Talk:Fourth Doctor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Doctor Who (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.


I noticed that this article makes no mention of the hat the Fourth Doctor sometimes wore. I have a small collection of unique hats, and I was curious as to what that type of hat is called. Well? What're you waiting for? I've sent you on a wiki-mission!--Agent Aquamarine 19:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


In polls conducted by Doctor Who Magazine, Tom Baker has lost the "Best Doctor" category only twice: once to Sylvester McCoy (the Seventh Doctor) in 1990, and once to David Tennant (the Tenth Doctor) in 2006.[1]

From the overview. Two polls is evidently a small number, but how many polls have actually been conducted by Doctor Who Magazine? If it's all about proportion, that seems absolutely necessary for this statement. The Chairman 14:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


  1. ^ "David Tennant named 'best Dr Who'". BBC News. 2006-12-06. Retrieved 2007-02-25.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

"As of 2012"[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS) changed "as of 2007" to "as of 2012" in the introductory paragraph. I initially reverted it as vandalism, which was an error — the IP contacted me on my talk page, with this reasoning:

In order for someone to be a longer running Doctor than the 4th, they must first be a Doctor for 7 years. The earliest time at which this can happen is 2012, if the currect Doctor stays with the series that long. Regardless, 2012 is the earliest date at which this information can become outdated, so "as of 2012" is more accurate than "as of 2007". On this ground, I am going to revert the article back to the 2012 version.

I apologize for treating a good-faith edit as vandalism, however, I still think that using the 2007 date is more appropriate. The most important reason is grammar: the sentence says that the character is the longest-running. 2012 hasn't happened yet. Even though the IP's logic about when the fact could become outdated is sound, English grammar just doesn't permit a sentence to be structured that way.

The other reason I think we need to stick with the current date is that unless there's further explanation in the sentence, the 2012 version could be read as suggesting that come 2012 the Fourth Doctor will no longer be the longest-running. Of course, that's possible, if Tennant stays in the role that long, but we really shouldn't get into that because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So I've reverted back to the current date. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 16:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. The sentence as written is correct; the IP's idea is correct, but not the way it's phrased. Since the paragraph ends with "having been on the show for seven years" already, adding 2012 is essentially just adding, "Another actor would have to be the Doctor for more than seven years in order to serve longer." Which is simultaneously confusing and self-evident. --Brian Olsen 00:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

All by myself, Don't wanna be ... All by myself[edit]

The Doctor then travels alone for the first time in many years, returning to a planet he had visited centuries before.

Surprised this hasn't raised discussion. In Face of Evil it's established he's visited Xoanon before, however placing it immediately prior to the second visit is unlikely and saying this is his only solo voyage for years is problematic. Fan conjecture has been that it occurs within Robot (when he ties up Harry) but it doesn't even have to be a solo visit. He travels alone during the Pertwee era (Green Death and Planet of the Spiders for instance), but unless he's programed the computer to regenerate as well we're looking for a Tom visit, presumably prior to Face of Evil on his personal time line. Although it is possible it occurs later (between Invasion of Time and Ribos Operation?) and his memories are atemporal and he's mad. Or it's paradoxical. In any case it should be more ambiguous or it begs this kind of speculation.MartinSFSA (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of what I'm after; making the statement about broadcast evidence rather than biographical analysis verifies easily. Improve if you can! MartinSFSA (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


I think a better picture is needed, one that is coloured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanAshley (talkcontribs) 08:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason that the black-and-white picture (Image:Tombakersunderland.jpg) is (or was, depending on the current state of the edit war) being used is because of Wikipedia's policy on Non-free content. Basically, any official BBC photo of the Fourth Doctor is "non-free", in the sense that the copyright of the image potentially restricts its use. This black-and-white photo, from the archives of the Sunderland Echo, has been released by the copyright owners under a free license. WP:NFCC allows us to use non-free images (such as Image:Bakert.jpg) "only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." There's some debate about whether the black-and-white image (of Tom Baker, dressed as the Fourth Doctor, presumably during some public event in the Sunderland area) does or does not serve the same encyclopedic purpose as a publicity still of Baker in character, taken during the filming of Doctor Who (or at least in connection with said filming). I suspect there are fair arguments on both sides, but I'd like to hear them articulated here. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 08:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The picture up now is in black and white when the other is in color, and it is not of the Fourth Doctor in character. Just because Baker is dressed up as the Doctor doesn't make it the same thing. We might as well have this picture up there if the criteria is "Tom Baker dressed as the Doctor." Nothing said can reverse that this is not an in-character image of the Doctor, or a publicity picture intended to represent the doctor. Kuralyov (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not as clear-cut as that. The Sunderland Echo photo appears to have been taken at an event at which Tom Baker appeared "in character" as the Doctor. Just because it wasn't part of a television episode doesn't mean that the character isn't portrayed in the photo. Wikipedia prefers a free alternative if one exists, even if that free alternative is photographically inferior. And in terms of content, how different is this from the (BBC copyright) photo here?
Now, you might be able to make an argument that the black-and-white photo doesn't serve the same encyclopedic purpose: it doesn't, for example, show the colours of the Doctor's scarf, information which is present in the colour photo. But the mere fact that it's black-and-white, without an ancillary argument, isn't a reason to exclude the free image in favour of the non-free one. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how you're getting away with these photos really. They're heavily copyrighted by the BBC surely? -Of all copyrights, that's the one you don't want to mess with. My photos get pounced on immediately! In the meantime your best plan is to get off this beacon.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


The August 2009 issue of Doctor Who magazine suggests a return in some form of the Fourth Doctor. Can anyone elaborate in the article? (I have only seen an image of the cover so I can't read the article.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the Big Finish Audio Dramas, which are mentioned in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials[edit]

I put a hatnote in the article to the list of serials by the Fourth Doctor. The sentence itself was italicised, but it was reverted with an unclear complaint that Fourth Doctor should not be italicised. Of course within an italicised sentence, an unitalicised phrase is considered to be emphasised - which is apparently what the reverting editor is complaining about. I suggest that editor either fix the format or explain the complaint here rather than unhelpfully reverting the addition. μηδείς (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't particularly complaining about the italic formatting (this should have been obvious to somebody who speaks English as lucidly as you do). I simply don't think that this article, out of every other one (First Doctor, Second Doctor, Third Doctor, Fifth Doctor... I could go on in the predictable way) is in desperate need of a prominent link to List of Doctor Who serials. ╟─TreasuryTagdirectorate─╢ 20:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I assume that you are aware the purpose of links is reader usefulness, not your controlling sense of ownership. I don't care where the links are, but the notion that an article on the fourth doctor shouldn't have a link to the project's list of his episodes is absurd. I'll add it as a see also. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your allegation of bad faith (WP:OWN). I shall be making a bookmark of it against potential future use. Meanwhile, your beady eye has probably failed to spot that there is already a link to List of Doctor Who serials in the article. If you spent less time causing trouble on the talkpage and more time checking out the validity of what you're saying, this problem wouldn't have happened. ╟─TreasuryTagpikuach nefesh─╢ 21:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Had you read my original edit summary, [1] you would have seen that I addressed my uncertainty as to whether the matter was mentioned already. The alias given in the template, however, makes the link obscure and unhelpful. Since no one objects, I will do as I said and add an explicit link for the ease of use of the article's readers. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Since no one objects – but you know I object. Had you read my original edit summary – I did read it, and I am still unclear as to why you didn't check whether there was a link to List of Doctor Who serials, rather than just blindly adding it on an assumption. I have removed it again as repeated and un-necessary; no other page for any other Doctor Who character has such an innovation, and I'm not (yet) clear why you think that the Fourth Doctor is a special case.
I suggest that you don't revert again until we resolve this issue on the talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTagRegional Counting Officer─╢ 07:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
It might be helpful if you would suggest some way to address my concern rather than just reverting each edit. There is no requirement that I edit every article before I edit any article, so I fail to see the point of your complain that I haven't yet addressed the issue elsewhere. The fact remains that someone looking for a list of shows, as I was the other day, will be hard put to find it in this article. WP:LINK advises that "in general, link only the first occurrence of an item. There are exceptions to this guideline, including . . . where the first link is in an infobox, navbox or similar meta-content" and "[k]eep piped links as intuitive as possible."
Frankly, a list of series in which the Fourth Doctor appears would be a logical subsection of the article. Given that a similar subsection already exists, a hatnote or comment there linking to the list is entirely appropriate. μηδείς (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If no one else objects I am going to change the opening of the article to the following, with my change in the second paragraph in bold:

The Fourth Doctor is the fourth incarnation of the protagonist of the long-running BBC television science-fiction series Doctor Who.

He was portrayed by Tom Baker in 41 series over seven consecutive years, and remains the longest-lived incarnation of the Doctor in the show's on-screen history- counting both the classic and modern series. Because of the length of his tenure, he came to be regarded by many as "THE Doctor". For audiences in the United States, who saw the show only in syndication (mostly on PBS), it was this incarnation of the Doctor who is the best known, as his episodes were the ones most frequently broadcast stateside. Further proof of his popularity in the US came when American Distributor Time Life began selling his stories on VHS in the late 1970s. Time Life added Narration by Howard da Silva at the beginning and end of each episode. It was during the Fourth Doctor's time that the series' fandom took off, including the first convention in 1977 and the launch of Doctor Who Weekly in 1979.

Within the series' narrative, the Doctor is a centuries-old Time Lord alien from the planet Gallifrey who travels in time and space in his TARDIS, frequently with companions. When the Doctor is critically injured, he can regenerate his body; in doing so, his physical appearance and personality change.

μηδείς (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Medeis, can you explain why this, and only this, article needs the change you suggest? At the moment, I cannot see why you have singled this page out from all the other Doctors' articles, and I would appreciate an explanation before you insert the link for the fourth time, as per WP:BRD. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTagActing Returning Officer─╢ 15:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the issue is whether the link is useful and in compliance with standards. It is useful, and it does comply with standards. Requiring me to edit other articles before I edit this one is inappropriate, and I do not recognize your authority to demand I answer your quizzes before I edit.

According to BRD:

BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.
BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. Try an edit summary of "Let's talk about this; I'll start the discussion with a list of my objections" rather than "Undo. I thought BRD requires you to start the discussion" (because BRD requires no such thing). The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

Also, your requirement that I address other issues first and your invitation to me to seek approval here before editing the article bring to mind these issues from WP:OWN:

Examples of ownership behavior:
"The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article."
"Justified article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not."
"An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions."
On revert:
"Please clear this with project X first." as in your remark "You could start a discussion at WT:WHO if you think they would be helpful"

What is at issue is this edit at this article, not the need for me to win some arbitrary (and non-existent) policy debate with you before I improve this article with an edit which comports with policy and common sense. Unless there are any material objections, I will add the link shortly. μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I have expressed my material objections. If you simply disagree with them then we will have to wait for a third opinion. Feel free to request one at WP:RFC or WP:3O if you are impatient. Your continued allegations of ownership, stalking etc. are false and considered to be personal attacks. ╟─TreasuryTagpresiding officer─╢ 16:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
No third opinion is necessary. It is you, and not I, who have three reverts on this article already. Requiring that I explain why I have not edited other articles before I continue to edit this one is not a material objection. The addition is a rather uncontroversial good faith improvement which no one besides yourself has objected to. μηδείς (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia consensus is not determined by counting how many reverts people have (and incidentally, if you add that link in for a fourth time, then your score will increase too!) – indeed no-one except me objects. And no-one except you is in favour. If you add it in with no additional support than your own repetition, I will remove it again and open an RfC on this talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTagUK EYES ONLY─╢ 16:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand you clearly. You are not citing any policy as to why a link in some form is inappropriate. You will not suggest any way in which adding such a link to the text would be acceptable to you, whether as hat note, in text piping, see also, or whatever else you might think of. You are going to revert the article a fourth time if I add the link in some way, because it is you versus me, and I have not gotten prior consent for the edit to be made from you, and RfC, or the committee of your suggestion? Please clarify if I am mistaken.

In the meantime, I would also suggest a possibility would simply be making the current link in the info box explicit - something like changing "Series" to "List of Series". I am open to suggestions - but prefer the in-text link.

In any case, if you want to post an RfC, please use neutral language, something like, "should there be an in-text link to List of Doctor Who serials#Fourth Doctor, and not some title which assumes the evulness of the link as given.

As I said, do offer alternatives. I am not set on any version. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC open. If you want me to explicitly cite a policy rather than engaging in a meaningful discussion (which does seem to be rather beyond you) then WP:REPEATLINK would seem to fit the bill. ╟─TreasuryTagFirst Secretary of State─╢ 21:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment: repeating links[edit]

Should the article contain more than one link to the same page (List of Doctor Who serials) despite the fact that none of the analagous pages, eg. First Doctor, Second Doctor etc., have such an innovation, nor is the editor advocating it here seemingly in favour of that? 21:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Please label your own comments with a section-header avoid threaded discussions within sections.

Comments from (involved) TreasuryTag[edit]

No, the article should not, as per WP:REPEATLINK and just for the purposes of common sense. There is no need to link to the same page twice. Furthermore, this article is part of a series including Fifth Doctor, Sixth Doctor, Seventh Doctor, Eighth Doctor and so on. None of these has multiple links to this page, though it is equally relevant to all of them. They all make do with one. Medeis (talk · contribs), whose behaviour and tone here I have to yet again condemn, seems unable to explain why this article and no others should be amended, refuses to try and get further input for his idea at the WikiProject talkpage and is, as usual, edit-warring profusely and being generally disruptive. What a storm in a teacup. ╟─TreasuryTagsenator─╢ 21:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to comments from Alzarian: yes, it does indeed say that, but putting a link in the article lede would mean that the first link would no longer be in the infobox; the infobox link would then be the second link.
Response to comment below from Medeis: yet again, you are unable to engage in discussion about the issue at hand. Oh dear. ╟─TreasuryTagFirst Secretary of State─╢ 22:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from (uninvolved) Alzarian16[edit]

Ignoring any behavioural issues for now, doesn't WP:REPEATLINK say that one exception to the general rule that only the first occurrence should be linked occurs "where the first link is in an infobox, navbox or similar meta-content"? The only link at present is in the infobox, so one in-text link would seem to be reasonable. As to where it should go, a hatnote is definitely wrong, and it doesn't really belong under see also, so the most recent approach of adding a piped link into the lead might be the best way forward. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of RfC disputed[edit]

The neutrality of the wording of this RfC is disputed. The RfC was worded by the involved editor TreasuryTag. What Medeis believes is at issue is whether an in-text link in any form to the List of Doctor Who serials#Fourth Doctor is appropriate in any form. μηδείς (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2011

Comments from (uninvolved) Edokter[edit]

Actually, per WP:REPEATLINK, one noted exception is where the first link is in an infobox, navbox or similar meta-content, which is the case here. I think it would be a good idea to put the following directly under ==Other appearances==:

Edokter (talk) — 22:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from (uninvolved) J Greb[edit]

FWIW, if we are going to parse "first" we're going to be here a long time. Beyond that, general practice with infoboxes has been that their links are separate from the links in the article, they are regularly repeated between the article and the 'box.

Edokter's suggestion also has merit since it removes a potential layer of Easter Egging.

- J Greb (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment from (uninvolved) Masem[edit]

As others have stated, links should not be repeated in the prose of the article. This means that one can repeat a link in the infobox, and often within the lead itself, but then after its first appearance in the rest of the body, it become excessive. Links in {{seealso}} -type templates do not qualify for this since this outside of prose. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Medeis (involved)[edit]

While thinking that the last edit, placing a reference to the list of episodes in the lead, is the best option, I am not opposed to Edokter's suggestion that the link be placed with the "Other appearances" section - but given that these are "the appearances" per se, it would have to go under the retitled head appearances, with a hatnote and a very brief note that there are 41 series over so many years. μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Be aware, User:Masem that this is not an issue of excessive links (note that Treasury Tag refactored my objection that his RfC wording was not neutral) but the simple matter of having a link of any form in the body of the text of the article.

TreasuryTag reverted my attempts at adding a hatnote in the Biography section [2], an addition in See also [3], and a pipe link in the lead[4].

I think the last alternative, a pipe link in the lead, is the least obtrusive and the most helpful. μηδείς (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the particular repetition at issue; but it does bother me from the reader's point of view that there are two links (one, granted, a section-link) to Doctor (Doctor Who) a few words from each other. Wouldn't the section-link alone be enough in the opening sentence, since it's pretty crowded with links, and neither such link is piped intuitively? Tony (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I would be quite happy with either solution, placing the link in the lead or under an appearances head. I understand both the concern for the overlinking and to avoid easter egging. I will compose a suggested solution below and institute it if we have no objections.
In the mean time, perhaps we could move the third paragraph of the overview section to the top of the section or to a seubsection of overview and add the hatnote μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment from (uninvolved) Ohconfucius[edit]

I do not have a strong view on either of the versions shown in this diff. I actually like the later version because it is cleaner yet deals with the essentials. However I would just say that the '41 series' is significant, but perhaps slightly superfluous to the lede but definitely merits mention in the body of the text, where the link could be more appropriate, and the Easter egg less problematic. I would note in passing that List of Doctor Who serials is also linked in the navigation box at the bottom. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment from (uninvolved) Eduemoni[edit]

As I'm not involved within the scope of this project, nor the article itself, I'm going to follow the principle of MOS, specifically WP:REPEATLINK, which shouldn't include the navbox or infobox as first incidence. Thus any other link that the first appearance should be removed (the link, but not the word, sentence whatsoever). Eduemoni↑talk↓ 04:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There were never two links in the text, only one. The point is moot, given the unanimous opinion that there should be a link in the text. Given that the plurality opinion seems to be that there should be an explicit rather than a piped link in the text I am going to add a hatnote now. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

50th Anniversary/Day of the Doctor appearance[edit]

I made some edits to reflect his appearance in the 50th anniversary special. If I've done anything improper, please revert - I'm not an expert at conventions for editing these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EleanorLockhart (talkcontribs) 21:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I see the edits... but they aren't complete. The 4th Doctor also appears as a future regeneration of the Doctor at the end of The Day of the Doctor. I think it was pretty clear that even though it was a future regeneration it was still the same Doctor, same face, same personality as the 4th incarnation. I think discussion needs to take place in the talk page before we begin adding all this info from the 50th Anniversary episode so there can be some consensus on just how to characterize and include all this new info into the article. Maybe a subsection called "Future Incarnation of the 4th Doctor"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaiotu (talkcontribs) 12:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that in the sidebar his last appearance is listed as Dimensions in Time(93)... I don't know if of the Day of the Doctor appearance is technically the fourth doctor, apparently there's some debate, but it seemed to be strongly implied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Cameo in The Day of the Doctor[edit]

As far as I'm aware he did imply that the doctor would become the curator, and he said, perhaps I am you or perhaps you were me, and Matt Smith says "I never forget a face" implying that yes he is in fact the doctor. So I believe my edit adding it as a cameo was correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It was a character played by Tom Baker. We should not be making our own interpretations, that is WP:OR. We should report only on what reliable secondary sources have already stated. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Right... as much as I'm personally 100% sure that the appearance of Tom Baker as the curator is some kind of future incarnation of the Doctor as the 4th Doctor... it's all just implied, strongly implied yes, but still just implied. --Jaiotu (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Bruant poster parody[edit]

The article mentions that the character design is based on Toulouse-Lautrec's pictures of singer Aristide Bruant. I once saw, probably as an item to purchase from the now defunct Whovian Times, a picture of a poster parodying the style of the one in this article, of the Fourth Doctor in his hat and scarf, complete with French text ("le Docteur" in part, I think). I found a few such parodies in a Google image search, including an apparently official version for the audio play Demon Quest: The Demon of Paris, with Tom Baker as the voice of the Doctor, in which such a poster is significant to the plot. Would it be worth adding one of these images to the article, to contrast with the original poster? B7T (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Best Doctor[edit]

The article says "In polls conducted by Doctor Who Magazine, Tom Baker has lost the "Best Doctor" category only three times: once to Sylvester McCoy (the Seventh Doctor) in 1990, and twice to David Tennant (the Tenth Doctor) in 2006 and 2009."

Yet, if I'm not mistaken, Colin Baker (not Tom) won the "Best Doctor" DWM Award in 2001. Somebody with the DWM 320 at hand can double check it, please?

KalEl el Vigilante (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't the April issue, by any chance? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Colin won "Best Actor" (which included non-Doctor actors) that year - I don't see a "Best Doctor" result. Etron81 (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Tom Baker[edit]

Tom Baker was the best Doctor, easily. McCoy was a close second. (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

^ I didn't put that David Tennant link in. Wikipedia did, and that's bullshit. (talk) 07:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

A) Wikipedia didn't add anything. That link is from an earlier post but because there is no dedicated references section on Talk Pages it is automatically posted to the bottom of the page, so chill. B) Your entire section adds nothing to a previous question, nor does it raise a new one, but is merely a fan pointing out something of his personal preference which is irrelevant here. Vyselink (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)