Jump to content

Talk:The Doctor/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Requested move 20 April 2015

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. 15 editors favor the proposed move; 4 are clearly opposed. WP:THE is a guideline that is subject to exceptions, and local consensus can establish such an exception with appropriate evidence, in this case with compelling evidence of predominant use as "The Doctor". bd2412 T 17:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Doctor (Doctor Who) → The Doctor (Doctor Who) – This is both his actual name and the most common name. No one says that David Tennant, Matt Smith, Peter Capaldi, etc. have played "Doctor", they say they've played "The Doctor". I know there's a rule about names starting with "The", but come on - you can't seriously say that this doesn't make sense. Unreal7 (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The last discussion on this matter was in July 2014. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
"doctor who" AND ("time lord" OR "tardis" OR "gallifrey" OR "sonic screwdriver" OR "dalek") AND "i am the doctor" gets "About 506 results" in books while
"doctor who" AND ("time lord" OR "tardis" OR "gallifrey" OR "sonic screwdriver" OR "dalek") AND "i am doctor" gets "About 62 results" in books with results including "But I'm happy where I am, Doctor." and "What if I am, Doctor?"
  • as per the way others refer to him - see searches:
"doctor who" AND ("time lord" OR "tardis" OR "gallifrey" OR "sonic screwdriver" OR "dalek") AND "help the doctor" gets "About 535 results" in books
"doctor who" AND ("time lord" OR "tardis" OR "gallifrey" OR "sonic screwdriver" OR "dalek") AND "help doctor" gets "About 45 results" in books with results including "I need your help. Doctor?" and "Help Doctor come home."
  • As per titles of episodes with "doctor" in the title:
"A Holiday for the Doctor"
"The Death of Doctor Who"
"Doctor Who and the Silurians"
"The Three Doctors" They have done a few of this type of plot with different regenerations of the doctor getting to the same place at the same time and meeting
"The Two Doctors"
"The Doctor Dances"
"The Doctor's Daughter"
"The Next Doctor"
"Vincent and the Doctor"
"The Doctor's Wife"
"The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe"
"The Name of the Doctor"
"The Day of the Doctor"
"The Time of the Doctor"
In the words of the ninth doctor, "fantastic".
GregKaye 22:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:THE and the fact he's referred to as "the Doctor", not "The Doctor". Characters in the show call him just "Doctor" when speaking to him directly, but "the Doctor" when referring to him, so there is a conflict, so I think we should go with what WP:THE says. –anemoneprojectors– 14:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. As per AnemoneProjectors comment, we are referring to him (out-of-universe), so the article should be "The Doctor". We are (obviously) not speaking to the character directly (in-of-universe). Alex|The|Whovian 14:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This would also then mean that we should move The Beatles → Beatles (band) as per many contents such as "Elvis meets the Beatles". GregKaye 16:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
We should maybe often remember that these "rules" and "policies" are guidelines, and the pages themselves advocate occasional exceptions. There are lots (thousands? tens of thousands?) of pages on Wikipedia which adhere to the strict 'no-The' in the title language. Yet there are others which are the exception. This seems like it could easily be one of those. Randy Kryn 3:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. AnemoneProjectors hits the nail on the head. MarnetteD|Talk 14:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support "Doctor" without the article is rather clumsy. Mezigue (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm personally in favor of scaling back the scope of WP:THE, but even given the guideline as written, one of the cases it mentions is when "X" and "The X" are qualitatively different - which they are here. There are Doctors in Doctor Who, and there is The Doctor. SnowFire (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support SnowFire's point on WP:THE is well taken, and I believe accurate. As someone who watches the show religiously (and has from before "New Who" began in 2005) he is The Doctor, capital T, and that's how fans of the show refer to him. Even in-universe it is a capital T, such as when Tom Baker, as the Fourth Doctor, stated when he first regenerated (while talking to a doctor, i.e. a human MD) "You might be a doctor, but I'm THE Doctor. The definite article you might say". Vyselink (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, not for nothing, but the first time I went to search for The Doctor I typed in The Doctor and got sent to the disambig page. Vyselink (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
admittedly we do have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)
We also have WP:UCRN which is of more fundamental import. GregKaye 16:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you haven't read it before you will want to take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, as yet, despite the assertion by the OP (and others) no WP:RS has been provided that verifies that the characters name is "The Doctor". We could ask River I guess. Until it is I would prefer this page be moved to "My dear Doctor" as I will hear Anthony Ainley's Master saying that until me next regeration. MarnetteD|Talk 16:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
See comparative search on (John OR Paul OR George OR Ringo) AND "my favourite Beatle". GregKaye 17:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It makes sense. Witty Bastard (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per SnowFire. There are various doctors, but on Doctor Who, "The Doctor" is a distinct particular character. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    I'd like to take this opportunity to amplify my prior remark and that of Snowfire. This move is actually supported by WP:THE, which says that (regardless of whether we would capitalize "the" in running text or not) we should include the "the" in the case where "a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article". In this case, the word "the" affects the meaning. Here, "the Doctor" is a particular character, but "doctor" could be any doctor. "Doctor" might be "the Doctor", or it might be someone else. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
    In this context, it doesn't have a different meaning; both variations refer to the same character, and he is addressed as both. Therefor WP:THE does not support the move. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Clara Oswald. I've never seen this page and it's odd to just see it named "Doctor". He's of course 'The Doctor'. Although only River Song knows his real name, and if we knew it there'd be no doubt what the page name should be named. As for now 'The Doctor' should suffice. (question. why isn't the page named 'Doctor Who (character)'? Randy Kryn 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:DEFINITE and WP:THE (point 2). The reasoning is simple enough: "the" in "the Doctor" is used as a definite article that denotes a proper noun. Therefor, it should not be part of the title. All the other examples given above show the definite article as part or title of a work ("The Next Doctor"), where it is part of the article title. Let us maintain this consistency. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
At risk of further wiki-blasphemy, it's possible that our way may not be the best. For instance we have an article Good and evil and Good (religion) while Britannica inc. presents such contents as Plato's ethical philosophy of The Good. GregKaye 23:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - WP:IAR if we ever needed it anywhere. This is WP:COMMONNAME Red Slash 02:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think it meets either test at WP:THE. In running text, it's the Doctor, not The Doctor. And the the is dropped when people are addressing him, so I don't think it is really integral to his name in the sense of the examples given for the other test. I think this case is more like Joker (comics).--Trystan (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    His "real" name isn't Doctor, that's a title, probably a nickname (he's a Time Lord, not a Doctor). Yes, people often call him "Doctor" to his face, but call him "The Doctor" as his common name. That's how people in his universe who know him, know him. Only River Song knew/knows his real name (or am I wrong in that?). I bet he eventually tells Clara. Randy Kryn 3:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Usually I oppose use of the definite article in article titles, but in this instance dogmatism just makes the title look daft. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment it may be interpretation by characters but:
Fourth Doctor - Tom Baker in "Robot":
HARRY: There you are. Now come along, Doctor, you're supposed to be in the sick bay.
DOCTOR: Am I? Don't you mean the infirmary?
HARRY: No, I do not mean the infirmary. I mean the sick bay. You're not fit yet.
DOCTOR: Not fit? I'm the Doctor.
HARRY: No, Doctor, I'm the doctor and I say that you're not fit.
DOCTOR: You may be a doctor, but I'm the Doctor. The definite article, you might say.
Similar names can also be considered in the third person:
from episode "The End of Time" in the Tennant era:
GOVERNOR: And this was written also, for his name is the Master! ...
MASTER: My name is the Master. ...
Its also a chosen "name" which only uses the definite article in the third person sense in which Wikipedia articles are written. First person references from "The Sound of Drums" include:
(The Master transfers the call to his mobile.)
MASTER: Doctor.
DOCTOR: Master.
MASTER: I like it when you use my name.
DOCTOR: You chose it. Psychiatrist's field day.
MASTER: As you chose yours. The man who makes people better. How sanctimonious is that?
This still comes in the context of ~117 uses of "I'm the doctor"
GregKaye 00:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Summary. He constantly refers to himself as The Doctor. It plays no role what other people call him. Witty Bastard (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
That is because it is a grammatical requirement; That still does not mean that "the" is part of his name. He happens to have chosen a proper noun as his name, and that is what imposes the use of the definite article, in some but not all cases. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The Doctor has already proven that he's not a grammar nazi in The Sontaran Stratagem, so your argument doesn't apply. Witty Bastard (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Last I heard, the Doctor is not an editor here. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the reason for that is because he often avoids websites that don't hold his proper title. Witty Bastard (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The following is presented in case a future WP:bureaucrat might seek to move the title back.
WP:NATURALNESS can rationally be interpreted to say: "Wording within the title is of a form that ... editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles..." In a search via - Special:WhatLinksHere/Doctor_(Doctor_Who) the items listed are:
  1. Douglas Adams where the text presents "[[Doctor (Doctor Who)|the Doctor's]] [[TARDIS]]";
  2. Doctor Who where the text presents "The programme depicts the adventures of [[Doctor (Doctor Who)|the Doctor]], a [[Time Lord]]..." but which also presents " a rogue [[Time Lord]] from the planet [[Gallifrey]] who simply goes by the name "[[Doctor (Doctor Who)|Doctor]]"";
  3. Dandy where the text presents "[[Third Doctor|Jon Pertwee's portrayal]] of [[Doctor (Doctor Who)|The Doctor]]";
  4. Davros where the text presents "Davros is an [[archenemy]] of [[Doctor (Doctor Who)|the Doctor]]";
  5. Dalek where the text curiously presents "the [[Time Lord]] known as the [[The Doctor (Doctor Who)|Doctor]]";
  6. Empire State Building where the text presents "[[Doctor (Doctor Who)|The Doctor]] and his companions leave quite quickly,";
  7. Gallifrey where the text presents "| people=[[Doctor (Doctor Who)|The Doctor]], [[Master (Doctor Who)|The Master]], [[Romana (Doctor Who)|Romana]], [[Rani (Doctor Who)|The Rani]], [[Susan Foreman]], [[Meddling Monk|The Meddling Monk]], [[Rassilon]], [[Omega (Doctor Who)|Omega]], [[The Armageddon Factor#Plot|Drax]], [[Professor Chronotis]], [[Planet of the Spiders#Plot|K'anpo]], [[List of Doctor Who villains#Morbius|Morbius]], [[Borusa#Borusa|Borusa]], [[The War Chief#War Chief|The War Chief]]", "the home world of [[Doctor (Doctor Who)|the Doctor]] and the [[Time Lord]]s" and, in the context of a ue of "genetic looms, "[[Doctor (Doctor Who)|The Doctor]] was loomed in the House of Lungbarrow";
  8. Knock-knock joke where the text curiously presents "(Doctor.) ... ([[Doctor (Doctor Who)|Doctor who]]?)";
  9. Liverpool where the text presents "[[Tom Baker]] ([[Fourth Doctor|fourth incarnation]] of [[Doctor (Doctor Who)|the Doctor]] in ''[[Doctor Who]]''", and
  10. Sonic screwdriver where the text presents "used by [[Doctor (Doctor Who)|The Doctor]]".
GregKaye 07:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Those need to be fixed. As "The" is not part of the title (as explained above), they should not be part of the link. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what we're trying to determine whether it should happen or not in this very conversation... Alex|The|Whovian 08:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The ones that capitalize "The" in the middle of a sentence are clearly wrong and should be fixed. It would be good to be more standard about the others. It does look odd to have articles that use the Doctor but also talk about the Fourth Doctor, etc. Naturally my preference is to exclude the "the" from all such links.--Trystan (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Counts removed. Please let the closer determine consensus. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't attempting to determine consensus, but since the counts aren't numbered, and this promises to go on for a while, figured periodic count breaks would be easier to determine when the closer does close. Sorry for trying to be helpful. Won't happen again. Vyselink (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a vote, so a count is irrelevant. The closing editor determines consensus based on arguments. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
That may be true in your private world. In our world, the word consensus means a general agreement. Witty Bastard (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You may want to review WP:CONSENSUS. In Wikipedia world, it means what I said. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Right, Wikipedia is not written by renowned scholars, hence this request for renaming. Witty Bastard (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, it seems like a much more natural way to refer to the character. (I wouldn't be opposed to The Doctor either - I'm sure the vast majority of people who search Wikipedia for that string are indeed looking for this article.) —Flax5 14:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
    The Doctor is already redirecting to Doctor... Let's not have that discussion again. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:the. The example of script given above while interesting is irrelevant as scripts have their own peculiar style of writing, of which such abbreviations are just one of many traditions. Andrewa (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Week support I know wikis rules on starting with 'the', but I think that the more common name in the show is 'the doctor', as when the doctor introduces himself it's usualy as 'the doctor' rather than just 'doctor', so I think it falls into an exception. 94.5.45.222 (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
What does "week support" mean? That's like answering a Yes/No question with "week yes," hoping that after a week it's still Yes. 79.120.10.103 (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It's a bit controversial, but as an admin who closes a great many RMs I find votes such as weak support or weak oppose are most often very helpful both in assessing and in building consensus. Even others I've seen such as weakest possible oppose have been equally helpful as they are generally well and thoughtfully explained. But not every admin feels this way I know. Andrewa (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I think 79.120.10.103 was just being ironic, as 94.5.45.222 said "week support" instead of "weak support". Unreal7 (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I wondered about that myself. A smiley might have helped (I use (;-> as a balding bearded man who likes levity). But my points I hope stand in general, and will I hope encourage thoughtful votes however expressed. Andrewa (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not too sure what to think of people who go to an election with a "weakest support" mindset. As for the "strong oppose," that doesn't make your vote any more significant than others' simple "support." 79.120.10.103 (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest that weakest support simply means that they're attempting to be helpful in a situation where they see arguments both ways, but a decision still needs to be made one way or another. Agree that the strong oppose doesn't make a vote more significant. It is simply an alert that this editor sees only one side to the discussion, for better or worse. As I said above, I find such flags helpful, but I certainly don't give such arguments more weight than they'd have if they simply said support. Probably on average, these are the less interesting posts, as they tend to be in polarised debates and tend to say nothing new! I would rarely use such a flag myself, partly for that reason, but I do occasionally, if I think it will be helpful to the closing admin. Andrewa (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
That's my point, one is polarised and the other is uninformed. Best get informed first, or even just making a gut-vote is better than the alternatives. 79.120.10.103 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, just to reiterate my original point, that's not the way it has worked in my experience. Allowing these variations is part of the creative messiness of Wikipedia, and I value it. Andrewa (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Right, you talk about messiness, I talk about clarity. I've also noticed that you voted "Support" without an adjective. 79.120.10.103 (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as I stated before, I normally do vote without an adjective. I recommend this in most cases, but there are times when the adjective helps to achieve clarity and consensus, in my opinion. I accept that you don't agree. It is controversial as I also stated above. Andrewa (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Geez, calm down, admin. 79.120.10.103 (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I've offended you. I really don't see how, other than by not sharing your opinion, which I do respect. Andrewa (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, you haven't offended me. Chill. 79.120.10.103 (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The show's credits have referred to the character in three ways over the years "Doctor Who", "Dr Who" and "The Doctor" and currently they use "The Doctor". I feel this make the choice clear Dresken (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Table of appearances of incarnations

An editor has created a comprehensive but rather unwieldy table of, if I may say so without giving offense, dubious value from the point of view of an encyclopedia. In my opinion, this is highly fancrufty: such works, which obsess over details, may be quite satisfying to some fans, but they have no place in an encyclopedic article which is meant to introduce the topic to a casual reader, who is more likely to be put off by, if not overwhelmed by, what looks like a meaningless spreadsheet full of ordinal numbers and the word Doctor. I am being bold and removing it. I'm not saying this is the only example in the article that doesn't belong (there are tags here for OR for a reason), but at present it's the one that stands out the most and the one I can do something about without, I hope, major objections. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am a massive fan of Doctor Who, and that chart was awesome.........but yeah, it didn't really need to be there and I for one have no objections to it being removed. The information is still there in word form anyway. Vyselink (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Vyelink, awesome but doesn't need to be in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
If anything I'd prefer to remove the information "in word form" ... a picture paints a thousand words: diagrams give a much greater level of comprehension, for example, it visualises the duration of a Doctor's incarnation far easier than comparing dates in written form. Wikipedia is full of millions of pages of dense prose no-one has any time to read. As much as possible should be in tabular, diagramatic or visual form. Discuss. Wdcf (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Support in principle. Well said. Andrewa (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Are we discussing the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Doctor_(Doctor_Who)&oldid=661588946#Changing_faces showing Actor Incarnation No. of seasons No. of episodes Original start date Original end date etc? If so removing this content would seem pure vandalism to me. It's encyclopedic, not WP:OR as we define the term, in short good content. If you think the article can be improved by its removal, then first find some other place for it... a list article, for example... and link this article to its new location and vice versa. But I think it's well positioned where it is. Andrewa (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure they mean the chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Doctor_(Doctor_Who)&oldid=646752841#Changing_faces Alex|The|Whovian 09:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we want to keep the chart! Wdcf (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, depending on which one you are talking about. The one that User:Andrewa talked about (which is part of the article anyway) should obviously stay. The one that User:AlexTheWhovian links to is far to unwieldy imo. And while this has no bearing on anything here, part of the problem with the world today is that too many people want the easy way out instead of actually reading/discovering new information. But that's just an aside. Vyselink (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Doctors real name

Is Chrístõdavõreendiamondhærtmallõupdracœfiredelúnmiancuimhne de Lœngbærrow his real name? It was included on an edit at my old account here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Doctor_(Doctor_Who)&diff=prev&oldid=345030839 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Doctor_(Doctor_Who)&oldid=345030839 I now come bearing references https://brianofmorbius.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/the-doctors-name-revealed/ http://www.craveonline.co.uk/tv/articles/196825-ask-the-experts-what-is-the-doctors-real-name https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130409010011AA1AItk http://timelordcurse.com/post/93750020750/headcanon-facts-063 http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_Doctor_Who's_name http://www.reddit.com/r/doctorwho/comments/1cqu00/these_guys_seriously_dont_want_to_know_the/c9jdu00 http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/doctor-who/answers/show/47898/what-doctors-real-name --Iady391 | Talk to me here 12:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The Doctor's real name is unknown, and none of those sources you gave are even remotely reliable. Vyselink (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Capaldi image

I don't like the picture chosen for the Twelfth Doctor in the lead image. I think it's the stark white background, when all the others have something a bit more lively. He just doesn't seem to fit in. I think this would work better. From what I can tell, it should be covered by the current fair use justification. If nobody objects, I'll work on making the change myself. CountGrasshopper (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please wait until we agree on an image. We cannot just grab any image off the internet; it will need to be properly sourced, meaning it can be traced to the proper copyright holder. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Need to make sure no copyright's are violated, and then we need to agree on an image. With that being said, if the one that CountGrasshopper suggested fits the first criteria, I do like that picture. Vyselink (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Like the one currently being used, it's a promotional image from the BBC. I believe the same fair use criteria should apply. Here's a link to it in a gallery: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02940b7/p029408z I've already made a version using it, which I put on Imgur here: http://imgur.com/BGVQZxY I'm open-minded if people think another image would work better. CountGrasshopper(talk) 17:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is OK. Still, to be a little consistent in the new series, I'd prefer a promo image instead of an episode shot. The current image for the 12th Doctor on the BBC page is the same image, but with a backdrop, so no white. How about that one? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It'd be an improvement, although the very dynamic pose does stick out a bit. What about something cropped from this,this, or this? They're promo images, not screenshots directly from the episodes. CountGrasshopper (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the second one. Third is a definite no for me, first one's just ok. Vyselink (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this discussion is dead at this point, or if y'all would have any way of seeing this, but I really like this promo image of Capaldi. Any chance of it being included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CountGrasshopper (talk • contribs) 01:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Species

A recent edit (see here) reverted a change made to the species from Gallifreyan back to Time Lord. I was under the impression that the Doctor was a Gallifreyan by species, but a Time Lord by training, decision etc. It'd be like changing Obama's species to "President" rather than human. If this has already been discussed I missed it, but it seemed like a salient point. Vyselink (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The sources are inconsistent in that they also use Time Lord to mean species. Although it's tempting to correct them, that's not our job. DonQuixote (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Besides, Gallifreyan redirects to Time Lord anyways. Alex|The|Whovian 03:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Vyselink (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but how many people had met Gallifreyans who weren't Time Lords. It would be easy to assume that Gallifreyan = Time Lord, when in fact that not all Gallifreyans are Time Lords but all (save one, according to McGann's Doctor) is pure Gallifreyan. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the Doctor half-human?

The Doctor is at least partly human, as per statements by McGann in the DW film. I know that there are purists out there squealing that the Doctor is pure Gallifreyan, and that's all fine and dandy, but once its on film, that's it. Argument over. As this has come up before in Archive 2, and I've been reverted twice in simply stating the fact, I've taken the opportunity to add a few references to back up that fact.
Now, you are allowed to your own opinions as to the usefulness of that fact, but you are not allowed your own facts. The Doctor is half-human. Period. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't work, nor the two sources you provide, as both of those are speculative and not authoritative. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, Masem; perhaps you could specify what about the sources presented (and the several dozen more that could easily be presented) makes the less than "authoritative". Because the litmus for inclusion is reliability and verifiability, not truth. We are not in the position to let our fanboy cravings come into play but instead to point out the informaiton presented. We have information from the character's own mouth. How is that not authoritative? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Neither source is 1) the BBC, the authorities on the character or 2) outright saying "the Doctor is half-human", but putting forth theories why one line in one bit of media should be held true. If the BBC came out tomorrow and said "Yes the doctor is half-human", then hey, there we go. But a one-off line out of however total many hours is really not sufficient to justify something that contentious. We can have a discussion of whether that half-human line is meant to be taken in the body, but not treat it as fact without a stronger source. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
It was confirmed overtly in the TV Movie which is canon, it was confirmed last night in Hell Bent which is canon. You don't like it and I get that but it is what it is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.141.179 (talk)
(edit conflict) Items from the characters mouth are a WP:PRIMARY source. This half-human stuff, has not been applied to any Dr except for McGann's. Thus your claim that it "must" apply to all other incarnations of the Dr is just WP:SPECULATION, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR and is a "fanboy craving" as well. Information in this or any article needs reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. FWIW as it is presented in "Hell Bent" Me (Ishilda) speculates about the Doctor's lineage - nothing definitive is stated onscreen. Moffat has a way of playing a long game with things. In tonight's episode there were references to events from all manner of episodes of the current series and even a couple of things from the Classic episodes. WikiP's articles should not be guessing where the story will go. MarnetteD|Talk 05:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
You are right, Masem, neither source - while being reliable sources in their own right - was from the BBC; this one, however, is. McGann saying, within the body of the source material itself is in fact, incontrovertible. That it makes every fanboy lose their shit over this is - and I stress this fact to the nth degree - is unimportant.
That said, Marnette does make a valid point. Not about the bits about Speculation, OR and Synthesis, of course (you both should know by now that I understand the Synthesis policy better than most). The point that Moffat plays the cagey long game means that we won't really have something that shuts the fanboy continuum up until it is written with crayon in large friendly letters. I'm willing to wait until that happens. See? I can be reasoned with.
So, since it is part of the series, and it is exceptionally well-documented in several otherwise reliable sources (BBC, Telegraph, Cinema Blend, etc.), I think it should be mentioned in the body of the article. Furthermore, if we are going to argue that there isn't enough (!) evidence that his lineage isn't partly human, then we have to state that he is, in fact, Gallifreyan, not Time Lord. Time Lord is a job, a calling, it isn't a different species. That would be like a person from Brooklyn, America going to another planet and everyone there presuming that our world is this mystical place called Brooklyn, Newyawk, 'Merica.
We have seen material on-screen and via secondary material that clearly states that he is from Gallifrey. So, now point out why (with sources from the BBC itself, Masem) this needs to be anything different than that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The one off line from from movie, which even some of the sources could say was just a rouse to fool the master, has nothing else well established to back it up, and the use of it in Help Bent is not direct enough to say it is confirmed as to concretely say it is fact. Also Time Lord's are different species than the other native Gallifreyians, not least in their ability to regenerate, again a fact established on the show clearly. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
If it were ruse to fool the Master, wouldn't it be somewhat important that he said it, you know, to the Master? This was said to a person who he had little reason to lie to. As for the the Time Lord being a separate species from Gallifreyans, you should feel entirely free to reference that to a source that doesn't arise from some fancruft collection of wild theories. Maybe quote the BBC.... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Have to say that I agree, its not a welcome plot development but it is there and should be on the page as such, last night's episode had several overt plot points that revolved around him being half human, including not being sure if the mind wipe would work on him or not properly. I vote for the page to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.141.179 (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Just watched "Hell Bent". First, I am someone who greatly wishes the Doctor to be half-human, I think it would be fantastic for the show and the character. With that being said, how in your cotton picking minds do you think that "Hell Bent" confirmed anything? There was SOME suggestion that he MIGHT be, but it is FAR from certain.

A) The neuro block was stated to be human COMPATIBLE, not human ONLY, and as it was obviously originally designed to work on Time Lords/Gallifreyan's it had the possibility of being made to work on him. The idea that it might not work on him properly came from the fact that Clara messed with it. He said "I'm not sure that you reversed the polarity. I'm not even sure you can." Hardly solid. He also said "it'll do something, to one of us" acknowledging that he was unsure what exactly her messing with it did.

I could argue just as logically that she managed to make it either NOT for humans and ONLY for Time Lords (i.e. no longer human compatible) or not for Time Lords and ONLY for humans, and that the Doctor was unsure which it was, thus the "it will do something to one of us". Had the Doctor been half-human, and it had been changed to the second option (only for humans) The Doctor more likely would have said "it might do something to both of us" knowing his half-human side could have been affected. But he didn't. He said "it will do something to one of us", which greatly implies that he is not half-human (sadly).

B) The Hybrid myth was quite obviously left completely open to interpretation. Ashildr's hypothetical "It could be two people" was a valid one. I will admit I was fanboying over the whole "why do you spend so much time on earth?" question and the look that The Doctor gave (it would have been so awesome if he had just said YES!!!!!), but again it's not solid, certainly not enough for changing anything. As for the "he became the Hybrid" line at the end, that was clearly in reference to him becoming the one that "threatens all of time and space". Which is exactly what he became, especially if the "two people" theory that Ashildr advanced was right. Thus, to stop being the Hybrid, one of them had to forget. As The Doctor said "This has to stop, one of us has to go". That actually gives more weight to Ashildr's two person-Hybrid theory.

C) Let's go back to McGann's whole "half-human" thing. For one that has never been confirmed by the BBC or any other reliable source, insofar as I have found, and I've looked. Two, even the source given from the BBC above (I'll repost it here) also has a section ("Analysis") that clearly shows that this "Americanized" version of Doctor Who had a bunch of rather ridiculous things in it (such as poking fun at The Doctors accent and English people clearly enjoying tea) in order to poke fun at American stereotypes of Britain and to make it more American. One of these "more American" things, and I cut and paste "And the Doctor's reference to the TARDIS having a 'cloaking device' certainly owes more to the quintessentially American Star Trek than to 'classic' Doctor Who, as does the whole notion of him being half human." That is FAR from confirmation. The word "human" is found 7 times in the text of the page. The first one is in the description of the plot, which can be disregarded as any mention of the plot would include the fact that, in the TV movie, The Doctor said he was half-human on his mother's side. That's not proof, just a restating of what was said in the film. The second is about Time-Lord regeneration sometimes assuming a snakelike body instead of a fully human one. The third just tells us that the 20th century was the "Humanian Era". The fourth restates the plot point. The fifth and sixth are disdainful of the revelation that he is half-human. And the seventh mentions that the revelation is contentious, but offers no further evidence for or against.

Also, at the bottom of that page, it clearly states that "This episode guide is made up of the text of The Discontinuity Guide by Paul Cornell, Martin Day and Keith Topping, and Doctor Who: The Television Companion by David J. Howe and Stephen James Walker." Which means that the BBC found it useful in order to explain the film, but it is clearly not confirming anything.

I'm sorry, but while I believe that the debate should probably be mentioned in the page, as of now the infobox should read "Gallifreyan" (not, and this is another discussion, Time Lord) as there simply is not reliable source that states otherwise. Vyselink (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I just took a look at the two sources added by the IP as proof.

The first one (here) is completely useless insofar as answering this question is concerned, as forgetting RS issues, the author clearly states that he has NO INTENTION of answering the question of if he is or not. Cut/paste "If you want the exact truth, go find it yourself. That’s not why I’m here. I’m here to ask a different question entirely. Instead of asking how the Doctor can or cannot be half-human, we should ask why. Why can’t he be half-human? What’s wrong with him being half-human? What does this do to the show?" The author then spends the rest of the article answering those questions, not stating he is/is not half-human.

The second one (here) again does not answer the question. Again, RS issues aside, the "evidence" is a single quote from Davies that is ambiguous at best. "I don’t like the half-human thing. He certainly isn’t half-human, but it’s less interesting to say it simply doesn’t count. I always wanted to put in a line where someone says to the Doctor ‘are you human?’ and the Doctor says ‘no, but I was once in 1999. It was a 24 hour bunk.’ Part of the reason I never put that in was it was a bit too self-referential but also I thought I’m spoiling the TV movie if I do that. In that time, like it or not, the Doctor was half human. Everything in that story says he was half human, so you can’t not count it. I don’t think we can ignore it."

That quote both definitely says he's not half-human, and then says "but he might have been once but maybe that was a joke". If anything, it confirms the idea that The Doctor is NOT half-human (dammit) but that they just haven't dealt with it yet. Vyselink (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of coverage on the issue from reliable sources, and after "Hell Bent" this will only increase. Perhaps we should just add an "Ancestry" section where we can simply lay out all the facts? —Flax5 22:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
A brief summary (like, a couple of sentences) can fit into "Physiology" on this, but we need to remain clear that the answer is unclear. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I guess I could live with that, given the lack of clarity towards the issue. Naturally, I'm on guard against fancruft nonsense, but the (real world) back and forth on this deserves mention as well as the incongruous threads pointing one way or the other. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

John Hurt in the main image

I understand the arguent that the image is only for series leads and it's already been debated to death but can we revisit it in the wake of the news that he's taking the lead in a series of Big Finish audio plays (http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-10-05/john-hurt-to-return-as-the-war-doctor-in-new-doctor-who-audio-plays)? Albeit not on television, we will now have a retrospective 'John Hurt era' of Doctor Who in which Hurt himself plays the lead role. 2.217.43.88 (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

He still didn't play the lead part in the TV show, so that has not changed. Mezigue (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
But this article is about the character, not the TV show. The TV show has its own seperate article, this is an article about a character who appears across various different media, and indeed other media are referenced in the article, so it seems odd to make that distinction. By this time next year Hurt will have played the lead as the Doctor in more stories than Eccleston, plus he's been in novels, short stories, comics and a movie-length TV story watched by countless millions in 100 countries. At this point arguing that he's not notable enough to warrant inclusion looks like a ridiculous position.2.220.87.30 (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Doctor Who is primarily a television show and most Wikipedia articles reflect this. If you're more interested in a detailed in-universe approach, you might be happier visiting sites likes wikia (tardis.wikia.com) Mezigue (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Who brought 'in-universe' into the discussion? Not me. Doctor Who is - in the real world - a multi-media franchise, a fact that is noted in the second sentence of this very article. Of course the TV show is the primary medium through which most people experience it, but it isn't the only one. If this article is only concerned with 'the Doctor as portrayed by the lead actors on TV' then the title should be changed to reflect that and the (many) references to other media should be removed. 2.220.87.30 (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes but it is the TV show that is a cultural phenomenon - the spin-off stuff is more a specialist interest. I am also not sure how John Hurt is in novels, short stories and comics to be honest. Mezigue (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Clearly I'm referring to 'the John Hurt incarnation of the Doctor'. Anyway, as I say I see nothing in the title or context of the article to disqualify John Hurt from the image, especially now that in a 'real-world' context he is playing the lead in his own (audio) series. As I noted above, this article is not for the TV show - which has its own seperate article - it is about the character who appears in many different mediums, a fact that the text of the article refers to multiple times. If the audios are viewed as notable enough to be referred to and quoted from within the text, I see absolutely no reason why starring in them does not make Hurt notable enough to be acknowledged.2.220.87.30 (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Put simply: Just as Alex Macqueen plays The Master in the Big Finish Audio productions and is not included in The Master's article, John Hurt will play The Doctor in the Big Finish Audio productions and is not included in The Doctor's article. Also, the very first line of the article is "The Doctor is the title character and protagonist in the long-running BBC science fiction television series Doctor Who.". And you say that it's not about the television series? Alex|The|Whovian 00:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
At the risk of prolonging the argument, perhaps both those are wrong; I would strongly argue that both McQueen and Hurt warrant inclusion in their respective articles. Besides, they are hardly the same - McQueen's Master originates in audio and has never appeared on TV or in any other medium. Hurt's Doctor was originated on TV and has also appeared numerous times in print media before being given his own audio series. He's much more widely recognised and notable than McQueen's Master.2.220.87.30 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
"Also, the very first line of the article is "The Doctor is the title character and protagonist in the long-running BBC science fiction television series Doctor Who.". And you say that it's not about the television series?" I'm saying this is not the article for the TV series. It is the article for the character and encompasses all the different mediums in which he appears.2.220.87.30 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
We don't have to have a picture of every actor who played the Doctor (or the Master). We can limit ourselves to the most important ones, and series lead is more important than guest star and original medium is more important than depictions in other media. DonQuixote (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
If the secondary media are are not considered to be of particular importance or notability, why are numerous characters who only appear in them and never on the TV show (Benny, Iris, Chris & Roz and Hex to name only a few) considered notable enough to warrant seperate articles? Here's a further thought; if we're not allowed to include a 'guest' incarnation because of (your interpretation of) Wikipedia's rules on notability and real-world perspective, how does the USS Enterprise article get away with including images of and details about the Enterprise B and Enterprise C? Exactly like the War Doctor they never headlined their own TV episodes and only appeared as 'guests' retroactively during the Enterprise D era of the show, yet the article treats them as no less important or notable than the 'main' versions. I don't see any sign of it being taken down for breaching Wikipedia guidelines.2.218.83.128 (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Anything can get an article if there are numerous respectable sources covering it and offering commentary. Whether an infobox should distinguish between characters in the TV show and characters in other media is a separate issue. —Flax5 08:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps but the purpose of this article is to offer a conceptual and biographical history of the character, which draws from all sources including audio stories. As I said, the article itself makes no distinction between TV stories and stories from other media and quotes widely from both.2.218.83.128 (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, the text of the article implies that it considers the TV movie to be a seperate entity to the TV show and lists it among spin-off media alongside the audios, novels and the Cushing films. So if we are applying these rules to the letter McGann should be removed from the infobox too.2.218.83.128 (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
All those are already mentioned in the article in the appropriate places and in the appropriate tone. We can include a picture of every actor who has played the Doctor in the infobx, but that would be unwieldy (see List of actors who have played the Doctor). It would be unwieldy even if we included just the guest actors (Richard Hurndall and Michael Jayston as well as John Hurt). And that is why we have limited ourselves to series leads (and McGann is considered a series lead by most reliable sources). Series lead will always be more important than a guest star. DonQuixote (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, nobody is petitioning for Hurndall or Jayston to be added. Neither is as notable, both in-universe and in the real-world, as Hurt - Hurndall's Doctor doesn't even have his own article (correctly, since he's a stand-in playing the incarnation originated by Hartnell, he's included in that article) and so doesn't belong in an infobox anyway since the purpose of an infobox is to simplify navigation between articles. Secondly, if adding a further three faces to the infobox would make it 'unwieldy', what are we going to do in a few years time when the Fifteenth Doctor is cast? Who is going to have to have their image removed? Is the infobox going to be removed altogether?2.218.83.128 (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
You're petitioning for a guest actor to be included. If we were to do that, then we should include every guest actor and not just the one that you like. Hurt's importance, from a real-world perspective, is that he was a guest actor--just like the other two. The infobox is for quick information for a general audience. Series leads are the most important actors for a television programme (which in turn is the original medium). Following those criteria, the image as-is is fine and does not need to be amended because you think a single guest actor is more important than all the other guest actors. DonQuixote (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not petitioning for a guest actor, I'm petitioning for a lead actor from a different medium. Which has been my position from my first post, despite multiple people attempting to misrepresent me. For clarity, one more time, this is not an article about a TV show. There is an article about "Doctor Who the TV series" which is a seperate article serving a different purpose. This is an article about a character who originated on TV before migrating into other media. The article is happy to accept the existence of these other media, to talk about them, reference them, quote from them. It appears to make no distinction in terms of notability between TV stories, novels, comics and audios. Yet on just this one specific issue the TV series is the be-all-and-end-all and the audios are to be treated as a minority-interest thing which isn't really worth factoring into the discussion. Which is quite apart from the fact that the article treats the TVM as a seperate entity from the TV show too but McGann is still in the infobox. Since we're clearly getting nowhere I'll drop the matter here but I hope people will look back and reflect on a. whether the 'rules' applied to this article actually make any sense and b. whether they're being applied with any consistancy. Because if this article is being run based on the whims and personal prejudices of a small group of users it's not really ever going to be of the quality we all want it to be.2.218.83.128 (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And, as it has been pointed out, the original work holds more weight than derivative works--especially when it comes to highlighting the important actors in the infobox. We can host a picture of every actor to play the part, but that would be a large collage. The simplest is the lead actors in the original work. As to Hurt and the radio plays, yes he's a lead actor in that, but Trevor Martin, David Banks, Nicholas Briggs, etc. are also lead actors in their respective derivative works? So you singling out Hurt is uneven no matter how you look at it. DonQuixote (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Well Hurt is different in one respect, which is that (unlike Martin, Banks, Cushing, Richard E. Grant, Arabella Weir and the like) he HAS appeared in the original work (as a guest) before transferring to audio for his own series. We can't compare him to other 'sort-of' Doctors because he's in a somewhat unique position.2.218.83.128 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
But that's not really important in the perspective of the works themselves. Hurt was a guest star in the programme and then later he was the lead in a series of audio plays. That can be, and is already, mentioned in the article and related articles. And that's that. Saying that these two events makes him special above and beyond everyone else requires the citation of a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of opening a contentious can of worms, should we include the War Doctor in the table featuring actors and their ages? He has basically been featured just as much as Paul McGann's Eighth Doctor, so it doesn't seem to make sense to me to include one but not the other.ACB Smith (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ask yourself this question: Was he a series lead? And your argument is flawed in that Michael Jayston was featured way more than John Hurt. DonQuixote (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The Doctor's age

There seems to be a discussion mini-editwar on the age of the doctor in the lead. Centuries old or millennia-old? I'm not an expert, but do recall, from the show, that he is older than 'centuries'. Worth a discussion here? Randy Kryn 15:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: The person who altered it (twice) to "millennia" has just been blocked, see WP:ANI#User:MarnetteD. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Blocking the editor is good as it saves future annoyance (that ANI was clearly bull) but the question raised in this case is worth considering as millennia is more accurate. He quite clearly states in Deep Breath that he is over 2000 years old (here's the youtube link, but I know you'll need a RS to post it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1os_szONEg 1:57 in). And even as the 11th he was at least 1500 by The Time Of The Doctor. At this point, millennia should be the correct term. Vyselink (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No. This is the description of a fictional character, not a living one where you need to give his current age. During most of the show so far he was centuries old, not millenia. Mezigue (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

His age is stated quite often during the show by the (then-current) incarnation, and it is important enough to have its own (rather large) section of the article. As that section must be accurate, why should the lead not represent this? Vyselink (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Remember when the Matt Smith Doctor blew through several centuries just sitting around some Christmas Village? And I was reminded looking at another site that the same Doctor said he was 2,000 years old in the episode where the little girl sang to a planet-sized creature. So millennia may be correct. Randy Kryn 21:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
As Mezigue pointed out, this is an encyclopedia article written from a real-world perspective. For most of the programme's history he's centuries old. He's only been millennia old for the past two years. It would put undue weight on recent episodes. DonQuixote (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
"He's only been millennia old for the past two years.", one of the best lines of the year. Sometimes I just love Wikipedia. Thanks (smiley face here). Randy Kryn 22:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Reading the 'Age' section of the article here again I realize that the Doctor was claiming to be almost 1,000 years old back in 1987, and he mentions a great age many times, not just in the last two years. I'm going with 'Millennia', and will explain in a comment. Thanks for keeping my interest in this question going. Randy Kryn 2:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Millennia. Going with the banned guy, and I'll explain why. For those who haven't seen "The Rings of Akhaten" as yet, and are planning to, and I recommend watching it (it's probably my favorite episode, have seen it several times) SPOILER ALERT. In "The Rings of Akhaten", and this is personal research because for some reason it's not in Wikipedia's article, the Doctor tells the planet size creature - a creature which eats memories and emotions - that he has 2,000 years of memories to feed it. The reason this convinced me that the Doctor is being totally honest here, where in other episodes he may have lied, is the circumstance. He's facing maybe his largest opponent yet, and is talking to it, talking straight and powerfully and knowing that it will know he's lying if he doesn't deliver 2,000 years of memories to it, flows them right to the creature, feels the pull, and keeps talking. It's a very powerful scene. And in it the Doctor is talking honestly, there can be no doubt about it. And in that honesty he's telling the creature that he's at least 2,000 years old. That statement by the Doctor, added to his other statements about great age - and according to our article he claimed to be just about a thousand years old way back in 1987 - makes me think that the word "millennia" in the lead is more accurate than "centuries". And if the banned guy is reading this, I'll mention I have no idea what got you banned, you must have done some numbskull thing or two, and you really have to remember that Wikipedia is very polite and that one of our rules here, assume good faith, means that we have to trust that the other person has a point of view that they think is as valid as you think your point of view is, and then present a good case to see if they can accept new information. I've looked at your edit summary history, and you do seem to be a very good editor who can be a valuable addition to this project, so ride out your ban. I look forward to you posting on this question when you come back. Randy Kryn 2:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think there's reason to assume the Doctor is extremely old, millennia at the very least. In The Mind of Evil (1971), Pertwee mentions that he's been a scientist "for several thousand-", then catches himself and storms off. The Brain of Morbius (1976) casually adds eight new incarnations to his past, and while subsequent stories don't necessarily expand on this, it's still what the production team fully intended even that early. The entire Sylvester McCoy era had a subplot about the Doctor being the ancient co-founder of Gallifrey. If you want to go into other media, the Paul McGann audio Orbis casually leaves the Doctor stranded on a planet for 600 years. As more stories are added for past Doctors, the evident length of his life will grow endlessly. —Flax5 03:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not work on the basis of what we interpret from sources - that is WP:SYNTH. We work on what reliable published sources have already explicitly stated, per the policy on verifiability. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course, but in this case which sources say that the Doctor is a young man only "centuries" old? Since a clarifier of his age is mentioned in the first lead paragraph, and not sourced, then can't it be changed to "millennia" if the data in the episodes themselves confirm that? Plot summaries on Wikipedia usually aren't sourced, and this item seems to be a point on par with a plot summary. Randy Kryn 11:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
No. Millenia applies only to the most recent times, whereas centuries is correct to describe the entire run of the show. Millenia contain centuries, you see? This is a classic case of a completely pointless thing to agonise about. Mezigue (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a fun thing to talk about. The millennia age isn't recent, but traces to at least 1987 (and I'm not enough of a Whoaphile to know if it can be traced earlier, but Flax5 makes a good case). As a character it seems fairly certain now that the over 2,000 year age is accurate, as the times the Doctor mentioned it were times when he seemed to be completely honest (once with his "lifelong" companion Clara and once with the Akhaten being), so the over 2,000 year figure probably should appear in the lead if his age is mentioned (or at least the proposed 'millennia' description). Of course it's pointless and much of this discussion is original research and thought, but all things are pointless in one viewpoint or another. Yet in another point of view the age of this fictional character takes on an importance due to how viewers understand him and his life history. May the Doctor live (and prosper) another thousand years! Randy Kryn 15:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, "millennia" is plural. In 1987 he was about 950, which isn't even a millennium. DonQuixote (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
And now he's 2000, which is millennia. The Doctor's true age is finally revealed, and the lead, if it mentions age at all outside of "old", should probably contain the accurate information. It now says that he's "centuries" old, which to me would invoke an image of a youngster of 300 to 400 years old, which the Doctor could do standing on his head (and probably has!). Randy Kryn 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
"Accurate information" is that he's a fictional character and this is not a biography of a real person. Reliable sources state that he is centuries-old in general and in the latest episodes he's about 2000. That's all that an encyclopaedia article can say. This is not a fansite written in in-universe prose. Please review how to write about fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
As a point of clarification, this is an encylcopaedic article where we describe every version of the character. That is to say, not just the latest version appearing in series 8. In most of the materials he appears in, he is centuries-old. DonQuixote (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me the best solution would be to simply remove the information about his age from the lead, seeing as how it is quite adequately covered in its own section. Is anything really lost (given, again, that his age is discussed in a further section), to change it from "assumed by a centuries-old alien who" to "assumed by an alien who"? Vyselink (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

user:DonQuixote This article is not discussing every version of the character just the eleventh, the article is called the eleventh doctor, I do not believe your argument can apply on any page other than than the Doctor (Doctor), a general page discussing all incarnations. Moreover there are also many reliable sources calling him millennia-old and consensus appears to have been reached that it should be millennia-old as only you, user:DonQuixote and user:Mezigue seem to disagree and support centuries-old and I have just discounted your argument and Mezigue's, which stated that the doc has been centuries old for most of the show, has been discounted by another user, user:Flax5, who states that in the Mind of Evil the Third doctor states he has been a scientist for "several thousand" years thus he is also several thousand years (millennia) old. Thus millenia should be restored in accordance with WP:CON. Please do so, I shall not for the moment as I fear you shall undo my edit. Thanks.Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh ... This is the page for The Doctor, this isn't the Eleventh Doctor page. Alex|The|Whovian 16:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, you have not "discounted" our arguments, whatever you mean by that. Just saying you have does not make it so. Mezigue (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh Think you're a bit lost mate. Wrong page. Vyselink (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

user:VyselinkThanks for pointing that out, must have clicked on a link by mistake, had been of 11's page moments before. User:Mezigue None the less, there are strong arguments refuting those of the small minority who prefer centuries old. There seem to be a lot of users who have chipped in in favour of millennia most of whom have strong arguments which make undisputed points, I see only one which is spurious and then it's only because it makes reference to none-TV who. Despite your stubbornness, just 2 users support the arguments for centuries old and their arguments can be disputed as I point out about, even if completely discounted may be taking it too far. Consensus has definitely been reached in favour of millennia as just about every contributor to this debate, bar 2, agree with millennia. It should be changed - WP:CON. Also, user:DonQuixote I don't quite see your point, just because it's fictional doesn't mean the most recent stated age shouldn't be included, besides three said he was thousands of years old (millennia) so it is more accurate as the doc isn't sure of his age he could for most of the series have been and is almost certainly now, given the amount of time he spent of trenzalore and the more frequent claims of being considerably over 1,000 years old. Thanks for replying, no hard feelings.Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Given that the "Age" section of the article takes 11 paragraphs to discuss his possible age, it seems to me that it's impossible to sum up those 11 paragraphs in two words. My preferred option would be to remove all mention of his age from the lead. If people think it's really important to mention his age in the lead, then you'll have to give some indication about the range of possible ages at different times that those 11 pargaraphs discuss.
I don't agree with Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh that there's clear consensus in favour of "millennia". I see three people in favour of millennia: Randy Kryn, Flax5 and Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh. Against I see Mezigue and DonQuixote in favour of "centuries". Vyselink now proposes removal of age from the lead (and, now, myself). Redrose64 hasn't been explicit but hasn't actually given support to "millennia". I support two points made by previous contributors. (a) It's for reliable third-party sources to decide the age, not us. (b) The article isn't just about the latest series, it's about all the series. A fictitious character doesn't have a "current age", they have a range of ages throughout the work of fiction. -- Dr Greg  talk  19:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You're thinking of the character as a real person with a past and present, and as such you're treating the age of 2000 years as the real current age of the character (and it is mentioned in the article--just in the correct real-world context). The point is that this is a fictional character with a creation and publication history. The works of fiction that were broadcast/published in 1963 coexist with the works broadcast/published in 2014. That is, the 1963 version of the character, the 1983 version of the character and the 2014 version of the character are all valid versions that should be mentioned within context in this article--as well as the comics versions, the theatre versions, the novel versions, the audio versions, etc. In most versions of the character, he is not millennia-old and shouldn't be treated as such. DonQuixote (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
But in some versions of the character he is millennia-old, so saying 'centuries old' in the lead places the fictional character's age as 'centuries' along the entire character timeline. And unlike characters like Frankenstein's monster, The Doctor has a canon, a changing history which does create a transition from decade to decade and Doctor to Doctor. There is an overall character portrayed, a character with a canonical history, and that character has lived for millennia. What do the 'centuries' proponents suggest to repair this lead-impression? Randy Kryn 1:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
"Some" doesn't even come close to "most". And you're still treating this like a biography of a real person. Being made 2000 years old in 2013 doesn't make the most common version of the character a millenia-old character and emphasising it places undue weight on the latest episodes. DonQuixote (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with whomever proposed removing the reference, too much dispute. user:DonQuixote's never going to change his view. There's no need for the reference, there's a whole section on age. Moreover, for the third time, he has not been centuries old for most of the series doc 3 said he was millennia old in the mind of evil. Let's just get rid of the reference it's just causing argument and annoyance. Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The reference is not "causing argument and annoyance": you are! Why don't you just stop? The phrase has never been a problem until now, given that it is a) undisputably correct and b) quite an important aspect of the character. You have now replaced it with "antique", an ambiguous word that is not satisfactory at all. Please stop this facepalmfest. Mezigue (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not "undisputably (sic) correct", bloody hell! There's a reason why there's a whole section on the subject. Moreover, you appear to make out I started this dispute, I did not, I did not involve myself until yesterday. I wrote ancient not 'antique', a word which can hardly describe a living organism, fictional or otherwise. Moreover, it does not matter that it is vague, the doctor's age section goes into detail, the intro is not supposed to be specific and centuries-old is misleading as references to the doctor being thousands of years old have been made since 1971-the Mind of Evil! The vagueness of the term I used is good as the doctor does not know his age really and, as evidenced in 1978's key to time season, he does in fact sometimes actively lie about it. Thus, centuries old is not just extremely disputable it is also very possibly wrong, I also don't now deny the same for millennia old which is why changed it to a more vague term and more appropriate term for the reasons described above. I don't know why I am saying this as you are clearly an obdurate fool and will spit this back in my face!Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh: I find your comment "I did not involve myself until yesterday" interesting: do you deny making this edit and this one then? Also, re your comment "you are clearly an obdurate fool" - please be careful what you write, you have been warned under WP:NPA before. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64:To be clear, I was referring to my involvement with this talk page. Sorry about the slightly acrid comments I made, the user was really bugging me and could not see they were fighting a losing battle, something which they'll no doubt refute in a future comment. And for some reason, I seem to be annoyed by neologisms like "facepalmfest", don't know why, I must just be a bit of a twat. Thanks for cautioning me, though, I was getting carried away.Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I refute it right away. To recap, the Doctor has been said to be under 1,000 years old for most of the series, except in the last couple of years and in a couple of serials in the 70s apparently. Even now that he is portrayed as over 2,000 years old he can still be described as centuries-old since that is also accurate for that age. Centuries-old is therefore accurate and satisfactory. Millenia is neither. There is no rational argument whatsoever for replacing centuries with millenia. Just stop worrying about it and we can all stop banging our head on a desk. Mezigue (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

For most of the series, he is several hundred years old. Passing 1000 or 2000 is still 'centuries-old'. Case closed, as any disputation will require original research or unsourced analysis.Zythe (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not-really-spoiler-alert. In this week's episode the Doctor says specifically that he is "over two-thousand years old". That seems to be the age that is now set-in-stone. I can't see why it shouldn't be worked into the lead, as long as age is mentioned. Much of the opening and the page reads like the biography of a real person or character, and in the present two incarnations the Doctor has focused quite specifically on his age several times now, with this week's statement being the most direct. Not including "Over two thousand years old" in a lead-mention of his age is beginning to look old (literally!). Thanks, and my apologies for adding to this age-old discussion. Randy Kryn 11:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Two incarnations of the show shouldn't required the lead to be changed. Two thousand years is still centuries old (twenty centuries). It can, however, be added to the main article itself (outside of the lead). Alex|The|Whovian 11:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Is he not now over 4-and-a-half billion years old? AnemoneProjectors 15:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
No. The "real time" of "Heaven Sent" may have been 4.5 billion, but in terms of the age of the last body that the Doctor had going through the final cycle, it was only a course of a few hours from that perspective (the body otherwise stored in the teleporter memory for the 4.5 billion years, repeatedly duplicated but never the same body). So no, he's still only over 2000 yr old. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, a few days, possibly weeks, indicated by various events and monologues in the story. But not 4.5 billion, I agree :) Stephenb (Talk) 15:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
That was what I thought, but I just watched "Hell Bent" and thought I would check as there were a lot of references to the number of years :-) AnemoneProjectors 15:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe I covered this (fairly) well an edit of my own (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Doctor_(Doctor_Who)&oldid=694970283 from 12th Dec, for exact text) but it was deleted away again ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Doctor_(Doctor_Who)&direction=next&oldid=694970283 ) within the hour. I can't complain too much, though I'm not so sure about it being 'Speculation'. In-universe the exact time is speculation, but it definitely happened (at least as much as anything in the Whoniverse does) with roughly that magnitude. And I already covered the issue of non-aging, hoping it might cover a discussion such as above. (BTW, it explicitly wasn't a time-loop, but that's semantics.) 213.205.252.227 (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

romance section

The romance section ended in series 8, so I have updated it to include the evolution of the characters for Series 9, supported by interviews with Moffat and Capaldi. I considered also including Jenna Coleman's interview comments about Clara being in love with the Twelfth Doctor as discussed at conventions such as Auckland, 2014, but I could not find an actual media article on those comments (you can find video on YouTube). Moffat and Capaldi's comments were made at recognized media events. I felt it important to include a sentence - without editorial comment - summarizing the finale arc. I think it speaks to itself in support of Capaldi's statement. And I ended with a reference to the Husbands of River Song which continue the romantic theme further. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's all getting a bit long. We can't exponentially increase the summary each season. Can it not be reduced, in total, to two or three paragraphs for 1963 to present?Zythe (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Doctor (Doctor Who). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Broken code?

Around the image of the 12 doctors "[[File:" appears at the top of the image and "|frameless|upright=1]]" appears at the bottom. Can someone fix this? Rickraptor707 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This has already been noted and posted on the relevant template/module talk pages. Hopefully a fix can be implemented soon. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I've added somewhat of a "hack" in to prevent this. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Doctor/Archive_7&oldid=1240630505"