Talk:Eighth Doctor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Eighth Doctor Adventures (novels)

Josiah Rowe suggested in his last edit that "we shouldn't suggest that the books are different from other licensed media just because the BBC licensed the novels to a branch of itself", which seems odd to me because they are different. The 8DAs are made by (part of) the BBC and, thus, are different from licensed media. I'm not saying that difference has any implications for "canonicity", if that's what anyone is worrying about, but there is a difference in their production background. I don't see, for example, any contractual difference between the 8DAs and Scream of the Shalka (which was "licensed" to BBCi as much as the 8DAs were "licensed" to BBC Worldwide). Bondegezou 12:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I did think that a distinction of canonicity was being suggested, whether that was the intention or not. Bondegezou's wording was "...the Eighth Doctor's adventures continued in the BBC's Eighth Doctor Adventures novels and various licensed spin-off media, notably the Big Finish Productions audio plays and the Doctor Who Magazine comic strip." I changed that to "...the Eighth Doctor's adventures continued in various licensed spin-off media, notably BBC Books' Eighth Doctor Adventures novels, audio plays from Big Finish Productions, and the Doctor Who Magazine comic strip" because I thought that the separation of the EDAs from the other Eighth Doctor narratives suggested that the novels were the "real" story and the others merely commercial tie-ins. (Which may be a defensible position, but not one we should promote on Wikipedia.)

How integrated is BBC Books into the rest of the BBC? I suppose I had always assumed that there was some sort of editorial wall between BBC-TV and BBC Books, which meant that the day-to-day operations of the Eighth Doctor Adventures weren't much different from the Virgin New Adventures — but perhaps I was wrong. Is there a significant difference in the licensing of Doctor Who Magazine (published by Panini) and the new Doctor Who Adventures (published by BBC Magazines, I believe)? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would happily strip the word "canonicity" from every Wikipedia entry on Doctor Who. How fans interpret the stories fitting together seems barely encyclopaedic to me!

There were huge differences in the day-to-day operations of the Eighth Doctor Adventures and the Virgin New Adventures, but that's as much about other differences between Virgin Books and BBC Books as about the licensing arrangments. The internal workings of the BBC are strange and complicated: they have also changed hugely over the years that Doctor Who has existed. There is now an internal market in which one part of the BBC commissions another part of the BBC (BBC Wales) to make the television series, which would have been totally alien to Verity Lambert in 1963. The internal workings of the BBC with respect to Doctor Who have also changed considerably with the new television series: there is now a Who office in Cardiff overseeing the BBC Books' output and all spin-offs whereas previously what little central control there was consisted of Steve Cole overseeing both the books and video releases for BBC Worldwide.

I have no idea about Doctor Who Magazine and Doctor Who Adventures. As far as I can make out, the internal contractual arrangements (so to speak) for BBCi to make Scream of the Shalka and for BBC Books to make the 8th Doctor Adventures were the same. As far as I can make out, being internal to the BBC did/does mean that BBC Books' Who output was/is more integrated with (and subservient to) a broader strategy whereas Virgin or Big Finish have greater leeway on the details, but also stricter limits on some issues. (There were also key differences between the contracts Virgin and Big Finish got, e.g. one exclusive, the other not.) And none of that seems to have any implications for what Russell T. Davies, the other writers and the rest of the production team think of as 'canonical' when making the new series.

So I don't really know where that leaves us, but it still seems wrong to me to call books or whatever made by the BBC "licensed spin-offs". They are tie-ins. Something like Doctor Who Magazine is a licensed tie-in, Torchwood is a spin-off, and the New Adventures were either a licensed spin-off or licensed tie-ins. Bondegezou 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

Appearances 1 stories (1 episodes)

ugh. Morwen - Talk 17:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Function of the template, I'm afraid. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be fixed, with conditionals. Morwen - Talk 09:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There, done. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to hide from the developers. Morwen - Talk 12:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What's This About The Doctor Destroying his planet?

Is this to do with the Time War And the 9th Doctor, if he destroyed Gallifrey did it come back for him to destroy it again? Sorry, i just don't get it, the article doesn't say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RETARDIS (talk • contribs) 04:46, October 2, 2006 (UTC)

Sort of: it's complicated. See Time War (Doctor Who), specifically Time War (Doctor Who)#Eighth Doctor Adventures. The official line of the TV series' production team is that the Time War referenced in the series is not the one described in the books, which does mean that Gallifrey gets destroyed twice. (The details of its restoration weren't explicitly given in the novels, but the possibility was hinted at in The Gallifrey Chronicles.) They're actually required to say this because of BBC guidelines which say that the content of free-to-the-public, license-fee-supported programmes can't depend on commercial material that you have to buy — you can't tell a viewer, "for the full story, buy this!". However, Russell T. Davies has also said that viewers are free to construct whatever elaborate theories of Doctor Who history they like, and in his book AHistory, Lance Parkin has put forth a theory explaining how the books' Time War could be the one mentioned in the TV series, and Gallifrey might have been destroyed only once.

Of course, since the BBC has no official position on what is and isn't Doctor Who canon, it's also perfectly acceptable to ignore the books altogether, and say that the War mentioned in the TV series is the only one, which also avoids the problem of Gallifrey going boom twice. (To destroy one's homeworld once may be regarded as a misfortune; to destroy it twice begins to look like carelessness.)

I'll try to find a place to link this article to the Time War one, so that other readers won't be confused. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Novel and Audios

I have moved (pending approval) the description of the 8th Doctor's audio adventures to the end of the Novel and Audio Biography. The idea that these adventures took place in the three-yar gap between novels is fanon at best, and to display the theory in an encyclopaedic article as if it were definite defies the notion of the argument that the audios take place at some other period (possibly after the novel series). However, the possibility of the three-year gap is retained in brackets, and left open for the individual to decide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.71.127.33 (talk • contribs) 15:55, July 28, 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't looked closely at that section in a while, and upon investigation I think it needs a lot of work. We probably shouldn't be making any unequivocal statements about the placement of the novels and audios in relation to each other. (The Radio Times strip can probably be grandfathered in, thanks to Placebo Effect.) I think that rather than even attempting to narrate the One True Biography of the Eighth Doctor, we should give a biographical summary of each line (novels, audios, DWM comic), and then a brief explanation of the controversy about how they fit together. I don't know if I'll have time to do this myself any time soon, but if I can I'll try to fix it — if I can't, anyone else who feels adventurous, please, have a go. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have stated before that the section needs to be merged with Eighth Doctor Adventures and taken out entirely from this article (just haven't gotten around to it yet). The placement of the audios is right out, as well. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There's also the element that the audios have, more recently, gone some lengths to distance themselves from the book continuity. It's becoming more common to just say "to hell with it" and classify the Eighth Doctor's era as three distinct continuities: comics, novels, and audios, each splitting from the TVM. (See DW Reference Guide.) There's even some fun speculation -- completely to the side of all of this -- that these separate continuities explain the existence of three different Ninth Doctors. I kind of like that, though it's mostly fanon. It is sort of hinted in The Gallifrey Chronicles, with revelations about alternate timelines and alternate Ninth incarnations, though is never made absolutely clear. --71.139.23.128 18:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me; that wasn't vandalism. Check out the notes, for one. Notice the improvement for another. Granted, it can use more work. Figure I might as well give it a start, though.--71.139.29.214 07:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is an improvement. Thanks for that — I don't know why AxyJo thought it was vandalism. If I have time later I'll try to whip something up for the comics. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt the 8th Doctor comic strips be given a mention?SMegatron 10:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they should; I just haven't gotten around to it yet. If anyone else wants to have a go at a summary of the comics' story arcs, please do so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

New Movies

There were rumours about a year ago that McGann might come back to star in an arc of tv movies that continue the 8th Doctors adventures (perhaps through the Time War?). With Tennant cutting back his schedule next year 2009 sounds like a perfect opportunity to do this. Has there been any more discussion of this possibility? Type 40 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

BBC 7 Series

Maybe it doesn't "heavily imply" the canonicity, but I think something less definate is worth putting in. --βjweþþ (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Human Nature confirms canonicity. But, of course, you didn't know that in 2005:) Type 40 (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ten Doctors!?!?

So if McGann is counted as one of the Doctors because he appeared in ONE TV film why is Peter Cushing ignored as a doctor when he appeared in TWO Doctor Who Movies? I'd like someone to explain that please! Candy 00:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the TVM bent over backwards to point out it was canon - most obviously in having Sylv McCoy in to do a regeneration.

The Cushing movies were loose remakes of two Hartnell serials with huge changes taking it out of canon - the two that leap to mind was that Susan was a five year old, and most blatantly, Cushing played a HUMAN scientist called Dr. Who who invented "TARDIS" (no "the") himself. - SoM 00:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, the sophistication of marketing was certainly better in the mid-90s to the 1960s. There is a mileage in having better continuity with the TV programmes - especially as I consider TVMs to simply be extensions of the series. However, the movies had Terry Nation and several BBC series script writers working for them. The fact the Doctor claims to be human doesn't alter the fact he is essentially one of the Doctors. (I would even speculate here that he was telling lies. I mean the racist treatment that many human immigrants received in Britian in the 1960s was bad enough ... just imagine what they would have done to an alien - the doctor had probably seen Plan 9 from outer space.) Still, if that's the way it has been decided the so be it. I guess Larry Niven doesn't count as a Bond (Casino Royale) and by the same token the H2G2 movie shouldn't count as part of the The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_(film) genre (mainly because it isn't funny). Candy 11:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Although the clearly human "Dr. Who" of the films is a major stumbling block to fitting him into Doctor Who continuity, the larger reason, as SoM points out, is that the films each tell the same story as a William Hartnell television story. You can't say that Hartnell and Cushing were part of the same narrative without really bending over backwards — or did the Daleks invade Earth twice with the same plan, only to get defeated twice in exactly the same way by people with the same names (who nonetheless looked different)? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well put Josiah. I guess there is a point there. However, as is often said, "In an infinite universe anything is possible". Candy 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Cushing Doctor is definitely a reinterpretation of the Hartnell Doctor, not a different incarnation. Type 40 (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, McGann's image appears in the sketchbook in Human Nature whilst Cushing's does not. Type 40 (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the novels explains the presence of the Cushing Doctor, something to do with the Master of Fiction. That might not be canonical though. I reckon he's from a parallel universe! Digifiend (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Longest serving Doctor?

The article states that "...some consider the Eighth Doctor one of the longest-serving of the Doctors. He is unarguably the longest-serving Doctor in the Doctor Who Magazine comic strip." Actually, isn't he tied with the Seventh Doctor, who reigned from 1986 to 2005? Lighthope (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, maybe that's 1987 to 1989? Gad, I can't remember. Lighthope (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think the Seventh Doctor was 1987 to c.1996, then the Eighth was 1996 to 2005? It would make sense with them being tied in terms of length. Arraitchjee (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done some research, it all depends on how you look at it. The Seventh Doctor's first story was published in the November 1987 issue of Doctor Who Monthly, and his final was featured in the Doctor Who Magazine dated 27th June 2001. However, there had been gaps in that tenure; there were stories featuring the other Doctors. The Eighth Doctor's first story was in the DWM dated 23rd October 1996 and his final in 2nd March 2005. So you could say there was a longer time period (14 years) between the Seventh Doctor's first and final stories than there was between the Eight Doctor's first and final stories (9 years). However, the Eighth Doctor's story tenure was interrupted, so I'm not sure how this should be mentioned in the article... Arraitchjee (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The "but the 10th doctor seems to find the experience new" argument doesn't have much merit

That's because he wasn't the product of a union of a Human mother with a Timelord. It was through regeneration. It was another process. Besides, it is obvious that if half-human means still having two hears and still regenerating, there's no point of even discussing it. It was obviously another case. --Leladax (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's my take on the whole "I'm half human on my mother's side" deal. Have you ever "chatted up" a woman and had her tell you something like, "I'm italian" or some such and said to her, "I'm half italian on my mother's side"? There you go. He was just flirting with her. ---- deebyers

I love the idea he was flirting - though it doesn't really work with the plot and the stuff with the Master. Still, I'm also partial to the idea that his mother was originally a human woman before she was made into a Gallifreyan via the same sort of process that allowed the Doctor and the Master to become human. So, the Doctor would be 100% Time Lord whilst still having a "half human soul" or something similarly wishy-washy. :P (86.1.172.195 (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

--Monster1111198 (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)==Image copyright problem with Image:Past doctors.jpg== The image Image:Past doctors.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

8th Doctor

Just type doctor who the cyber seas of rhye into google search engine and before you've typed the whole query it will come up showing how popular it is and a lot of people i have heard of call this canon. --Monster1111198 (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's great. Now if one of those people have published in a reliable source, then we can cite them. DonQuixote (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Book/audio continuity

Big Finish audio "Mary's Story" actually lists all the Eighth Doctor companions in order, with book companions before the audio companions. Therefore it looks like the books and audios are in fact part of the same continuity, with the books taking place before the audios. Ausir (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Shalka Doctor

Indented line

May I ask why we include the 'Shalka Doctor' as an alternate incarnation? The BBC clearly states it is non-canon within the Doctor Who universe; there is another 'Alternate regeneration' in the Curse of Fatal Death 9th Doctor (Rowan Atkinson); there are alternate incarnations of other doctors that are not included within the boxes (Such as Peter Cushing's Doctor). 86.174.188.161 (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, the programme was to have continued as a web programme until it was decided to bring it back on television. DonQuixote (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I just find it curious why it's included on the main infobox when it's clearly no longer canon - I'd understand if it was mentioned in the article, but it's a little confusing when it's mentioned in the info box. It's like including the Doctor Who: Unbound doctors in the info box 86.174.188.161 (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It has more to do with "history of the programme" rather than "canon". DonQuixote (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The Name of the Doctor

In the sequence with past Doctors, it seems that Clara meets both the Second and the Eighth Doctor in the same time and place, which looks like a coastal resort in the US. 81.250.246.214 (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Succeeded by

Should it be changed to being succeeded by John Hurt's "War Doctor" - as is canonical - or Christopher Ecclestone's "Ninth Doctor" - as is technically chronological within the making of the series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonOberdorfer (talk • contribs) 19:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Adding more onto the above - today a new webisode was released showing the transition.[1].Varkman (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, it's about chronological in terms of the making of the series. So it's Eccleston. DonQuixote (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it's Richard E Grant. If you're going to cite WP:Real World and WP:INUNIVERSE then the next incarnation is the Shalka Doctor, who starred in his own legitimate special. It's no longer considered canon, but at the time it was, unlike The Curse of Fatal Death, legitimately made and not intended as a parody.

Just the same, it's no longer canonical that the ninth doctor follows the eighth doctor. There's two ways we can compromise this. We go by WP:Real World and have Richard E Grant succeed McGann and precede Eccleston, OR we list John Hurt. There's no way we can go by WP:Real World and NOT INCLUDE GRANT. He succeeded McGann. To say otherwise is due to a personal bias. If we're talking about the making of the series, we MUST cite the Shalka Doctor. Plowiee (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

From a real world perspective, the current programme is a direct continuation of the TV movie and ignores the web production. This is mentioned in the articles. So from a real world perspective, Eccleston followed directly on from McGann. We can mention that Grant is the successor to McGann in the Shalka Doctor article and any related article, but it doesn't fit the context of the TV movie or the current version of the show. So no, the above aren't the only two options. We can do what the BBC and DWM magazine do, which is McGann preceded Eccleston and Eccleston succeeded McGann. DonQuixote (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

But the web production was a direct continuation of the series. It was only retrospectively made "non canon". Richard E Grant was, for a time, the incumbent Doctor. To claim that the wikipedia guidelines claim that real life continuation is prioritised over an in-universe one basically confirms REG, as in real life he succeeded McGann but in-universe he is non canon.Plowiee (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

We follow what the sources say. The BBC and DWM have "prioritised" as such and made him retrospectively "non canon". DonQuixote (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have checked the talk page first. I thought both were notable so I put both in my edit. --DocNox (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that way is best. It shows that the next actor was indeed Christopher Eccleston, while maintaining that the next (in universe) incarnation IS the so-called "War Doctor". Plowiee (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I was going to do the same on the Ninth Doctor page until I saw this. I think both are definitely notable and should be listed. --DocNox (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that, in-universe, Hurt is the next incarnation is notable and should be mentioneed. However, at the same time, we need to be mindful of the history of the programme, which is a real-world perspective. That is, we can mention that Hurt's Doctor is placed between McGann's and Eccleson's, but we also need to mention that Hurt was cast in 2013 whilst Eccelston was cast in 2005. DonQuixote (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Having thought about it for a while, Richard E Grant should probably also be listed as succeeding as that was an official production in its own right. DonQuixote (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out (thanks!), we should probably be inclusive of the other attempt to revive the series. That is, we should consider the history of the programme as a whole rather than from the POV of the revived series. As such, I added him to the succeeding parameter. Comments and discussions are welcome. DonQuixote (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes are limited for space. We don't have to be all that inclusive, just summary. For simplicity I say we link to the Ninth Doctor in the infobox, and have text in the article itself which clarifies the interesting points: that this was assumed, as McGann made only one appearance; that later, this was retconned, and McGann came back to film a scene showing him become John Hurt; that still, according to Moffat, the Doctor numbering goes 7, 8 9. An additional line can talk about Richard E Grant and other attempts at describing or officially giving us a Ninth Doctor.Zythe (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Prequel

The Night of the Doctor cannot, by definition, be a prequel to The Day of the Doctor as stated in the article as it was released prior to Day of the Doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.254.49 (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The official BBC release states it is a prequel. We must follow this.Mcs2050wiki (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as we would not need follow the release if it called the Night of the Doctor a book, we need not follow a release erroneously calling it a prequel of The Day of the Doctor when it was released prior to The Day of the Doctor. Words have meaning, and the BBC cannot change the meaning of the word "prequel" by issuing a release. At best the word should be put in quotations, but that would be confusing. I suggest it be removed for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.254.49 (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The word is being used this way in the official press release, and the meaning of words is determined by usage. I'm uneasy about this but I can't think of an alternative. Presumably it was created after the fact for promotional purposes, and released prior.Zythe (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of words is determined by usage over time. One mistake by a PR person does not mean the dictionary is instantly rewritten! Calling this a prequel is plain wrong. Mezigue (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, The Night of the Doctor was filmed during the last two days of The Day of the Doctor's production schedule. [2] —Flax5 20:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Number of episodes

Why does it say 2 episodes(2 stories) when mini episodes aren't proper episodes imagine how many episodes Matt Smith would be on by now.This needs to be changed back to one episode(one story).I would also caution suggesting these big finish companions are official because it isn't clear that Lucie,Charley etc are companions the Doctor could be referring to anything -you can't just jump to conclusions like that.Dalek1099 (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the number of episodes. I'm uncertain on the companions so I've left that. Justin.Parallax (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"I would also caution suggesting these big finish companions are official because it isn't clear that Lucie,Charley etc are companions the Doctor could be referring to anything -you can't just jump to conclusions like that." - They are definitely both companions, and specifically companions from the Big Finish Doctor Who audio plays. BBC America's website confirms this unequivocally - "In assorted spin-off media, however, he’s had countless companions over the years – and in a surprising and unprecedented move, “The Night of the Doctor” sees fit to make several of them “canonical” in relation to the TV series. Specifically, the Doctor recalls all five of his regular companions from the aforementioned Big Finish stories: Charley Pollard, C’rizz, Lucie Miller, Tamsin Drew and Molly O’Sullivan.", as does Big Finish's website - " our (definitively canon!) adventures...Not sure who the Charley, C'rizz, Lucie, Tamsin and Molly mentioned in The Night of the Doctor are? Now you can find out! Just pop on over to the Big Finish Bargains page and take your pick from the first adventures for Charley and C'rizz, four series of Eight Doctor Adventures" where Lucie and Tamsin appeared "and the Dark Eyes box set" where Molly debuted. 81.151.140.165 (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

TNOTD is very different from other "prequels" however, in that it seems like more of a self-contained mini-episode than others we've seen so far. Also, say we did count it for Matt - if we counted it as "part" of the episode which it is a prequel to, that would be one story. And it is an episode, and it is a story. I say it should be "2 episodes (2 stories)". Zythe (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"TV characters only in this field" says Mezique when he edits the Big Finish companions off the list. But where does it say in the infobox "TV only"? They are canonical companions - apart from the links above to the BBC America website and Big Finish website, both of which confirm the names to have been references to the Big Finish companions and that said references made those audio companions canonical for the TV show, here's confirmation of same from Paul McGann himself "The Doctor... says the names of the old assistants and there's a few in there from the Big Finish , the audio side of things,...it endorses that side of things and includes them as well, what's that word you were using before, it's now canon" 86.184.127.115 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

In special cases we can make a special field, like "Companions in other media," but given Eight has had so many, it makes most sense only to list the most important one(s). If we were to include the ones mentioned in TNOTD, would that be the presumption that Wikipedia cultivates according to "canon"?Zythe (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Night of the Doctor

Now that the BBC has released the Moffatt-penned webisode "Night of the Doctor" starring Paul McGann, it would seem that we have new, canonical information regarding the end of the Eighth Doctor's incarnation and his decision to play a role in the Time War.

Also, McGann lists five companions that he traveled with during the Big Finish audio adventures: Charley (Pollard), C'rizz, Lucie (Miller), Tamsin (Drew) and Molly (O'Sullivan). So I would presume these five can now be considered official companions in the canonical Who-verse. -- Trowbridge (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

We can also update the chronology as the next doctor is "The War Doctor" (on screen credited) instead of the "Ninth Doctor". 86.156.102.168 (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The next Doctor to be cast was the 9th Doctor, so no. DonQuixote (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Really, that's the key discussion point here: should the chronology be about actors who played the role of "The Doctor" (meaning that the next is Ecclestone) or should it be the chronology of the incarnations of the fictional character called The Doctor (i.e., War Doctor)? I think that we are discussing a fictional character who has distinct incarnations so, personally, I believe it should be the fictional definition rather than the actors playing the role - i.e., succeeded by War Doctor. (CyanideSunryz (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC))

Yes, it's serious. Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective and in-universe tone isn't accepted. DonQuixote (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we can't list his audio companions in the companions section - as they have now been mentioned onscreen. 86.156.102.168 (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The general consensus is that the War Doctor is the succeeding doctor. As I did on this page and the Ninth Doctor, I added the war doctor as the succeeding doctor in the story with Eccleston as the next actor. I request DonQuixote respects the overall majority and stops unediting my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcs2050wiki (talk • contribs) 15:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Mcs2050wiki (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Please respect the principles of Wikipedia and review WP:real world and WP:INUNIVERSE and add to the discussion below. DonQuixote (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I am respecting the principles of Wikipedia. I kept and added information which was entirely accurate. People trust wikipedia and by leaving pages as they are and reverting edits which are truthful is misguiding people. It has been confirmed many times who The War Doctor is but you don't seem to recognise that. In my opinion people should be given both information and on an editorial scale we both win. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Hurt's Doctor is the incarnation after McGann's is recognised and mentioned multiple times in the relevant articles. That fact is not in dispute. The infobox is for real world information. Please understand the difference between WP:real world and WP:INUNIVERSE and the style of writing that is preferred on Wikipedia. And has been pointed out below, infoboxes should be for quick and simple information. DonQuixote (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Most people will just look at the infobox. Explain to me what is wrong with having real world and in universe information together if they are distinguished.Mcs2050wiki (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If you read WP:real world and WP:INUNIVERSE and any other related summary of Wikipedia guidelines, Wikipedia is written from a real-world perspective and not in-universe. That's the point. DonQuixote (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have read the guidelines but you still haven't answered my question. What is wrong with putting both actors down and distinguishing them? Mcs2050wiki (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

From the guidelines (WP:INUNIVERSE): "Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective can be misleading, inviting unverifiable original research. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become."...which is the same answer to your question that I gave above. DonQuixote (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

How about a compromise. In a sense the War Doctor isn't the Doctor, since he was created (possibly) not by a true regeneration but by the arts of the Sisterhood of Karn. As such the next "Doctor" Doctor is indeed Eccleston.Gymnophoria (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not contributing to this anymore, however some notes for Gymnophoria. Eccleston is the next "Doctor" Doctor however the regeneration is a true regeneration no matter what. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

War Doctor

|succeeding=War Doctor (John Hurt) You forget the parenthesises () Antoinejd (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Although this page is semi-protected, your user rights currently allow you to edit it yourself. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please change succeeded by Ninth Doctor (Christopher Eccleston) to War Doctor (John Hurt).

70.53.75.226 (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done He was succeeded by Eccleston in 2005. Also, see WP:WAF. DonQuixote (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That's incorrect. According to the chronology of the show recently established in "The Day of the Doctor", it goes Eighth Doctor>War Doctor>Ninth Doctor.31.50.83.165 (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you've failed to understand. According to the chronology in real life, first McCoy was cast, then McGann was the incumbent, then the mantle passed to Eccleston, Tennant and Smith, with Hurt later cast for a guest role as a past Doctor bewteen McGann and Eccleston.Zythe (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

the War Doctor required succession.

He is succeeded by "The War Doctor", not the 9th. According to The Day of the Doctor's new canon Check007 (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The infobox is written from a real-world perspective and thus the successor is Christopher Eccleston. Feel free to write about the in-universe succession from the Eighth Doctor to the War Doctor elsewhere in the article. DonQuixote (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a quote from Moffat after the episode was aired at the 50th Birthday anniversary celebrations (after what has already been quoted re The Night of the Doctor), and featured in the Metro this Sunday "‘He has no more ever called himself the 11th Doctor than he would call himself Matt Smith. The Doctor doesn’t know off the top of his head [what number he is]‘ he said.

‘If you worry about such things, and I do, then I specifically said John Hurt’s Doctor doesn’t use the title. [Matt Smith's Doctor] is in his 12th body but he’s the 11th Doctor, however there is no such character as the 11th Doctor – he’s just the Doctor – that’s what he calls himself.’"

From reading this I believe Moffat is saying not to put too much emphasis on the numbering other than as a sequential chronological ordering - as to whether this is In-Universe or not I haven't the foggiest. Either way there is still a fundamental issue that the "War Doctor" brings up. Either the War Doctor is the 9th regeneration [in-universe interpretation] in which case he should rightly be included after McGann before Ecclestone OR he should be labelled the 12 "person to play the doctor" [real universe] on the basis that he was the next doctor to be featured on screen after Matt Smith, albeit only for a few minutes before Capaldi (who incidentally was referred to by the Gallifreyan as the Thirteenth). I would suggest that the proceeded/succeeded section on the infobox for the 8th, War, and 9th doctors be amended to 8th->War Doctor->9th in that orderAprhys (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

-No, the War Doctor is not the 9th regeneration. The War Doctor is the 8th regeneration (9th generation) in universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.181.55 (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Companions

In "The Night of the Doctor", a prelude to "The Day of the Doctor", the Eighth Doctor mentions his companions Charley Pollard, C'rizz, Lucie Miller, Tamsin Drew, and Molly O'Sullivan before regenerating. Since this mini-episode is officially canon, does this mean that the Eighth Doctor's Big Finish adventures have been effectively canonized?31.50.83.165 (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No. Canonising means turning into a saint. People are constantly misusing that word. Mezigue (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The 'canon' issue is not important. Obsession over 'canon' in sci-fi fiction is fancruft at best. In this instance however, the article is about a fictional character. The query in question is about this fictional character's equally-fictional travelling companions. The article isn't specifically about the character's appearance in the tv show, it's about the character in general. So wouldn't the most relevant fictional travelling companions of the character apply, regardless of whatever source they appeared in? Justin.Parallax (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(Not advocating any position:) Typically the "other media" companions are left off just because they're usually stories of little significance in the real world sense, which the vast majority of readers won't have heard of. That and for the Eighth Doctor, who has probably had more companions than anyone, it would be impractical to list them all. Leaving it at just Grace is basically an editorial compromise, and restricting to TV companions a useful cut-off, which happens to please most of the "canon" obsessives (even though there is no Doctor Who canon). The TV companions also tend to have highly established notability, e.g. from reviews, awards, discussion, academia and so on, which the other media companions simply don't. We should also remember the Wiki isn't meant for Doctor Who fans - they should be bottom priority for us as editors - so we shouldn't feel obliged to make any infobox "exhaustively complete", only "accurate and informative".Zythe (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have little interest in "canon", but I do think there's an argument in favour of including the audio companions in this specific case. The Eighth Doctor is unique in that his televised era is essentially non-existent. Most Doctor Who audio plays can safely be dismissed as spin-offs that will only interest fans, but the Eighth Doctor is different – he exists primarily in spin-offs. They *are* his era. The dialogue in The Night of the Doctor has made Charley, C'rizz, Lucie, Tamsin and Molly part of Doctor Who proper. Moffat seems to consider these characters the Eighth Doctor's companions, even to the point of omitting Grace, so perhaps it's worth making an exception? —Flax5 14:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like you want to include them out of charity, which is a bad reason. Also, you know how these things work. People will soon add all spin-off characters ever on other pages on the grounds that this is a precedent. Mezigue (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Guys, it basically doesn't matter, precisely because this is such an unusual case. Our best bet is to find a version of the article which will be stable, as people are likely to disagree on various ways of doing it.Zythe (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

New Image

Working on adding a new image for the 8th doctor. Image uploading has changed quite a bit since the last time I did it. Here is the image I would like to see used. [3]

• I support this - since the BBC have adopted a uniform style of publicity shot, I feel it would be 'cleaner' for Wikipedia to match this. A collection of examples: [4][5] - Luke Myer (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Personality" section is missing

Wikipedia has articles on each of the Doctors. Most contain a separate section on that Doctor's "Personality." The two exceptions are the articles on the Eight and Nineth Doctors. In those two cases, the Doctor's personality can be inferred from information present elsewhere in the article, but the information is not present in an easy to read summary with a specific heading. For the sake of both consistency and ease of use, it would be a good idea to add such a section. Is there anyone here who feels qualified to take on this task? NikolaiSmith (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)