Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5

Grace a companion?

This section and the TV movie article (in one Note) both refer to Grace as a companion. As this is a matter of opinion, should we drop the word? If this has been discussed before somewhere, please point me to it... —Whouk (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it's that controversial, since Grace unequivocally plays the companion role in the movie. The status of Katarina or Sara Kingdom, or worse still, the UNIT boys (Brig, Benton and Yates) is even more debatable. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 01:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is Grace is considered a companion, so it's not really a matter of opinion. The Doctor Who Reference Guide lists her as a companion, and she also plays that role in one of the novels. I have seen some reference to the Oriental teenager (I forget his name) being a companion, however this one is incorrect as he is actually the Master's companion in the movie. IMO so long as Katarina and Sara Kingdom and Adam Mitchell are considered companions, then Grace qualifies. 23skidoo 14:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
But Katarina, Sara Kingdom and Adam actually travelled in the TARDIS, unlike Grace, who refuses the chance to travel and only appears in one episode.--GingerM 16:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Liz Shaw never really travelled in the TARDIS either, yet she's considered a companion. So is Kamelion, who only appeared twice. Grace did travel in the TARDIS - she just chose to cut her adventures short. Using the TARDIS rule, however, the Brigadier, Yates and Benton most certainly would qualify as companions. 23skidoo 17:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
If Grace is "considered" a companion, that doesn't stop it being a matter of opnion :-) I don't usually consider Sara Kingdom to be a companion either, TBH. —Whouk (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that there is much more room for debate about Sara and Katrina and the Brig et al., than there is for Grace, who does all the companion-y things, especially since there is no other person around to do them (like Steven was): ask "What's going on, Doctor?" and get into trouble. The companion is as much a symbolic, thematic role as it is an "actual" one, and Grace's role in the story is definitely that of a companion, as was Liz, and in a way that Herbert in Timelash and Laurence Scarman in Pyramids of Mars weren't. It isn't that controversial, not even in fandom. People argue much more vociferously about Sara and Katrina than they do about Grace. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 08:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Now, I'm not up on this particular term, so wouldn't a companion be like a sort of robin character (Holy g-force, Doctor!)? In that case Grace is certainly a companion. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.76.73.197 (talk • contribs) 17:06, March 7, 2006 (UTC)
"Companion" has a sort of special meaning in Doctor Who. In the "classic series", the characters who travelled with the Doctor and shared his adventures were called (mainly by fans) "companions". (It's pretty much a term for characters who were regulars on the series, but weren't the Doctor.) Since fans tend to be an anal bunch, we then got into debates over who did and didn't "count" as a companion — debates which continue to this day.
This raises a question: we have a sentence about the Doctor Who meaning at companion, and usually link the word "companion" in Doctor Who articles to Category:Doctor Who companions. Is there a case to be made for having a Doctor Who companions article? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 21:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea.Jahenderson 22:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Assuming you mean an article on the role of the companion and how they've evolved over the years, etc. to tie in with the individual companion articles, I second that. 23skidoo 03:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Did a little digging around the Doctor Who Companions pages, and there are actually two - one listing the supporting characters, and another that's just labeled "list of doctor who companions" or something of that sort. The second does something in the direction of what we were talking about - a paragraph or two about the companion, and a brief discussion of the debate about what constitutes a companion. It doesn't, on the other hand, go into any real depth about the evolution of the companion role. I'd prolly start with the establishment of some of the earlier archetypes (the screaming girl, for instance - typified by Victoria), or the warrior character (both Jamie and Leela) how those archetypes changed with the time. Anyway - I'm restarting this thread for two reasons: 1) Any feedback on alternate ways of treatment would be appreciated, and 2) Cause I think with three pages (the earlier two plus the one I'm proposing) dealing with companions, there's a high chance of reader confusion, so any technical assistance on combining or integrating pages would be appreciated. Thanks much. Jahenderson 17:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Overview/Premise?

As someone who only knows of the series and nothing specifically about it, I'm a bit surprised that there's nothing in this article as straight-forward as a statement of the premise of the show. Perhaps it should be a mere sentence or two in the introduction, or perhaps it could be its own section. The way the article is written, it seems as if its premise is intended to be discussed in the "format" section. If that is the case, it should, IMO, be before the history section as this is more useful to a reader than a history of a program they (possibly) don't yet know anything about. RobertM525 03:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The premise is set out as simply as it is in the opening paragraph: it's about a mysterious time traveller known as the Doctor. That's the foundation of the entire series. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 06:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What does this "mysterious time traveler known as the Doctor" do? Where does he go? Is the show that vague that it cannot be summarized any more than naming (sorta) the main character and his "profession?" RobertM525 23:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Goes everywhere, does everything, really. :) It's not that it's vague as such; it's that to satisfactorily define the series in fifteen words or less is difficult aside from, "He travels in time and space and rights wrongs", and some would argue impossible. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 23:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That's true, but in practice there are other common elements that make Doctor Who Doctor Who: the companion(s), monsters, etc. Perhaps we could say something like:
In the programme, the Doctor usually travels throughout space and time, sharing adventures with one or more companions, confronting monsters and fighting evil.
Or is that a bit too Terrance Dicks? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Ten Doctors

So we've got a debate, of sorts, about which image to use to illustrate the ten Doctors. Until recently, the image was:

File:Dwx10.jpg
The Doctor. Top Row: The 1st - 5th Doctors (William Hartnell, Patrick Troughton, Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker, and Peter Davison) Bottom Row: The 6th - 10th Doctors (Colin Baker, Sylvester McCoy, Paul McGann, Christopher Eccleston, and David Tennant.)

It was recently replaced with:

I think I prefer the old one: the images are slightly clearer, and the "clockwise" caption takes up less room. (It also has a nice pun, "clockwise" for a Time Lord.)

Let's hear from others, and go with whatever consensus emerges. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 23:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if my opinion means anything, but I too likr the old one. All of the pictures are in color and there is a more professional feel to it. (Deej30) Deej30

Another vote to revert to the old version. The images chosen are better and larger -- you can see their faces, plus all the images are in color and it incorporates the current logo. 23skidoo 21:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That's enough of a consensus for me — if anyone disagrees strongly, let us know and we'll hash it out here. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 21:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there might be a way to use the second image elsewhere? There was some effort put into it; it would be great to be able to find a home for it. 23skidoo 23:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Aquanostra9 just changed the image to this, sort of a combination of the two. I reverted the change, since the consensus supporting the old image seemed to be at least in part a preference for the images chosen (color, clarity, etc.). Perhaps Aquanostra9 can explain his/her reasons for replacing the image here? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 00:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Aquanostra also provided another alternative, which is slightly better but still not quite as good as the original, IMO. I've put all four here for comparison & discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 00:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Image revisions

Hi. Actually, while the new Doctor images which I had included are indeed rough and fuzzy, I simply slapped them together as an example inorder to show you guys how most of these new images themselves(and not their resolution quality) actually represent each Doctor's personality and attire far better than the previous photos.

For example, in my photos...

  • the 1st Doctor seems far more dark and sneaky, and he has his hands on his lapel
  • the 2nd seems far more impish, and has he his recorder
  • the 3rd is wearing his frilly shirt, red velvet jacket, and his cape
  • the 4th is in his usual famous attire (as opposed to his season 18 attire)
  • the 5th has his hat and celery, and he seems far more young and cheerful
  • the 6th doctor has his multi-colored coat,
  • the 7th Doctor has his famous hat and umbrella
  • the 8th Doctor's hair is how he usually wore it
  • the 9th looks far more intense

Furthermore, I feel that the 1st and 2nd Doctors' photos should be in B&W since their stories were in B&W. Lastly, I don't think that the Logo should be incorporated with the photos... but that's not a big deal eitehr way.

In short, newbies who are just briefly browsing the main page should get a feel for all of the Doctors' personality at just a quick glance. ~ Aquanostra9 01:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That all makes sense. Do you have access to higher-resolution versions of these images? If so, perhaps you could make up a higher-res version so we're comparing apples and apples, as it were. As it is now, the quality of the images (for example, the excessive contrast on the 1st Doctor's image, and the washed-out quality of the 5th's) makes it hard to decide which would ultimately be better. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 01:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The revised version is better, however I would still prefer to see color shots for the first two Doctors -- plenty of them exist so why not use them -- and perhaps it's the newspaper editor in me talking but I'd like to see the faces of 6 and 8 a little larger. I can live with Doctor 8 at his current size, but the image of the 6th Doctor is too far away. Agreed there are resolution and contrast issues on a few shots (another reason I think color shots of Hartnell and Troughton would be better). This is extremely nitpicking, but the newspaper editor in me is also noticing that D4 and D5 are looking out of the box. To balance the images, they should either be looking inwards or at least straight ahead. The balance of the Second and Third Doctors images (color issue notwithstanding) is perfect. 23skidoo 01:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
As the maker of the original picture, I am not immune to accusations of bias, so I was planning to stay out of this. However, Josiah asked me for input, so here goes:
I have no real issues with the rationales stated above, but I think the features really need to be more visible - the idea is to show the faces of Doctor Who, after all. I also don't like the borders; it seems rather cheesy to me, and not in line with the general aesthetic of other in-line images in Wikipedia. Apart from that and the general issues about resolution that have already been mentioned, I think it's fine. The reasoning I have no problem with, just that the execution needs work. I may try to slap together my own version, given the reasoning set out above once I get home from work. You should see it in about 12 hours or so, unless matters get resolved before then. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 02:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

B& W or color?

While I can see people wanting all of the Doctors' photos to be in color for the sake of uniformity, the 1st and 2nd Doctors' costumes were designed to be seen in B&W, and any newbie who decides to watch these early episodes will only be seeing these Doctors in B&W.

In short, I feel that B&W goes along with Doctor Who's more mysterious early days. So, to me, to change these Doctors into color seems like an insult to the spirit of those early days.

Furthermore, I feel that the point of thes photos is to capture the "vibe" of each Doctor at a brief glance, and sometime a super close up of just their facial features isn't enough. So, that's why I had included a little bit more of their costume.

As for the borders, I can take them or leave them, for I didn't make them (my friend had some of these images already incased in borders and I was just too lazy to remove them). It's a shame that my scanner no longer functions, for I would scan in higher resolution versions of these photos.

Anyway, you guys get my point, so if any of you want to do something better along the same lines then that would be nice. :-) Aquanostra9Aquanostra9 03:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's my attempt, with the B&W Hartnell and Troughton photographs. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 13:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The composition looks good to me, and the images are of better quality. The only image I'm not sure about is the McGann one, which is cropped much closer in than the other Doctors and upsets the balance slightly. Do you have another high-quality McGann image that's closer to the other Doctors in size?
I'm also of two minds about black and white vs. colour — I can see the arguments either way. As Aquanostra says, it's more representative of the first two Doctors to show them in B&W, but I think the overall picture of the ten Doctors looks better with them all in colour. Does anyone else feel strongly one way or the other? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 13:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at it now. It was hard trying to find one that showed the costume and hair and of the right size, and at the same time was of a decent colour balance. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 14:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a better McGann. I'm also not mad about the colour balance of the Davison picture, but I know that it's difficult to get a good photo of him, since he's so fair and his costume was a "vision in beige". Anybody else have an opinion about the images? Aquanostra? 23skidoo? Deej30? Any other members of the WikiProject about? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 17:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The images are better now that they're all more or less the same size (a better 6th Doctor image for certain). I'm still unconvinced about the use of B&W simply because it makes the box look a bit unbalanced (it's not really a case of newbies being unaware Hartnell and Troughton were B&W IMO). That aside, the new version works for me. BTW although Hartnell is looking out of the box, that doesn't concern me as the earlier version with T Baker and Davison doing so did, because most images are placed on the right side of the "page" so Hartnell would therefore be looking into the page rather than off the screen, so picture balance isn't an issue. (This is what 2 years in journalism school gets you! I straighten pictures, too!) 23skidoo 18:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. As mentioned above, Davison is a bit washed out. It's not a very flattering photo of Colin either. On the B&W/colour issue, I have no problem with the first two appearing in colour - plenty of publicity photos at the time were in colour, and both appeared again in the series after it went colour - but I don't mind either if they're not as long as they're good pictures :-) —Whouk (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Red or blue?

I actually think that the 3rd Doctor should be pictured in his more common and dashing red velvet jacket, as opposed to his season 11 blue one.

Anyway, here are four more versions...


I prefer Tom with the hat, the last Colin, and the first or last (but not the middle) Pertwee. Hope that helps! —Whouk (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Of these four, I like the first one the best. (However, I also like the Tom picture in Khaosworks' last version, with his fingers on the "frame" of his picture — it looks like he's about to step out of his "box", very appropriate for Tom!) But the "dw10t.jpg" one is very good as well. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 22:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I prefer that picture of Tom too. —Whouk (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

O.K., I'll just throw this out there and see how everyone likes it. First of all I truly like the original "Ten Doctors" image, but if there must be a change, then here are my thoughts on Image:dw107.jpg and which pictures should be used. I'll list them doctor by doctor.

First Doctor: This is actually one of my favorite pictures of him. However, I feel that there should be consistency in the color scheme of the whole "Ten Docors" image. With that in mind, there should be a color photo of Hartnell used in the update image.

Second Doctor: Again, I actually love the picture, I just think it should be in color. In fact, I know that this particular picture is in color because it is the same photo used on all Troughton DVD releases in the U.S.

Third Doctor: I love the really bright red velvet jacket (Without the cape) its a must keep.

Fourth Doctor: Okay, I suppose it would be natural that his Doctor would have the most differing of opinion. Because Tom had the longest screen time, he had more of an opportunity to mix up his attire from season to season. In many ways, he has become the 2006 version of the 1992 Elvis stamp debate back in the U.S. "Which one do you prefer... Young Elvis or Old Elvis?" Well in regards to Tom, I like old Season 18 Tom the best. He had a certain dignity and aura of wisdom. That's why I like the original Ten Doctors image's picture of him the best and I think it should be used.

Fifth Doctor: I actually think that Davison never look quite as good as he did in Season 21. Therefore, I personally vote that we should use a promotional clip/shot of him from a story like "The Awakening," "Frontios," "Ressurecion of the Daleks" or "The Caves of Androzani." Whatever clip we use, it needs to be less bright and more sharp.

Sixth Doctor: I love the Red tie as oppose to the blue. Great choice!

Seventh Doctor: I am not a fan of McCoys first season. With that said I think that his outfit (white jacket and question mark pull over) reminds me of his Season 24 performance. I think the picture of McCoy should come from Season 26 (when he had the dark brown jacket) or maybe even fron Doctor Who: the TV Movie (When he got a dark jacket and he finally got rid of the pull over).

Eighth Doctor:McGann's picture is fine.

Ninth Doctor: Eccleston's picture is fine.

Tenth Doctor: Tennant's picture is fine.

Now with all that said, it is obvious that we all are going to disagree as to which pictures to use. Therefore, I suggest that we use the final version of the new Ten Doctors image on one page and we keep the original image on another. If we do that, then it would make sense not to use the same pictures of each of the Doctors for the updated version. What are your thoughts? (23:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)) Deej30

I should point out that the Davison shot is from The Visitation, but there's actually not much choice out there if we want that damnned piece of celery. That being said, I've uploaded another version of Image:10docsnew.jpg which I like the best so far. We have colour Hartnell and Troughton shots, a better full-on of Davison, back to the old Ghost Light McCoy, a more flattering shot of Colin that shows off the costume. I'd stick with the Pertwee and Tom myself because the red jacket shot looks like he's just sat on something, and the Tom-with-hat makes him look fat and doesn't have that same whimsical expression he has in the one I've currently chosen. That, and the curls. I'm sticking with this one. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 23:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)



I don't like the "monocle" Hartnell photo - it's not something his Doctor really wore and i agree with others that B/W pedatry is not really needed - all in colour looks better and would work better. PMA 23:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm leaning more towards all colour myself (although again, I have some sympathy for the B&W argument). Khaosworks' latest version is the best so far, I think — the Davison in particular is a great improvement. I don't really care about blue vs. red jacket for Pertwee. The only photo in Image:10docsnew.jpg (current version) that I'm not mad about is the Colin photo — yes, it shows off the costume well, but Colin himself looks a bit like he's about to fall asleep on his feet. Perhaps the Colin from Trial (with the red tie) is a better choice, though its resolution is a bit low.
All that said, I'm a bit worried that we could debate forever on this and not get anywhere — Deej30's young/old Elvis comparison is very apposite, but it actually goes for all the Doctors. We'll all have images we prefer, highlighting aspects of each actor's portrayal. In the interest of drawing this to a close, I'm willing to go with "10docsnew.jpg" as is. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 00:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. PMA 01:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Final image?

Actually, while I now don't mind the color shots of the 1st and 2nd Doctors (or even the lastest version of the 4th Dr), the 3rd Dr should really be in red, and the 7th Dr should really have his HAT since he's the one Doctor who 'always' wore a hat. Furthermore, not only would it be a shame to have the 5th Dr without his famous celery (and in the new photo that I chose, he seems to have a similar stance as the 10th Dr), but I really like the front shot of the 8th Dr for it shows off his costume more. Anyway, here are 2 more versions...

In the bottom version (which I'm willing to go with), the 8th and 7th Doctors are facing each other just like the 2nd and 3rd Doctors are facing each other...

These are the best that I can do until I get my scanner fixed. aquanostra9Aquanostra9 04:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I quite like the composition of 10xx3-copy.jpg (the latest version). The only niggling concern I have is the resolution on the Colin picture, but that's not urgent. I'm fine with this version, for now at least. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 04:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I still have issues with the 3rd Doctor looking like he sat on something and that picture of Colin is definitely not flattering on reflection. But I'll leave it to others to decide which is the way to go. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 07:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
My pref is for the Third Doctor from Image:Dw107.jpg and the Sixth from Image:Dw109.jpg, which is a more flattering (and representative) shot. —Whouk (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree - the Third Doctor shouldn't look like he has a "Nibbles" up his butt. PMA 03:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the latest version (Image:10dr13.jpg): 5–8 are all fine by me, but the Tom picture is much worse than the previous one — he's got huge bags under his eyes and looks like he's catching flies with his mouth! I'm sorry to keep carping on this, but d'you think you could restore just the Tom from Image:10xx3.jpg? That would make the image nearly perfect (at least as far as I'm concerned). —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 02:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Chronology of Doctor Who

Is there really not an article associated with the Chronology of Doctor Who? I.e. the history of the Dcotro Who universe from start to finish? it would be interesting to see how all the Doctor's fit in. Also how an earlier Doctor could be witnessing an event in history that a later Doctor bumped into as well. I think at least four of the Doctors have visited the end of the Earth when the sun turns into a Red Giant. -Husnock 21:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it's been thought about but not done, generally because such a timeline wouldn't fit within Wikipedia guidelines, being as it is original research, not to mention POV since there is no objective consistency to the Doctor Who timeline, and any kind of chronology requires specific assumptions. Then there's the nightmare of what to include, what to exclude, UNIT dating... just have a look at AHistory by Lance Parkin and you'll see the difficulties involved. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
And Parkin's book is pretty substantial. I don't think a chronology article is feasible in the Wikipedia environment. Check out the massive (and I mean massive) list of published and broadcast Doctor Who at the Doctor Who Reference Guide [1]. The best thing to do would be to pick the most important highlights and include them in each Doctor's article, which sort of being done already. 23skidoo 04:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
When did a new edition come out of Parkin's book? 23skidoo 06:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Just published by Mad Norwegian Press about a month ago, released together with About Time 1. It covers all the books up to The Gallifrey Chronicles, the 2005 season and all the audios up to Terror Firma.--khaosworks (talkcontribs) 08:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I'll have to get my hands on it; I enjoyed the earlier version. I guess the title had to change because of Virgin's original version. I wonder if Mad Norwegian might reprint an updated version of the Time Lord RPG book? 23skidoo 15:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, here we go again...

Here are 5 more versions...

Of course, one can still mix and match these around...

aquanostra9Aquanostra9 02:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is in reference to the first of this batch. Still don't like the Pertwee with a stick up his ass one - leave it as the one from The Three Doctors; prefer the Tom peeking out of the box (better expression); switch it back to the last Davison one (black background out of place) and we've got something I can support. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 02:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Pertwee with a stick up his ass — would that be a perigosto stick? :D
The only one I feel strongly about is that I really don't like the Tom picture with his mouth open. The "peeking out of the box" is still my favourite, but I can live with any of the others except that one. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 02:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Like this?... (Mind you, I actually like the "Pertwee with the stick up his ass" look, because during season 8 the 3rd Dr usually DID have a stick up his ass! (hehe)...

aquanostra9Aquanostra9

Yeah, either Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg or Image:10dr20.jpg works for me. (I actually kind of agree with you about Pertwee, but a lot of Third Doctor fans would probably disagree!) —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 03:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Go with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 03:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, how do you guys feel about this version(or do you prefer the 6th Dr from 10dr19? While I'm still not wild about that 4th dr version, I suppose it really comes down to which 3rd you guys prefer, 19, 19a or 20, and which 6th dr you guys prefer 19, 19a, or the one with the red cravat )...

Colin looks better in 10dr19. The head on shot makes him look slightly ill. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 05:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree; in 10dr19 you can see his eyes, and he's got that slightly catlike expression. I think that 10dr19 is my favourite Jon of the bunch, too, because he's got a very patrician air about him in that photo. (It's from The Three Doctors, isn't it? Is that why we can't zoom out a bit more — because we'd get Pat's back in the shot?)
That said, I want to make sure that you don't feel like you're taking orders from us, Aqua. Your voice is as important in the consensus-building as ours, and we want to end up with an image that everyone's more-or-less satisfied with. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about me, for I'm totally enjoying myself with this nonsense. (Yes, unfortunately I can't zoom out with the Three Doctors pic because Mr Pat would get into frame.) Anyway, here's Mr. Cat-Eyes Baker...

I moved this one to the left, just so we wouldn't have to scroll so far down to see what we're talking about. 23 works for me. :) Terence? Anybody else around? Have we found one we all like, at last? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I still prefer the Three Doctors shot for Jon, but in the absence of any other objections, 23 looks all right. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 06:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I like the Three Doctors shot too (that's the one in 10dr19, right?), but I'm fine with 23 as well. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I switched it back to 19 just for you sweet peas! ;-) aquanostra9Aquanostra9 06:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do this, and listening to all of our squabbling. :) —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


TARDIS acronym

Aquanostra9 recently simplified the section on the Doctor, which was a Good Thing. However, in so doing, we lost the explanation of what "TARDIS" stands for, which I think it a pretty basic bit of info that belongs in the main Doctor Who article. However, Aquanostra seems to think that it's redundant to have it both here and at TARDIS. What do other folks think? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, when we think of the TARDIS, three most prominent things come to mind - what the letters stand for, that it's bigger on the inside and the outside, and it looks like a police box. To not say that in the main article — especially the police box bit — seems rather odd. Merely mentioning it isn't excessive detail. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 07:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

While I do think it's somewhat redundant, I have no problem with how it now reads. yay! :-) aquanostra9Aquanostra9 07:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Dark, or slightly sinister?

Well, I put that the 1st Dr was "ORIGINALLY a dark, irascible character" instead of "an irascible and slightly sinsister character", for I do indeed think that the 1st Doctor was INITIALLY a very dark character.

Besides, what's the difference between "dark" and "slightly sinister"( with sinister meaning ominous, threatening, and malevolent)?

I say stick with "dark", for it's more concise and reads better.

aquanostra972.244.70.35 07:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Sinister is a shade less malevolent than dark, which implies more evil. The only "dark" action that the Doctor undertakes in his first incarnation is the apparent attempted killing of the caveman in 100,000 BC (a scene which is also equivocal). In The Daleks, he's simply deceptive, not intending to get anyone harmed; in Inside the Spaceship, everyone's acting crazy; by Marco Polo, he's become the grandfatherly figure everyone knows. So dark is not the adjective I would use. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 08:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's obvious that "dark" isn't the adjective which YOU would use. hehe! Anyway, while I'm fully aware of the Doctor's behavior during Seaosn One, I actually consider "sinister" as sounding more far evil than "dark". What does everyone else think? How about "an irascible, deceptive character"? aquanostra972.244.70.35 08:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't really work, either, since he only lies outright to his companions in The Daleks. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 08:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually that 'does' indeed work, for I had said "originally". How was he NOT originally deceptive?(he was lying all the time in the early days... more than just in The Daleks, as you make out.) How can one say that he was originally "slightly sinister", but not say that he was originally "deceptive", or even "dark"? No matter how you cut it, while he was always grumpy and cunning (and sometimes child-like), as a rule, the 1st Doctor had stopped being dark, deceptive, sinister, whatever, by the middle of Season One. No? Therefore, we tend to use the term "originally". (Of course, in some ways, ALL of the Doctors were always deceptive toward their enemies.) With that said, I think that "deceptive", or "dark" is just as good as "sinister". While I'd gladly say "an irascible, sinister character", sinister still seems a little strong, and "an irascible, and slightly sinister character" doesn't seem to flow as well as " an irascible, deceptive character", or "a dark, irascible character". However, I'll go with whatever Josiah goes with. :-) aquanostra972.244.70.35 08:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. And please stop reverting to your edits until we resolve this one way or another; if you want other opinions, wait for them. To say a person is deceptive is to say it is a general characteristic, not one that is merely borne out of one specific instance. Similarly for dark, which as I pointed out is of a particularly more malevolent shade of meaning than sinister. I also disagree that it flows better. I would also like you to show me where else he was lying outright to his companions aside from dragging them into the Dalek city in The Daleks. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 08:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, please write your text, preview it to make certain that is what you want, then save it rather than adding and adding to it constantly. Your constant edits are making it extremely difficult for people to reply because they keep running into edit conflicts. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 08:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you may still be missing the point, for I had said the 1st Dr was ORIGINALLY deceptive, just like he was "sinister" for a time being, then ceased to be so when he began to trust his new human companions. Furthermore, I not only think that, to MOST Americans, "sinister" is a more malevolent shade of "dark" (and NOT the other way around), but that one should consider using the term "irritable" instead of "irascible", since "irritable" is a term which more Americans are familiar with (and they are the ones who will probably be looking up Doctor Who on Wikipedia quite often). aquanostra972.244.70.35 10:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Okay, I compromised. How about something like this?....

"While the Doctor was originally a rather irritable, sinister character of great intelligence, he quickly mellowed into a far more compassionate figure."

Furthermore, my newbie friend mentioned that it would be nice to have a link to each of the Doctors on the main page, for it wasn't immediately obvious to someone browsing the main page that the "regeneration" link went off to each Doctor. So, with this new version, a newbie can immediately jump off from the main page to each Doctor inorder to satisfy their curiousity. aquanostra972.244.70.35 13:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I replaced "irascible" for "irritable" (it's a better word, and is often used to describe Hartnell, and it's not that unknown a word; I give Americans more credit) and the qualifier "slightly" to "sinister" to alleviate the negative connotations you mentioned above, and I think we're good to go. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 14:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd go with "an irascible, slightly sinister character". I don't think we need both qualifiers. (Sorry if I cut out on the debate unexpectedly last night — I'm in the Eastern US, and do need sleep occasionally! —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 16:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. While it's a little strong, I think that "an irascible, sinister character" flows a little better than "an irascible, slightly sinister character". Then again, how about something like...

" an ominous, irascible character" " an irascible, portentous character" " an irascible, authoritative character." " a dark, irascible character"(my favorite) Seriously, you guys do what you want, for I'm beginning to see the words "sinister" and "dark" in my cereal bowl. ;-) aquanostra972.244.70.35 22:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Reconstructions

In the section about missing episodes, and now official BBC reconstructions, should the 30 minute reconstruction of Marco Polo (included on The Beginning) be included? Particularly since Mark Ayres has expressed that he might like to do other such reconstructions to be included with future DVD releases? (see [2]). --JohnDBuell 16:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be in Doctor Who missing episodes, and I've written a paragraph to that effect. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Longest running show"

If you're going to just count the length of time between the first episode and current episodes, without taking into consideration that the show had a long hiatus, then the longest running sci-fi show is probably Twilight Zone. First episode 1959, last episode 2003. Doctor Who doesn't catch up until 2007.

If hiatuses do matter and you count number of seasons instead, then Doraemon beats it with 29 seasons. It probably also beats Dr. Who in number of episodes, but I can't prove it offhand. Dark Shadows definitely beats Dr. Who in number of episodes, but it depends on whether you count fantasy as sci-fi.

If you add enough qualifiers (English language, live action, non-anthology) you can get Dr. Who to be number one. Ken Arromdee 04:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Did Dr Who Jump the Shark?

I've just been reading the wikipedia enrty on Jumping the shark;

Jumping the shark is a metaphor that has been used by US TV critics and fans since the 1990s to denote the moment when a TV series is deemed to have passed its peak. Once a show has "jumped the shark," fans sense a noticeable decline in quality or feel the show has undergone too many changes to retain its original charm. The phrase was popularized by Jon Hein on his Website jumptheshark.com. It alludes to a scene in the TV series Happy Days when the popular character Fonzie, on water skis, literally jumps over a shark.

Does anybody agree that there was a moment when the original (that is, pre-Russell T Davis 2005 resurrection, of course) Series 'jumped the shark', ie, when even as a die-hard fan you thought, 'this program is rubbish now, why am I still watching it'? If so i'd argue it was when Bertie Bassett (the Licourice Allsorts man made an appearance... Or was it earlier than that? Or later? Maybe Paul McGann on a motorbike? What do others think? quercus robur 09:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to say. Sure, the Kandy Man was a ludicrous concept, but it was suprisingly well done, and quite sinister on reflection. One thing we've learned about being in a fandom as old as Doctor Who is that everything is a matter of taste, and nothing stays the same. McCoy's period was universally derided at the time as the final nail in the coffin, yet it spawned the New Adventures, which has lead recently to a reexamination of that era as not really that bad (the production values, for example, were higher than anything prior - no bad CSO there!), and in fact trying to be sophisticated but not quite reaching it in the execution. Colin Baker was despised for being too brash, too loud, but now he's the favourite of the Big Finish audio Doctors, and Vengeance from Varos and Revelation of the Daleks are classics (we still don't mention Timelash except in hidden whispers, though). Things change. I'm sure that in a few years everyone will be singing the praises of Battlefield as I do (except for the Boom! Boom! bits). --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 10:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
To be honest Doctor Who's format means that it's hard to jump the shark permanently as most of the time the series just moves on with the next story. One could argue the series had taken a turn for the worse at almost any point throughout its history - for example:
Season 2 - The series mainly rests on its laurels and keeps alternating between bringing the Daleks back again and trying to duplicate their success with the Zarbi and Mechonoids.
Season 3 - Yet more Dalek exploitation with a story that lasts three months, plus a series of adventures that are all over the place as the show seeks a new direction.
Season 5 - A highly repetitive season featuring umpteen base under seige stoires.
Season 6 - A season with several adventures that are longer than the story can sustain, yet another attempt to create "the next big monster" (the Quarks!) and a cast feeling tired.
Season 7 - A complete reinvention of the series' format and a darker focus that an organised fandom (were there such a thing at the time) would have scremed blue murder over.
Season 8 - The tone gets lighter.
Season 11 - The series keeps on recycling old ideas (yet another Dalek runaround, a direct sequel, yet another story exploring Buddhist imagery and crystals...)
Season 14 - The series gets very violent (leading to complaints and the producer's replacement) and incurs the outrage of fans.
Seasons 15-17 - The series starts getting so silly that organised fans campaign for Tom Baker to be replaced.
Seasons 18-19 - The series gets a bit "soap operaesque" with continuing links between stories and a greater emphasis on the regulars.
Season 20 - The series turns to its own past for plots and ideas.
And so on... Indeed from the time it was first organised fandom had a tendency to invariably attack the show of the day, and had it been around earlier it would have attacked the earlier years.
I also dispute McCoy's era being "universally derided at the time as the final nail in the coffin" - if one thing was clear at the time, there was no universalness in fandom at the time. Many at the time enjoyed McCoy and have since said so. Timrollpickering 15:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Category problem

Why is the category getting in the way of text on the talk page? —This unsigned comment was added by Timrollpickering (talkcontribs) , who really should know better ;) .

Hm... I'm not seeing that. Is it still doing that on your end? Have you tried with another browser? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 21:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)