worth anything to you, you do not have mine. And I'm not going to continue wasting time adding more pages in a pointless non-debate. Have fun, and I'll be waiting around for the next issue to inevitably come up.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively:


The Doctor Played by Duration
First Doctor William Hartnell 1963–1966, 1973; 19831
Second Doctor Patrick Troughton 1966–1969, 1973; 1983; 1985
Third Doctor Jon Pertwee 1970–1974, 1983
Fourth Doctor Tom Baker 1974–1981, 1983
Fifth Doctor Peter Davison 1981–1984, 2007
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–

^1 Played by Richard Hurndall


Nitramrekcap (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(facepalm)
Packer, put up the 2x4, the horse is glue already.
- J Greb (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to list appearances after they leave in the table when it is noted in the text afterwards. The table does not need to include everything. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the BBC website for the classic series. Hartnell is only listed as 1963-1966. Troughton is listed as 1966-1969. Pertwee - 1970-1974. Tom baker - 1974-1981. Davison - 1982-1984, etc.
These are the official tenures/ durations of the Doctors - and this is what should be included in our table of durations/tenures. Later appearances do not need to be in the table as well - they can be noted in the text afterwards. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The BBC web site lists McCoy as being "1987 - 1996", so the panel was WRONG in the first place!

But in the interests of everyone's piece of mind, the BBC have been asked the following question:

What is the Seventh Doctor's correct duration please? Is it 1987–1989 or 1987–1996?

The difference is between: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/ and http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/index_seventh.shtml! Martin

Nitramrekcap (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  1. ^ a b c d e Earlier incarnations of the Doctor have occasionally appeared with the then incarnation in later plots. The First and Second Doctors appeared in the 1973 Third Doctor story, The Three Doctors; The First, Second, Third and Fourth appeared in the 1983 Fifth Doctor story, The Five Doctors; the Second appeared with the Sixth in the 1985 story, The Two Doctors; and the Fifth appeared with the Tenth in the 2007 mini-episode, "Time Crash".
  2. ^ "BBC official episode guide". BBC. 2008-03-31. Retrieved 2008-03-31. 
    BBC - Doctor Who - Classic Series - Episode Guide - Seventh Doctor Index
    "TV Movie cast & crew". BBC. Retrieved 2008-04-15. 
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Tennantleaves was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference doctor11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).