Talk:Ninth Doctor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Christopher Eccleston on quitting Doctor Who

This source may be useful for this article (citation code provided): Bad Wilf (2011-07-21). "Why Eccleston REALLY Quit Doctor Who". Doctor Who Online. Archived from the original on 2011-07-21. Retrieved 2011-07-21. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ninth Doctor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 15:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Issues:

• Casting: FOX → Fox. This is per WP:TRADEMARK

That is it! Great work. On hold until that's fixed. TBrandley 15:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been fixed. DonQuixote (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

His appearance in the 50th

Can I ask why his latest appearance seemingly doesn't count? I guess there's a policy that it has to be newly-filmed material, but his appearance in "The Day of the Doctor", despite being stock footage, was still a new appearance taking place during the episode's events.

The "Dimensions in Time" charity special counts as an appearance for some of the other Doctors, yet that wasn't an in-continuity episode. If certain appearances in the actual show don't count, then I feel like "Dimensions in Time" shouldn't count, despite being newly-filmed footage, considering it wasn't an official episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowyNight1234 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No, stock footage doesn't count, whether it's fictionally "new" or not.Zythe (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And the source for this take on things? Whereas other post-2005 appearances by Eccleston's Doctor are uncredited, Eccleston has full credit billing (along with the other eleven Doctors) in the first page of the end credits of "The Day of the Doctor". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahprole (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

An vs The

Just want to point out that both are grammatically correct. It's the difference between saying "an incarnation of the character" vs "the incarnation portrayed by". At this point, it's just a matter of taste. DonQuixote (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they are. "An" could mean that that actor portrays some other version of the Doctor. Where as "the" makes it clear that it is only that one that that actor portrays. For instance: "The 9th Doctor is an incarnation of the Doctor portrayed by Chris Eccelston". That sentence makes it possible (albeit unlikely) that Eccelston portrayed other versions. But: "The 9th Doctor is the incarnation of the Doctor portrayed by Chris Eccelston" prohibits Eccelston from having played other Doctors. "An" can and often does imply more than one. "The" is singular. So to me the differences are not semantic. Vyselink (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have split the sentence to their previous state, so there can no longer be any ambiguous meaning to 'incarnation'. Merging the sentence is what this whole thing started. It just shows what bad sentence contruction can do to the grammar by creating a ambiguous proverb. — Edokter (talk) — 22:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I only just saw this discussion of my earlier edits. The reason for them was that the introductions for 9, 10 and 11 have been changed, post Day of the Doctor, from "the 9th/10th/11th incarnation to just "an incarnation". It seemed to me that this phrasing, to which we have now reverted, is vague and confusing for a reader not familiar with the show, and that clarifying that they are associated with an actor helps it make sense. Mezigue (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the poor sentence construction is equally confusing, as "the" appears to apply to the character first rather then the actor. It was ambiguous either way. With the sentences split, some clarity has been restored. — Edokter (talk) — 20:05, 7 December 2013 (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) 21:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If you can cite reliable sources and avoid original research, then be bold and go right ahead. DonQuixote (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The character's personality is covered by Ninth_Doctor#Characterisation. Most of the "personality" sections on other articles are neither encyclopaedic nor reliably sourced; they fail to "[avoid making] analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source Eshlare (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

War Doctor (McGann -> Hurt -> Eccleston)

I suggest that the War Doctor is placed between the Eleventh Doctor and the Twelfth Doctor in the sequence, as this is the order they will appear on-screen in real world time (so Smith -> Hurt -> Capaldi). This stops the War Doctor being 'orphaned' in the preceeding/suceeding sequence and keeps to Wikipedia's real world perspective rules. The pages for the Eleventh and Twelfth Doctors should also be changed accordingly.

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.61.85.254 (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The preceding edit showing that the previous doctor was John Hurt was right. It's the DW universe chronological timeline. (See The Night of the Doctor) XRGExChaos (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective and not from in-universe. DonQuixote (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Can we have both actors as preceding/succeeding then? Because only having the 8th and 9th connecting to each other, no one can get to the War Doctor article unless they are on the article listed above, minor articles, and The Day of the Doctor. XRGExChaos (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The question arises, is he notable yet to warrant a full article? Apart from that, he's already listed in the appropriate places akin to the Valeyard and the Dream Lord and he doesn't belong in a real-world information infobox. DonQuixote (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The Eighth Doctor visibly regenerated into Hurt's incarnation, immediately making him more significant than both of the above. The War Doctor article already deals with the fact that his character is not in its chronological place; I vote to list him as preceding. Luke Myer(talk) 17:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Eccleston was cast for the show after McGann. Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective. The fact that Hurt's character was created to fit inbetween the 8th and 9th Doctors can be mentioned as long as it's from a real world perspective and not in-universe. DonQuixote (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

ok so taking that into consideration and only using real world perspective where does Peter Cushings Doctor fit in to the chronology? The BBC themselves are referring to Hurt's doctor as a real 9th Doctor in their after show show they've specifically referred to there being 12 Doctors using your logic Hurt is the 12th doctor because he appeared on screen before Capaldi try using that logic in the 12 th doctor page Aprhys (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case, the chronological listing of the Doctor is going to become increasingly unclear as stories develop. Following The Night of the Doctor, a story penned by the show runner and published by the BBC - the War Doctor is confirmed to be a separate regeneration of the Doctor, something neither the Dream Lord nor the Valeyard were confirmed to be. Now Hurt's Doctor has had the "and introducing ... as the Doctor" as well as being seen to come out of a regeneration. He is an incarnation of the Doctor, not an aspect, that cannot be denied. If he cannot be placed under WP guidelines between McGann and Eccleston, then he must be placed between the Smith and Capaldi, given that he would have been cast after Smith but before Capaldi. Personally, I would say there is little merit to placing him there, but I cannot see how WP can say he is not the Doctor, when the BBC have gone out of their way to show he is. Ph 1980 (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of the chronological listings are for series leads. From a real world perspective, it's not confusing at all. Smith is the star from series 5 to the 2013 specials. Capaldi is the star of the programme after. Hurt played a previously unseen incarnation for one episode (plus had a cameo at the end of another). For any other mentions, which are usually for summaries of in-universe events, Hurt can be listed as having played an incarnation that fits between McGann's and Eccleston's. If we keep the real world separate from the fictional world, then everything makes sense and nothing is confusing. DonQuixote (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Real world" vs "in-universe" is too much of a timey wimey, wibbly wobbly mesh to uncover. As much as we all need relative continuity, I vote we should hold off on any changes with regard to Doctor regeneration continuity until we see how it's played out in the 50th anniversary special. Hopefully, it will be substantially resolved by then, and we won't have to wait for the Christmas special or beyond into the the 12th Doctor's tenure. Michaelopolis (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Given how he was redeemed throughout the story, plus how his image was shown in the ninth position during the ending credits, I would say John Hurt, at least in my mind, is the ninth doctor now. But until Steven Moffat confirms this (if he does) the articles will probably remain as they are 5.65.34.89 (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we need a proper discussion and a consensus agreement regarding the 'preceding' section. There has been a great debate/confusion as to whether numbering is affected by the introduction of War Doctor, but one thing there is zero confusion over is the FACT that War Doctor most definitely now precedes 9th Doctor. This is an on screen fact, we see it happen

As explained above by DonQuixote, the succession in the infobox is about the star of the programme, from a real-world perspective. This is the chronology of the television programme, not the character's biography. The John Hurt character need not appear in there. Mezigue (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/moffat-the-doctor-numbering-stays-exactly-the-same-55354.htm, which states that Ecclestone is the 9th doctor, regardless of DOTD. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The Night of the Doctor shows the regeneration of the Eigth Doctor into the War Doctor. But, as far as I know, there is no evidence that the War Doctor does precede the Ninth. Indeed, in the end of The day of the Doctor, we see that Hurt's incarnation is been regenerated, but Eccleston's does not appear as the next one. Why? There could be other incarnations between them. It seems the Steven Moffat has left the question open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.50.125 (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

More likely just due to Ecclestone not wanting to come back to Who. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

They could make a montage as they did before. But the problem is not to know why Eccleston does not appear after this regeneration, but whether this is a deleberate choice. Moffat did not confirm that Eccleston's incarnation succeedes Hurt's, did he ? I guess that nobody asked the question to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.50.125 (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite the result of the "previous incarnation" discussion, perhaps it would be wise to include a disambiguation at the start of the article, clarifying it's about the ninth incarnation to appear on screen, and to visit "War Doctor" for John Hurt's incarnation 96.226.142.125 (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Moffatt did clarify that Matt Smith's Doctor is the 12th body, therefore giving strong confirmation the War Doctor regenerates into the Ninth (Eccleston) Doctor: http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/24/doctor-who-steven-moffat-clears-up-the-whole-doctor-regeneration-problem-sort-of-4199592/ QUOTE: ‘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.’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.200.30 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In my view, the real-world-time is what's important, so preceded by Paul McGann works. The real problem is the name of the article. The special established McGann is the 8th Doctor and Hurt is the 9th, therefore Eccleston is the 10th Doctor, and the name of this article is wrong. Prof Wrong (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

All the sources thus far have referred to him as the Ninth Doctor. We can read that as the 9th version of the character on television rather than the in-universe 9th incarnation (8th regeneration). DonQuixote (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note we're talking about the chronology of the character of the Doctor in the fictional Dr. Who universe and not the real life order of Doctors, and we saw Hurt's character regenerate into Eccleston's at the end of Night of the Doctor. For instance I can think back to another fictional character from a video game and him and his brother's were listed in order of birth, not the order they appear in the games or on the voice actor's statistics, which instead were to be listed on their respective discographies and kept OFF the fictional universe. The incarnation that came before the CHARACTER of Eccleston's Doctor was Hurt's, plain and simple. Robo37 (talk) 20:58, 25 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) 19:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

One little pedantic niggle... Hurt is the 8th regeneration, because Hartnell's 1st Doctor was not a regeneration. Troughton, the second Doctor, was the Doctor's first regeneration. (TLDR: numbery-wumbery) Prof Wrong (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The ninth doctor is john hurt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjz317 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay so here's how I see it. John Hurt's Doctor is the ninth incarnation or the eighth regeneration, yes, but not the Ninth Doctor. There is no official or reliable source that has renamed them this way. Based on the end of "The Name of the Doctor", it appears that the Doctor does not consider that incarnation fit for the title, and this is reflected on the official website. The War Doctor is a "special" Doctor - a specially engineered regeneration, and for a one-off special. This article reflects that. As for preceeding, perhaps we can list both? Glimmer721 ^talk 16:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you people are even arguing over whether Hurt's Doctor should be considered the Ninth Doctor or not, simply proves just how sad and inbred Wikipedia has become. He's the Ninth. End. Of. Story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.139.102 (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Not without reliable sources he's not. WP:V trumps fan opinion every time. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

in the episode (and therefore the script)the people in the war room refer to 12 doctors surounding the planet , then one says that theres actually 13 - cut to capaldi .. , the script is surely the ultimate source ..so doesnt that clear everything up? 109.155.158.96 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well since Eccleston is no longer the 9th Doctor, the facts have been given out the War Doctor refers to himself as 'The Doctor' eventually in the episode, the fact that the time-lords see him as the 9th Doctor since they are refereed to 'all 13 Doctor' which would be impossible if the War Doctor wasn't counted and top of that he is the 9th regeneration of a Doctor, regardless of his choice to variation of a Doctor...he still is a Doctor so the title should still stick with the name 'The Doctor' since is has both been agreed by the Doctor and the Time-lords that he is 'The Doctor' which is a fact, the episode 'Day Of The Doctor' concretes this fact, the series is the official cannon for the source so there is no reason whatsoever that I can think of as to why this hasn't been changed yet. Wikipedia is not meant to be a debate group but a source of information to update wiki information so this should have been changed already since it's clearly obvious that the 9th Doctor page is out of date, is no longer relevant to what was previously mentioned on the page. I have seen no reason as to why this would be dismissed and attacking other members over disagreements is against the T & D. If the information isn't changed with the facts then it clearly is not up to Wikipedia standards --Ronnie42 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The BBC refers to Eccelston as the Ninth Doctor and Hurt as the "War Doctor" - this is the official BBC source and we should follow suit. Etron81 (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)