Talk:The Doctor (Doctor Who)/Archive 2

message: :Thus far, the Tenth Doctor is lighter and more easygoing than his predecessor, both flippant and energetic, but still quick to anger when he perceives an injustice. He is also more gregarious, being friendlier with Rose's friends and family than his predecessor.
I'm suprised we haven't mentioned the Tenth Doctor's "no second chances/I used to have so much mercy" attitude. It seems to me that the Tenth Doctor is a lot less forgiving that his Earlier incarnations, the Ninth included. --GracieLizzie 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten's persona 

message: This is not a criticism, but would it be fair that the Doctor is one of the few examples of a good Mary Sue, or mary sue style character? I'm thinking, impossibly smarter and better educated than everyone, alien birth, access to advanced technology, everyone likes him, except his enemies who get roundly defeated or humiliated... ANTIcarrot 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but I see him more of the "Wise old man" character, but as a main character, than a Mary Sue myself. --GracieLizzie 22:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: He's also a wizard character -- sonic screwdriver=magic wand, etc.  DonQuixote 23:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just personal opinion but I see Mary Sue's as also being a bit of an author self-insert. Heinlein did this a lot, the grumpy old wise man in his stories were obviously him. This sort of egregious situation is bad enough in a story with characters an author created himself but it's even more ridiculous in fan-fiction. "Hey, here's this brand new character who can boss around the established heavy hitters and still woo the girls." It's worse when you're talking about something like a TV show or comic book where multiple writers will be involved. A new writer will bring in his new character and egotistically try to make it the center of attention. --Gmuir 16:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mary Sue?

message: Oops, I just realised that I'm mixing-up my lines.  That's what I get for copyediting away from my DVD/video collection.  Sorry about that.
However, then I the thought occurred to me that the line as-is, "A cosmos without the Doctor scarcely bears thinking about," is a bit ambiguous and any reading of the line is inference (is he in admiration or is he fantasising?). I think that, before adding that the Master admires the Doctor, we should find a better, less ambiguous, line to quote. DonQuixote 17:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master admiring the Doctor 

message: I am considering nominating this article for Featured Article status, as the content is excellent and concise. What does everyone else think? Smomo 13:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the information is useful, relevant, well-written and up to date. It also doesn't lean heavily towards one doctor but concerns them all. Just one mistake I can see - the "Spoiler Warning" doesn't end - but I'm not sure where the end should go. JameiLei 13:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll need a lot more citations before this can be promoted to FA.  I don't know if it would even pass GA these days with the current level of citations.  (Wikipedia as a whole has become much more stringent about requiring citations for FAs and GAs than it was back in the days when Doctor Who passed FA.)  I won't oppose an FA nomination, but I think that it might be better to work on improving the citations on the current Doctor Who FAs than to nominate this article right now.  To see how much work is required, take a look at the Featured Article Review for Dalek; this shows how much work was required to get Dalek up to the current FA standards. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Status 

message: Alias, name, title, whatever you call it. The article asks the question, why is he called "the doctor"? My theory is that he's called that because you could suggest that he is a "doctor of time". Seeing that there can be doctors of almost any profession (not just medical), the doctor could be a a time doctor. But why? I would think this because basically the role of the doctor is to go through time and space resolving problems, just like a doctor. Remember the Reapers (Father's Day)?
Maybe because the doctor wonders all over the place, healing time, fixing the earth's problems, maybe he could be reffered to as a "doctor of time". Does anyone else agree with this theory? --rjcuk 12:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all original research and cannot be included. Alientraveller 12:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then, Alientraveller. So what if I put this information on my blog and then linked to it as a source on the article? Is that legal? I can see what you mean, though. I mean, look at Meaning of life - original research is written all over it! Thanks if you can reply :D --rjcuk 10:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading Wikipedia:Verifiability (and the other 'three core rules' pages), I found out that blogs are not good sources. As this is original research, and is only a theory and opinion, it has no home on Wikipedia. None at all. Oh well... Thank you very much for pointing this out, Alientraveller! I've learnt a lot about Wikipedia's rules now, thanks to your direction! --rjcuk 11:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has to be published by a reliable source ie RTD or the BBC, it can't be sourced on your own theory(s) or rumors that you have heard weather they are true or not.--Wiggstar69 12:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I have found a reliable resource - two actually - one of them being from Tom Baker himself! (after doing a quick Google Search). I'm just gonna check Wiki's article now to make sure nobody else has already done it and if not then I will add this important detail! --rjcuk 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The moment we have to start coding information in the form "it seems that", we're presenting opinion as fact.  Besides, it's not clear that the Master's asserting that's a reason for the Doctor's choice of title.  Mark H Wilkinson 15:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, even if the Doctor wil say it himself, we cannot add it, as it's not clear whther the Doctor said the truth, or lied for some obscure reason? If RTD will say it in the commentary, it will not be good enough, as maybe he is only stating his opinion and previous producers have thought otherwise? Necnec 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Russell T Davies were to say in an interview on GMTV that the Doctor chose his name because he liked the letter "D", we write that Russell T Davies, in an interview on GMTV, said that the Doctor chose his name because he liked the letter "D" (provided we reference it properly).  Were he laughing while he said it, we can add that he was laughing while he said it.  And so on.  Intepreting things on people's behalf risks violating WP:NPOV, which is something to be avoided.  Mark H Wilkinson 18:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points: 1. Every encycplopedia runs the risk of being obsoleted. It does not mean that every fact you write, based on some research, should be avoided. If you want to be exact, you'd say "according to the latest researches...". If you want to be practical, you'll write the fact as is, and count on the intelegence of the readers, who know that science is progressing all the time, and our knowledge may be updated. 2. Even if you doubt the validity of the Master's explanation (which is your POV, of course), the sentence became false after the TSoD episode. The reason of the doctor using this title was explained on screen. One can add the doubts regarding the validity of it, but I think it should be changed.Necnec 04:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Doctor's Alias 

message: It's stated in the background section that the Doctor's internal body temperature is 15–16 degrees Celsius (60 degrees Fahrenheit).  Do we have a canonical source for this (ie. a mention in an episode) or is it from spin-off material?  It occurs to me that on two occasions we've seen him in hospital (Spearhead_from_Space, Smith and Jones) and there's been no mention of anything abormal in connection with this.  Digby Tantrum 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Doctor's Body Temperature 

message: I've reverted this addition:
:He also says "I'm so old now. I used to have so much mercy. You get one warning. That was it." to Mr. Finch in the episode School reunion suggesting that maybe before the timewars he would give mercy but the lack of mercy shown during those times has made him cold to it.
Aside from punctuation, capitalization and spacing problems, it strikes me as unsourced speculation, and quite a leap between premise and conclusion. We don't really know much about a "lack of mercy" in the Time War, and the Doctor has exhibited ruthless behavior previous to that event, notably in Remembrance of the Daleks. If anything, the School Reunion quote seems to attribute the Doctor's lack of mercy (beyond the single warning he gives on numerous occasions from Rose onward) to age and experience. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 04:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quality of mercy (sorry, couldn't resist) 

message: I think that the Doctor should be added to "Category:Fictional vegetarians," having as he did a no-meat policy from the Sixth Doctor's era up until Boom Town.
71.168.203.107 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetarianism 

message: Would it be too much to list every instance it has been asked "Doctor who?" as a question in the series and related appearences? I know the Dimensions in Time-Children In Need special was one of them, but in that instance it was the asking "Doctor who?" in regard to being given a name of someone who wasn't "The Doctor", rather than the usual other-way-around. 67.5.147.67 08:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems rather trivial.  We don't list how many times companions trip over or scream (as far as I know).  Mark H Wilkinson 09:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or how many times Sarah Jane 'thought you were dead'! --QUADRATUS (speak to me, human) (yes i've been here) (vote saxon) 13:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Who? 

message: If it mentions almost-getting-married in Loups Garoux then surely it should cover Adventuress of Henrietta Street too?  I'd add a bit myself but it's too long since I read it for me to get the details right. --86.128.137.136 18:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romance section 

message: Ehem isn't the Doctor a Time Lord not a hybrid? Of late at least he continually states "Time Lord" as his species.
:They've never definitively stated what in the world was up with the "half-human" bit from the Fox TV movie.  It's discussed more in the 'Continuity Curiosities' section, but regardless as far as anybody knows the Doctor is currently not a hybrid at all.--MythicFox 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's not true, the TVM is cannon. The BBC book Doctor Who: The legend continues in which RTD contributed states that the Doctor is half human and links it in to the big secret of the 7th Doctor era, the plot of the TVM is based around him being half human, two characters state that he is half human, he has human eyes and he states that he has a human mother. All this has not been officially retconned on screen and RTD has even gone on record as saying that the Doctor in the new show is the same Doctor that battled the master in San Francisco. I think it is pretty clear that he is half human and should be recorded as such in the info box. This isn't the place for fan sensibilities and we have a duty to ensure that the article is correct.163.156.240.17 12:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species 

message: You misunderstood me, Movellon.  I don't dislike the fact the 8th Doctor was declared half-human.  But what I will not subscribe to is the idea that we can somehow rewrite what has gone before. The writers of the 2nd-7th doctors had no intention for the Doctor to be anything but Time Lord, and we must honour that.  In the same way, if a future writer says he's not half-human, that will not change the reality of the 8th Doctor.  To assume that the most recent is the most true is wrong.  Imagine if in a few years some writer or new producer decides that the Doctor is really a Slitheen from the planet Skaro, and the Master is his father and Rose his mother, then that won't suddenly be true and everything else false.  In a fictional world, created and contibuted to by any number of people over many years, there will be many ideas bandied about, with only a rough continuity and generally accepted conventions.  As I said earlier, it's possible in such a world to believe six impossibly contradictory things before breakfast.  I fully accept the 8th Doctor was half human; I refuse to write that backwards to the the 2nd-7th (the 1st is a bit of an anomaly..he didn't even have two hearts, and didn't regenerate), and I'm waiting to see what the current writers do with him now... certainly on screen he has only been presented as an alien and a Time Lord.  Lets not jump to definitive answers.. the nature of the programme is that there aren't any... which, as I've also said, makes it fun.  Instead of arguing here, how about putting together a better referenced section on the half-human debate and presentation... showing how the Doctor has been seen through all incarnations. But, being Wikipedia not a fansite, there is no need to reach a conclusion.  The debate is what is interesting, and the way it shows how continuity and canon develops.  We're supposed to be writing about the creation of a fictional world and character, not reaching absolute conclusions AS IF HE REALLY EXISTED.  He doesn't. Gwinva 19:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really sorry but what was intended means nothing when talking about this work of fiction. All that matters is what was on screen. Following your logic the Doctor should only have one heart and still be pure human. No sorry, what was intended by previous production teams mean nothing, only what is presented on screen. As it is the half human aspect of the Doctor does not contradict what was presented before and the way the TVM was realised makes it impossible to to split that part of the movie out. So far there has been official BBC online episode guides, BBC news items that confirm the canononical (sic) nature of the TVM, on screen endorsements of it's status in the new show (human nature), the BBC published, BBC produced, BBC endorsed book Doctor Who the legend continues with contributions from RTD, RTD on screen on DW:Confidential saying that current doctor is the same as the one who fought the master in San Francisco and him stating the same in DWM. Nothing in the TVM regarding the half human status really contradicts what went on before, the Doctor even states that he is a Time Lord in the movie (albeit a half human one), he reveals that he has a human mother. All I can see is bunch of people on this site wanting to manipulate and remove reference to him being half human and I'm sorry that is a political agenda (albeit from a fan group) and it's not what Wikipedia is for. The status  of the doctor being half human, should and must be listed under the species on the info box as it is what is correct and right and it should remain there until it is properly retconed on screen. If his status is listed as anything else then I think it makes a mockery of Wikipedia and demonstrates some serious flaws in the design. The content owner has been explicit in it's view on the matter and if a group of people who don't like the concept can go against that then I'm sorry but Wikipedia isn't worth anything. Movellon 19:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And nothing official says that the "half-human" status goes beyond (or before) the Eighth Doctor. For that matter, the fact that the TVM is considered part of continuity doesn't mean that every single detail of that film is considered to be canon. (There's even text - and I don't mean fan-forum stuff - on the BBC's website that mocks the notion of "half-human".) As previously explained by others, an overly strict interpretation of events in the series would make for an extremely contradictory history for the Doctor. The simplest - and most neutral - way to address this is with the pointer to the text about the controversy. It doesn't deny the possibility, but it also doesn't confirm it - consistent with how Wikipedia should operate. (By the way, before you label me as a "no-human-Doctor" POV editor, let me state that no, I don't think he should be half-human - but if he is, that is that, big deal, write it up and get on with life. Don't insult your fellow editors by trying to claim that they cannot look past their own preferences to create a good article.) --Ckatzchatspy 19:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. The BBC published book Doctor Who The Legend Continues does. The fact that he has a human mother is also pretty hard to retcon. No I don't think he was joking, it would be a massive coincidence to be joking about something that relates to something that someone else discovered about you independently.Movellon 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) No, you are wilfully misunderstanding me, or not bothering to read what I've said. My logic does not mean "the Doctor should only have one heart and still be pure human."  My logic means the exact opposite... the nature of the Doctor changes according to the writers and production teams, so we need to hold all ideas together.  (ie. not deny the 8th doctor is half human, but not insist that it is an absolute truth which the whole of the Doctor Who franchise must also be bent and twisted to fit). "Doctor Who" is full of contradictions.  Those references are good, but lets put them together with other references which are more ambiguous or state the opposite.  If you want official BBC books, I can give you an annual and a Doctor Who file which present facts about the Doctor, that don't mention the human bit but do define him as an alien and Time Lord (ie, a format which should mention the half-human bit if it were undeniable fact).  The evidence on screen has been very ambiguous...and the writers have certainly not taken up the many opportunities to push the half-human bit. We must think from an out-of-universe perspective.  It is NOT a "fact" that the Doctor is half-human (or fully Time Lord).  The facts are that "the writers of the TVM presented the Doctor as half-human, a vital part of the plot" and  "Early Doctor Who writers presented the Doctor as a being from another species: a Time Lord" and "The New Series writers have been ambiguous about the Doctor's heritage, presenting the Doctor in such a way to neither confirm nor deny his human heritage", "Some sources continue to describe the Doctor as half-human, which annoys many fans", "The writers made what seems to be a coy reference to the controversy in "The Runaway Bride" when the Doctor said being human is optional for him" etc etc.  That is what Wikipedia is about. Not taking sides in a debate (even if you think the debate is groundless/stupid/sensible/relevant/vital/waste of time). The debate exists.  The portrayal of the Doctor changes.  That is what is important.  Not who or what the Doctor may or may not be this five minutes.  See MOS for fiction. Gwinva 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim of the Doctor's mother being human cannot be taken at face value - the claim was made by the Doctor in a jocular fashion, as part of a ploy to pick the bloke's pocket (and the Doctor has a track record of lying through his teeth to achieve his aims).  AS for his partially-human nature in general, it's been contradicted by the 9th Doctor ("I'm a Time Lord.  I'm the last of the Time Lords" - End of the World.  "My planet was destroyed - my entire family" - Father's Day) - given the context it is highly unlikely that he wouldn't have mentioned not being a full Time Lord if that were the case.  The cause of the 8th Doctor's condition (proven by the Master's realisation on seeing the 8th Doctor's retinal patterns) could be debated 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't change the fact that it was limited to the 8th, and the 8th only.  MartinMcCann 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be a pretty big coincidence that he chose that same thing to joke about that relates directly to the masters discovery and the entire plot of the TVMMovellon 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And being half human would make him not human and not of this race. That's not even hard. Movellon 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You  are really stretching.  Has he ever said to another  Time Lord that he's not Time  Lord, and he's not of that race? john k 01:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break, the sequel

message: Might I propose a quick straw poll to see if we have consensus on what to do here at this point? It seems only Movellon is arguing that it has to be changed from the current version, but there could be lurkers who aren't chiming in. If there's currently a consensus to keep this version, then we should be able to just end the debate here (and if we don't end it soon enough, we're crossing into WP:LAME territory). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As indicated elsewhere, I'm in favour of putting "Time Lord" in the info box, plus a link which points people towards the discussion section -- like the compromise version in place at time of writing.  Mark H Wilkinson 21:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think either "Time Lord (Born of Human Mother)" or "Time Lord/Human hybrid" is the only way to go. Anything else is just incorrect.Movellon 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The compromise version ("Time Lord (may be half human; see discussion)"). As stated earlier, it notes the verifiable part ("Time Lord"), acknowledges the disputed "hybrid" theory, and doesn't take sides. --Ckatzchatspy 23:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've read through the whole discussion; Gwinva's reasoning seems the most sound to me, in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. I actually think it should just say Time Lord, as that is how he is most commonly described (which is what I think the infoboxes are for), but I'd be all right with the compromise wording. --Brian Olsen 00:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My first choice would just be to say "Time Lord."  My second choice would be the aforementioned compromise, which is also perfectly acceptable. john k 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So let me get this straight, I provide 6 verafible sources that confirm the Half human status and you are going to ignore them? Way to go wikipedia! looks like the criticisms of your are correct. Well done everyone you've all done a bang up job of proving how little this system is worth. You'll never be taken seriously. Movellon 02:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A user-maintained web encyclopaedia isn't going to be taken seriously, anyway, first off. Otherwise, the half-human status of the Doctor is, in fact, not verified. In forty-years, there's been far more evidence to the fact that the Doctor is fully alien than that he is half-human. You have six sources proving he belongs in the hybrid category and other people probably have six sources proving that the Doctor is pure. It's not cut-and-dry and we all need to leave room for compromise and future development in canon. Leeson 03:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like to make a comment that in a hundred years time this will all be irrelevant.  Just look at King Arthur or Robin Hood and you'll see that there's no such thing as "canon" and scholars just talk about "versions".  Hell, just look at Superman and you'll see something current evolving into such a thing. DonQuixote 03:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The compromise version ("Time Lord (may be half human; see discussion)") seems like the sensible way to go, as it acknowledges both the way the Doctor is referred to in the bulk of the series, and the half human portrayal in the film, without drawing a conclusion (which would necessitate discounting evidence on one side or the other). -- Karen | Talk | contribs 03:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference is 'Time Lord' as that is always how he is referred. However, the link to the discussion is not inappropriate, if a bit messy.  As an aside, the 'born of a human mother' is problematic... do we know Time Lords are born? It might just be a DNA mix...Or he hatched from an egg...or the human mother just donated an egg, or was a surrogate mother of a wholey Time Lord foetus, but transferred some DNA at birth. Just think of the fun to be had if you're a writer.... Gwinva 07:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Time Lord, with no mention or link to the debate section.  To nit-pick, all his having a human mother would mean (if he wasn't joking) would be that he isn't a full-blood Gallifreyan, since it's clear that not all Gllifreyans are Time Lords. MartinMcCann 09:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would note that most of us who have said we will accept the compromise version have also said that we would prefer to just say Time Lord.  Movellon (and perhaps the anon) seem to be the only people who have clearly rejected just saying "Time Lord" in the info box.  Perhaps some sort of process is in order to decide between those two alternatives. john k 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm in favor of linking to the discussion (although the cleanest way to do that can be debated), so that actually puts the count at 5-4, in favor of just "Time Lord." It's a majority, but far from a consensus. How about if we simply say "Time Lord," but link to a note at the bottom which references the discussion? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick Straw Poll

message: (Splitting debates on this issue into a different section.) The category issue seems like it might be a bit different to me in how we should handle it. In this case, there's no compromise we can take with it, so we basically have to decide between the merits of including or discluding it.
The point of using categories in Wikipedia is as an aid to readers, and so we should decide what's best for readers. There are two ways the use of this category might come into play with them: When they see it at the bottom of this article, or if they see this article on the category page. For the first case, I think it's safe to assume that the reader will have read through the article and will understand the context of the use of the category. For the second case, they'll be directed to the appropriate section by the note in the infobox (assuming it stays that way) and will read what they're interested in about the Doctor.
The potential harms of using a category are that it could lead to clutter on pages that include too many tangentially-relevent categories (not an issue here, at least yet), or that it could be misleading. In this case, it is possibly misleading in that not everyone agrees that the Doctor is always a hybrid.
However, the category isn't simply for confirmed cases of characters who are definitely hybrids. There are also serials and movies in the list that deal prominently with hybrids (ie. The Island of Doctor Moreau). The criterion for getting in seems to be more that the subject is discussed in the article, which is the case here. Remember, categories aren't meant to be definitive answers to questions, they're simply meant to aid readers find information on related subjects. My opinion (at least at this time), is that the category should go in. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, inclusion seems reasonable to me from what you've laid out above.  It doesn't negatively affect the contents of the article.  Mark H Wilkinson 21:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm not sure what this has to do with discussing the aforementioned category.  But I am sure you don't get to unilaterally declare anything other than your position to be vandalism.  Mark H Wilkinson 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do know we're discussing the category and not the info box, don't you?  Mark H Wilkinson 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand the argument regarding series etc. - and that the category is intended to be broader than just an individual character. However, this particular article is specifically about the character of the Doctor - not the series as a whole. Given that the classification is disputed, shouldn't we hold off until that discussion is resolved? Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 22:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the BBC has stated that they consider the TVM to be part of the series (it was intended to possibly relaunch it, so think of it like an extended pilot). However, I trust no one has any problem with adding the category to the Eighth Doctor article, so I'll add it there at least for the time being. That should catch anyone browsing the category. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think adding i t for the Eighth Doctor article makes the most sense.  The Eighth Doctor is clearly presented as a hybrid in the only story we have of him, and for those looking from the category page, it makes most sense to go straight there which ought to have a longer discussion of the issue than this page. john k 06:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Category

message: I think there should be a bit more detail given regarding known family references. I've started this in the Background section, following the reference to his brother in Smith and Jones. Susan is discussed elsewhere, but if there were any other clear references to family, it should be included in the background. (Having only seen Smith and Jones I don't know if any further family references occur later in season 3). 68.146.8.46 12:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was also a mention of him being married previously in The Runaway Bride (Edit: according to the article, that was Blink), though this might better fit in the romance section. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: From the current article: "During his second incarnation when asked about his family, the Doctor says his memories of them are still alive (The Tomb of the Cybermen) but whether that means they are deceased is unknown." If the line *wasn't* intended to mean that his family was dead at that point, what exactly is meant by including it in the article? It's a time when his family was mentioned, but it doesn't actually provide any information about them. --68.44.13.236 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't specifically say they're dead. Especially when time travel is involved, there are a lot of alternative explanations that could fit here, such as someone living out a natural life in the past. When he's in their future, they're dead, but he could still go back and visit them in their time. Given this, we can't go making our own conclusions and should just report what's been said. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't seem to answer my question. --68.44.13.236 00:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family 

message: Richard Hurndall's name was added to the infobox recently... I've removed it as it seems that the box is used for the actors who are primarily associated with the Doctor's various incarnations. (As well, the placement suggested that Hurndall played a version of the Doctor between Doctors #4 and #5, which is incorrect.) What do people think about a) including Hurndall, and b) the placement? I think he shouldn't be there, but if he is, he should either be next to Hartnell (i.e. Hartnell/Hurndall) or the list should be alphabetical. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for bringing this up... I'm trying to figure out what the policy should be, for instance, when you look at the page for The Master (Doctor Who)  it had 8 actors listed when there were only 6 versions (and arguably only between 3 to 5 incarnations) of the Master... should the Master page only have 6 actors too (removing Geoffrey Beevers and Gordon Tipple)? Maybe Hurndall should be listed under actors with a note.... also... I'm talking here about actors who played the Docor/Master in cannon episodes so actors such as Peter Cushing and Johnathon Price still would not count. I'm honestly looking for opinions and a definitive policy for the who pages here.--Dr who1975 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... I've tried removing Gordorn Tipple from The Master (Doctor Who) because, more so than even Hurndall... he is not well know for playing the part... I've linked it back to this discussion here so people can comment. This is not an experiment... I need to see what arguments arise.--Dr who1975 03:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't we descending into fancruft by being so concerned with people's impressions of how many doctors ther were... wouldn't the more encyclopedic thing to do be listing all the actors who played canon versions of the doctors... this is wikipedia... not a Dr who fan page.--Dr who1975 03:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that unless the infobox specifies that it's only actors primarily associated with the role or incarnation, Hurndall, Tipple et al. need to be in the two boxes. But they need to be set off, either next to the other actor playing that incarnation (which is tricky in Tipple's case, since we don't know for certain he's the Ainley Master) or perhaps in parentheses or with an asterisk at the end of the list.  Or the infobox itself could be modified to specify primary actors only in each role. (Technically, a child once played Tegan for a few seconds, but it's not vital to the infobox to say so.) Really, any of the options seems pretty reasonable to me, including leaving them out. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 04:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok... I've now tried something along those lines on both pages.--Dr who1975 15:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Footnotes are good. DonQuixote 01:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks messy and duplicates material already to be found in the article. Mark H Wilkinson 15:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zynth removed Hurndall almost immediatly after the note went away. Footnotes do not look messy and it isn't a huge duplication of material... there are lots of cases where such material is mentioned twice.. for the time being... I've simply put Hurndall back (that must be what Digby/Mark also wants since I;m sure he's concerned about the encyclopedia being accurate) howvere, I'm likely to put back the footnotes (either that or report Zyth as a vandal) if I get more push back on this.--Dr who1975 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't actually have strong feelings either way about whether to include Hurndall or not; I'm happy to monitor the discussion/edits and back whichever consensus arises.  I just thnk it's redundant to add footnotes which repeat information already clearly covered in the article and the indent and extra clutter looked bad.  If someone want to see what the article has to say about Hurndall's involvement, it's not difficult for them to find his name on the page. Mark H Wilkinson 19:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a plan.  Mark H Wilkinson 15:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is non encyclopedc to leave Richard Hurndell out of the list of Doctor Who Actors! If somebody thinks there must have been 11 doctros because that without reading the resto f the article then that idiot deserves to be misniformed. This is an encyclopedia. If people read the article they will ssee he was playing the first doctor... I'm putting Hurndall back.--Dr who1975 14:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be ridiculous.  There might be many good reasons to include Hurndell, but "to exclude him is unencyclopaediac" is not one of them.  Firstly, there is no obligation on an encyclopaedia to list everything (although it's often a good idea to mention many things).  Secondly, this is a quick reference infobox, not a discussion on who played the Doctor.  The box contains the photos of the ten incarnations of the Doctor.  Below, we list the actors who played those ten incarnations.  Hurndell once played Hartnell's incarnation.  He deserves credit, but is not essential to an infobox, and is covered elsewhere in the article (plus the 'and others' link).  Or perhaps his photo should be included in the collage?  Or perhaps we should also include the stuntmen who played Tennant playing the Doctor? Gwinva 18:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments seem to ignore previous discussion.... I don't know if you have been reading the whole discussion  or not so I'll recap... if you look at The Master (Doctor Who), there are six pictures in the box but 8 actors listed (including one who had literally 3 seconds of scren time as the Master)... a big point of this discussion is to find common ground for all the Dr. Who pages... and personally, something being an encyclodedic fact is good reason to list them in an encyclopedia if you ask me. The box is supposed to list all canon Dr. Who actors so therefore it is an encylopedic imperative to put Hurndell in there. MAybe I'm carzy for thinking that is probably the most important reason for putting the name in the box.--Dr who1975 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to find common ground for all the Doctor Who pages as they're not all comparable.  The point about the Doctor is that he's the series lead, and as such, there's a case for including just the actors that were contracted to be the series lead; Hurndall doesn't fall into that category.  The Master's a very different case because only two of the actors have been contracted as regular characters in the show; but we don't then exclude Pratt because he's a one-off.  Mark H Wilkinson 19:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Paul Mcgann was never a series regular and he's listed. Frankly, I think we do need to fidn common ground because (big breath) this is an encyclopedia... not a Who fan site.--Dr who1975 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard Hurndall

message: Just wondering if there should be an addition in Romance to mention the exchange in The Sound of Drums. The Doctor likens the perception filter to "being in love with someone who doesn't even know you exist". At this point Martha gives a look that clearly shows (along with comments in previous episodes) that this is the situation for her towards him, Jack then makes a comment to the effect of "you too?" showing (again along with comments and behaviour in previous episodes) that this is also the case for him. Just a thought, it seems at least as relevant as other things mentioned. AlanD 00:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Romance

message: I just removed this:
:It has, however, been said in recent episodes the the Doctor chose his name (because he is "the man who makes people better."), as did the Master, implying that, perhaps when Galifreians become Time-Lords, they choose a new name or title for themselves.
I happen to think it's a wonderful quote, but it's already in the article, and this is the second time I know of that someone has added it an extra time and used it as a basis for speculation. In this case, aside from the misspellings, we don't have any basis for knowing whether the Doctor and the Master were unusual in this regard, or following the speculated convention. Are Valeyard and Castellan, Flavia, Borusa, etc. given names, chosen names, or (in perhaps one or two cases) job titles?  We don't know, and have no references (as far as I know) for saying more than the article already says, that these two particular Time Lords chose the names "Doctor" and "Master". --Karen | Talk | contribs 04:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The man who makes people better 

message: Just to let people know that the above image, used in this article, has been nominated for deletion.  Anyone wishing to offer their opinions can see the discussion here. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Past doctors.jpg 

message: Look at the link I've provided.  It seems to suggest that James Nesbitt may be the next Doctor when David Tennant steps down.  Would this be worth including in the article?
http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/02082007/21/nesbitt-new.html
Looneyman 20:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  My leaning is to wait for a more reliable source.  This story originated in the Sun, which doesn't have a completely reliable track record for Doctor Who news.  They've been right more often than not — for example, they correctly broke the stories about Cybermen vs. Daleks at the end of Series 2, and about Derek Jacobi and John Simm playing the Master in Series 3 — but they've also been spectacularly wrong on a few occasions (Zoe Lucker as the Rani springs to mind).  If we do choose to mention it, we should be very careful to note the source and suggest that it may or may not be accurate.  Something like "Tabloid newspaper The Sun has reported that James Nesbitt may be the next Doctor.  This has not been confirmed by any official sources." — with a citation using  to the Sun story.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that we should wait for some more reliable source. Given Tennant's immense popularity as the Doctor, him leaving would cause quite an uproar. With that in mind, if any news agency had the slightest bit of hard evidence this was the case, they wouldn't hesitate to report it (causing an uproar is what the news is about, after all). Reading the article, it sounds like nothing firmer was said than "Nesbitt would be great as the next Doctor." No evidence that really implies Tennant's leaving, and if he stays on for another five years, things could easily change with regards to Nesbitt's availability. Of course, there could easily be something to this, but if so, we should get a more reliable source before too long. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, that article seems to state that Tennant is quitting, whether or not Nesbitt is taking over. If that's true, we should probably mention that somewhere. When I have a chance, I'll check around and see if I can find another source confirming this (hopefully with some supporting evidence). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I personally expect Tennant to bow out at the end of Series 4, I wouldn't take the remark in the Coleraine Times too seriously.  It looks to me like recycling of stories the Sun has put forth (for example, their spin on Tennant playing Hamlet was that he was leaving Doctor Who, which isn't necessarily so).  I certainly don't think that this passing mention is enough to merit inclusion in the article.  When Tennant does announce his departure, it'll be all over the papers, and you won't be able to move for sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much what I figured. Of course, I live in the States, so the papers over here wouldn't pay much attention to that. But I'll trust our British users in that they aren't seeing this. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible next Doctor 

message: Why isn't this article called "The Doctor (Doctor Who)"? That is, after all, the character's name, and the way in which he is currently listed in the credits. --Mister Six (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia naming conventions, "the" isn't used at the start of article titles, unless it would be capitalized in running text. Since you'd write, "I met the Doctor," and not, "I met The Doctor", we don't capitalize. --Brian Olsen (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd write "The Doctor". It's part of his title; he has no name like "Doctor Ian Smith" he is "The Doctor". However my primitive logic is irrelevant - what do reliable sources call him? --kingboyk (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the "the" was really part of his name, it would be used in direct address: "Save Me, The Doctor!" as opposed to "Save me, Doctor!".  The nearest source I had on hand was one of the BBC novels (The Feast of the Drowned), and it doesn't capitalize the "the". --Brian Olsen (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change 

message: Hi, folks.  An anonymous user recently edited the article so that it began with this quote:
I reverted the addition, because although I like the sentiment I think that in general starting an article with a quotation isn't very encyclopedic in style.  The article needs to be able to serve as an introduction to the character for someone who's never seen or heard of Doctor Who.  And such a person wouldn't necessarily know who the Master is, or understand the proper context for the quotation.  (They might think that the Doctor actually is sanctimonious, rather than thinking that his arch-enemy considers him sanctimonious — a very different thing.)
Second, it's possible that opening the article with a quotation from one of the most recent episodes of a series with a 44-year history might give undue weight to the current incarnation of Doctor Who.  A neutral point of view would present the character first in a context which is applicable to all of Doctor Who, and only subsequently go into aspects which may depend on the point in the series' history.  Or, to put it a different way, why begin with this quote from the Master, instead of starting with this:
In short, although it's a great line to open a fan article about the character of the Doctor, I don't think we can use it here in that context.  We can talk it out though, if you disagree. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening with quote 

message: That the Orgins of the Alias "John Smith" can be found in the episode "An Unearthly Child". By all accounts the Doctor seems to have picked up the name from Susan, who was a fan of "John Smith & The Common men."
   Perhaps further analysis and an entry should be made somewhere.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRandom (talk • contribs) 
:That was just a coincidence.  By all other accounts--the various books, DWM, etc.--he first got the name from Jamie. DonQuixote 02:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting to Note

message: In the same vein as the above discussion I've noted the addition of quite a bit of speculative material since I started this section. Most of this needs to be removed because it isn't referenced in the series. I also removed the claim that RTD "misdirected" fans by his comments regarding multi-Doctor stories. Aside from being unsourced and therefore in violation of WP:BLP, it's also meaningless. RTD made his comments in the early days of the series and a producer has the right to change his mind. Plus, no one has really firmly indicated that Time Crash is canonical anyway, though Moffatt left it a possibility. 23skidoo 07:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation over meetings of different Doctors

message: Someone has proposed that Shalka Doctor be merged in here (and not left a place for discussion)
I Oppose - he is a different incarnation, and should have a separate page like the regular doctors. StuartDD contributions 15:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger proposal 

message: The BBC Trailer for Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) has the Doctor stating his age at 903. Should this be added to the article now, or should we wait till VotD on Christmas Day? - Weebiloobil (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been mentioned.  The Doctor says that he's 900 years old in Aliens of London, hence he's 903 now.  We don't need to keep updating this every year. DonQuixote (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bigger problem is that said age is flat-out wrong, unless he's refering specifically to his tenth incarnation, since he was 953 as of "Time and the Rani", and is mentioned as being over a thousand during the course of the Eighth Doctor Adventures.  MartinMcCann (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep...darn those continuity errors.  If it weren't for the fact that the Master also mentions this, we could've chalked this up to the Doctor's vanity.  Oh well. DonQuixote (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the series would supplant eighth doctor adventures.  "Time and the Rani" is another matter. john k (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's even more irritating since it implies the Doctor was being literal when he claimed to be 900 in "Aliens of London" - hasn't the script writer ever heard of rounding?  The only explanation that makes sense is that the Tenth Doctor is 903, with the gaps being filled at the end of "Doomsday" (between the Doctor leaving Torchwood and contacting Rose), and between "The Runaway Bride" and "Smith and Jones".  MartinMcCann (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, we should just say that the Doctor has been inconsistent about how old he is.  john k (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed... though I'd think we'd want the statement to be that the writers have been inconsistent. - J Greb (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course.  john k (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Worth noting another factoid often dragged out with this issue - in "The Empty Child" the Doctor mentions that he's had "900 years of travel in a phone box," making it impossible that he's only 900 himself unless he's somehow been flying his TARDIS around since birth, which we know he hasn't. Rob T Firefly (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I saw the trailer and it said 903, I assumed that he'd just rounded up from 880.  It's like Yoda - what are the odds that he was exactly 900?  I have a feeling that once you go up over that 700 hill, exact numbers don't matter so much. =David(talk)(contribs) 17:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age