Talk:Doctor Who

message: Change the citation needed tag following the aftershows paragraph to https://www.justwatch.com/uk/tv-series/doctor-who-confidential Emojiman7557 (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This edit falls under Original Research. Thickynugnug (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2024 

message: Should we put the network that first aired The Five Doctors on 23 November 1983? Ilovedoctorwhoandninjago (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be fine to note in prose, but the show wasn't produced in the U.S. at the time so it's not appropriate for the infobox. If early international broadcasts were common for the series then it might be worth noting in a footnote, but it only happened twice—1983 and 1988—so it seems a bit trivial to me. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTTW - original network? 

message: Mentioned at the beginning of the first paragraph of "History," but not introduced until much further down the article.  Bad writing. 148.252.24.246 (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Alex_21 TALK 08:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is "Whitaker?" 

message: Following the reversion from , I'd like to discuss the table note against each Doctor's tenure range. Currently, this reads "Earlier incarnations of the Doctor have occasionally appeared with the then current incarnation in later plots." I don't think this makes the distinction it needs to; after all, the year ranges also (rightly, in my opinion) exclude the appearances that introduce most Doctors to the series before their first full adventure (e.g. Davison appears in 1981 in Logopolis but his range commences from his first lead appearance in 1982, and Capaldi similarly appears in 2013 in both "Day of the Doctor" and "Time of the Doctor" before assuming the lead role the following year). The note reads as a rather random piece of trivia to the uninitiated currently. I went for "Encompassing each iteration's period as the lead character only" as an explanatory note, though the wording proved fiddly so I'm happy to workshop further here. What do others think? U-Mos (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that your wording is more appropriate, although could use some work (I am also struggling with the exact wording, though). Particularly as the table is shortly followed by the subsection Meetings of different incarnations, I don't feel an explanatory note mentioning that is necessary while it would be useful to note that incarnations are sometimes introduced before their main run. Perhaps something along the lines of "Only years as the series lead are included, although some were introduced earlier or reappeared later" would work, but that might be too wordy? Irltoad (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, could an asterisk () or dagger () be placed by ranges where the incarnation first appeared in an earlier year, along with a legend at the top? Irltoad (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for starting this discussion, . I think an explanatory note is a good idea, but let's keep it simple. I think that means one note, not symbols for each row. Yes, we all agree wording is difficult. My main objection to U-Mos's wording was not the idea, but that I found it difficult to parse. We should aim for plain English perhaps, rather than brevity. What about: "The years shown cover the actor's tenure as the lead character only." Or we go longer and say: "The years shown cover the actor's tenure as the lead character only. Other incarnations of the Doctor have occasionally appeared with the then current incarnation: see meetings of different incarnations." Bondegezou (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree symbols aren't the way to go - they will tend to add trivia rather than explain what's there, especially as many Doctors first appear in the same calendar year as their first lead episode. I see no problem with the shorter version above; as pointed out, any further detail is covered by the subsequent section. U-Mos (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Agreed. All good with me. Bondegezou (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenure note at [[Doctor Who#Changes of appearance]] 

message: I feel there are far too many sections on the page. (Merchandise, video games, ect.) I think some could be moved into the franchise page. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page trim 

message: As Disney is now part of the production side of things and is also credited for, should the page be updated to reflect this, along with Disney + where the newest series is broadcast for the rest of the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.105.243 (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly needs updating? The page is quite clear about Disney's involvement, including Disney+ being listed in the Original Release section of the infobox for the current era. The article also mentions its release in  (I have just updated this to reflect that Disney+ release have started). I can't see anything else that needs adding but if you have suggestions, and sources to back them up, please feel free to suggest them. Irltoad (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disney