Template talk:Incarnations of the Doctor

message: Cho-Je wasn't an incarnation of the Doctor. Why is he listed here? 23skidoo 19:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove it. —Whouk (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's Cho-Je doing here?

message: Since the Valeyard is identified on screen as being a future incarnation of the Doctor, I wonder if he should be included in the "Other Doctors" section of the template? 23skidoo 05:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think so also but whatever.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Valeyard

message: per this change - here.
Good idea, but two main problems.  Firstly, the characters name is not Doctor Who.  Secondly, the Watcher and the Valeyard were in the TV series - but they were "intermediate" versions and not actual regenerations.  
So I reverted.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 13:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: mote also that the shalka doctor appears in one of the Past Doctor Adventures books as "unofficial" regeneration.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 13:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, "The Doctors" is not an acceptable template name. Str1977 (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The newest proposal by Stuart is fine. Str1977 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In Written By Steve Moffat; The Name of the Doctor the Great Intelligence considers the Valeyard an incarnation.108.246.48.79 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: The Doctors are read horizontally, that's annoying given there's just 2 in a row but 5 in a column. Could someone change it so they read vertically? I think there's a col1= -ish attribute that could be used for this but I'm scared I'll delete Wikipedia or something if I start messing with it. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 02:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctors 

message: Though none of these Doctors have articles of their own, or are really likely to do so, they belong in this template.  Atkinson was, after all, referred to as the "ninth Doctor" on the cover of Doctor Who Magazine #278 in 1999, while Joanna Lumley (the 13th Doctor) appeared on the cover of issue #328 in 2003.  Inside that issue, Andrew Pixley wrote up the story as a part of his ongoing Archives column, a treatment reserved for "proper" episodes of the series.   The story was placed on equal footing with other stories of the classic era during the 40th anniversary celebrations on BBC Gold.  There, it was broadcast interspersed with "proper" episodes of the series.
Like other "ninth Doctors", Atkinson himself has received at least passing "official" status through press statements and at various points on the BBC website.    The story itself was the most "official" production between the television movie and Scream of the Shalka.   Parody, it might have been — but parody by the copyright holders.
Perhaps a line at the very bottom of the template could be entered as, The Doctors of The Curse of Fatal Death CzechOut  ☎ | ✍ 07:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we can have a link to Doctor Who spoofs, where The Curse of the Fatal Death is mentioned.  That way we can refer to it along with all the other Doctors in all the other spoofs. DonQuixote (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could.  The only thing that preys at my mind with that idea is that Curse seems different than other spoofs.  It's essentially an "official" spoof.  It was a deliberately out-of-continuity episode of the series, commissioned, budgeted, and produced by the copyright owners, fully utilizing the signature elements of the series proper.   It was then sold by their distribution company to the home market as an otherwise normal part of the numbered catalogue of the parent program.  CzechOut  ☎ | ✍ 15:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, then we can have a link for Curse of the Fatal Death and another one for Other Spoofs...or not. Whatever you think is best. DonQuixote (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Doctors of ''[[The Curse of Fatal Death]]'' 

message: I have found no metnion of an 11th Doctor anywhere so i will remove Andrew Lincoln. In fact Tennant is confirmed to star through 2009 so i doubt there will be any news on an 11th doctor for some time S-m-r-t (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  11th Doctor 

message: Seeing as #11 is a future Doctor, and #10 is still current, is it possible to rearrange the template to give more prominance to #10. Currently it implies that #11 is the current Doctor. 84.70.51.168 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, we list them by number. There is no reason to highlight the current actor, it will just lead to conflicts when to change it... Regards SoWhy 18:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout of Template 

message: To me this template would look far better if the names were in 'vertical order'. i.e.:
1      6
2      7
3      8
4      9
5      10
   11
This is far easier to read, rather than worrying about your eyes crossing the large gap when reading horizontally. Anyone else agree? -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 19:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, I'm afraid. I'd find this very confusing. U-Mos (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the same. It's a horizontal template, and conforms to a standard design of such things. Radagast (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template layout 

message: Whilst I understand that there is currently no reliable name for this incarnation thus far (presumably to change with the 50th), I feel that the John Hurt Doctor needs to be listed as an 'other Doctor'. I used the name Secret Doctor because 11 refers to him in "The Name of the Doctor" as 'his greatest secret', which is the closest thing to a name/title this incarnation has thus far been given. --Goodsmudge(Talk) 17:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, any name we give him ourselves will be original to wikipedia, which is against wikipedia policy. We can probably use "Unnamed John Hurt Doctor", but that might be too unwieldy. DonQuixote (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not really unnamed; we just don't know his name. What about "Unidentified"? --Goodsmudge(Talk) 17:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I was bold. It'd be useful if we could have the actor's names in brackets to help identify, but that's acrew up the Twelfth Doctor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodsmudge (talk • contribs) 10:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have something similar, but it's a different navbox: Template:Doctor Who actors. Maybe they should be merged. —Flax5 14:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So, two of us have now tried adding something for the John Hurt Doctor, but both were reverted. The first time MarnetteD said, "we do not yet know anything about him so lets leave this as is until more is revealed". The second time, Edockter said, "Page already linked; do not link to sections." I am unclear how either of those reasons fits Wikipedia policy: perhaps the editors could expand their reasoning further? It seems to me that WP:RS report there is an incarnation of the Doctor played by John Hurt, so this navbox could usefully have some link on the matter. Bondegezou (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Sure. That's a good idea. I boldly changed it to Series leads. DonQuixote (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks - it seems the only logical solution given that the whole Navbox is dedicated to Incarnations of the Doctor anyway. This way there is no dispute as to the nature of the character. He was never a lead, so there is no issue. Ph 1980 (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Doctor 

message: If we're excluding The War Doctor from the main list on the basis that he was never a series lead should the Eighth be pulled also?  Kie (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: McGann was the lead for one episode of the series, and the incumbent Doctor for nine years. Hurt was never the lead or the incumbent Doctor. —Flax5 18:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Special pleading here. McGann was the lead in a one-off TV movie, never in a "series". It took 17½ years for his character to come back. Phil PH (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources say otherwise. It was a backdoor pilot for a series.  DonQuixote (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and, like many such pilots, never became a series, instead remaining a one-off. There's no such thing as a series of one. Phil PH (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And? That still doesn't negate the fact that he was cast as series lead. The fact that it wasn't successful is also mentioned in the relevant articles. DonQuixote (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

text: "Series leads" should be parsed as "lead actors in the series Doctor Who", not "lead actors in complete seasons of Doctor Who". —Flax5 20:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That begs the question of whether "the series Doctor Who" should really be considered to include a one-off pilot for an alternative vision of the series that never came to fruition, produced in a different country by a different production team. But there's clearly a consensus here, which I won't argue with further. Phil PH (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The production teams for the revived series includes it, and the various publications follow their lead. We follow the sources. DonQuixote (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Series Leads" 

message: She's just been announced as the Thirteenth. Is it too soon to put her on this box? NP Chilla (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jodie Whittaker 

message: We need to be very careful about adding actors here.  WP:PERFNAV is against this, and I believe the only reason we're making an exception is because the main actors are synonymous with the role.  I would personally like to remove all the actors from here, but what we should not be doing is including actors like Cushing, Hurt, etc, as the inclusion of the navbox on their pages (well, all of the actors' pages really) puts WP:UNDUE weight to the role of the Doctor over other roles they may have played.  Therefore, for now, please restrict the actors to just the main performers, unless we have consensus to remove all of the actors.  --woodensuperman 09:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a point that I was thinking: if actors are not supposed to be in navboxes should they be removed from this one? --2A00:23C6:ED01:400:8D3A:5A9E:288B:D224 (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No. (Also, old post.) -- /Alex/21 06:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actors 

message: BBC statement confirms it: we'll have to adjust the template. https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2022/doctor-who-david-tennant-14th-doctor/ LinguistiCaralis (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Tennant is 14 and Ncuti Gatwa is 15 

message: Should be listed between the Thirteenth and Fifteeth, as this is meant for navigation of the Doctors, not the actors who played him. 128.151.71.7 (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourteenth Doctor