![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
At the start of the episode he is at first known as the 'War Doctor', at the end of the episode both David, Matt (Doctors) refer to the John Hurt as the just the 'Doctor', officially the BBC has even classed the Doctor as an official regeneration of the Doctor lined up here and the image linked:
-- Ronnie42 ( talk) 10:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the War Doctor should be footnoted and have a section elsewhere in the document, but not appear in the table. His presence there would be misleading. He doesn't fit into the ordinal chronology and was never the standing Doctor as Matt Smith is; he's an additional feature and should be explained accordingly in narrative. Anything else would be confusing, and would mislead the reader. -- Drmargi ( talk) 20:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I think this is one thing where people are getting a bit too caught up. It's never been made clear whether the First Doctor was the first incarnation; he was only the first one to leave Gallifrey. During the seventies, there was a plot thread through stories such as The Deadly Assassin and The Brains of Morbius, even up to The Caves of Androzani, that the Fourth Doctor was actually the twelfth incarnation. This was later pushed backwards in Trial where the Valeyard was an amalgamation of the Doctor's evil between his twelfth and final regenerations. Hell, it's only in "The Name of the Doctor" that Eleven was explicitly mentioned as the eleventh (and, five seconds later, twelfth) incarnation.
The point I'm making is that the ordinal number is just a pointer to the audience with regards to how the Doctors are ordered. And no-one's going to really call Hurt the Ninth Doctor, he'll be always the War Doctor or, in ordinal terms, the Eighth-and-a-Half Doctor. He's in the official continuity as an official Doctor, having as much screen time as McGann, but Capaldi's Doctor will probably still be Twelve to the audience.
Sceptre (
talk)
23:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:INUNIVERSE specifically warns against listing by fictional chronology; before last week there was no difference been fictional and real-world chronology so this didn't matter. Hurt doesn't fit between Smith and Capaldi as he played alongside Smith and Smith will appear in the Christmas Special. Edgepedia ( talk) 20:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC) (after thought) and you can't really take McGann out as he's no. 8. Edgepedia ( talk) 20:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
(@Blethering Scot)I'm sorry that I had to explain step-by-step what writing about fiction is. The point is that Wikipedia articles are written from a real-world perspective. From a real-world perspective, the series leads are the most important (see List of Doctor Who serials#Series overview). I'm sorry that you can't see that and that from your POV everything has to be in-universe. But the fact remains, it has always been about real-world perspective and the history of the programme, which in this instance is about series leads.
As I have said, summarising in-universe is fine, and you can go off and make an in-universe list as long as you can place it in the appropriate place in the relevant articles, but not at the cost of real-world perspective. McGann was cast to continue the show in 1996 then Eccleston in 2005. Capaldi was cast to continue the show after Smith in 2013. Hurt played a version of the character in one episode whilst making a cameo in another as a guest star. That's real-world.
Again, feel free to create an in-universe list that has the progression as Eighth-War-Ninth because Wikipedia articles can have more than one list of different types. DonQuixote ( talk) 21:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Gentlemen, calm down. Blethering, whether you care to recognize it or not, there IS a third option: omitting Hurt from the existing table altogether. You can twist and turn the DQ's arguments all you care to, but he's been quite consistent in saying that from the beginning. It's also the option I favor, leaving you two options: construct a time-line including Hurt or explain him in narrative. Treating Hurt as the others when he was a guest character in one episode is inaccurate, misrepresents his place in the show chronology and will confuse the reader. -- Drmargi ( talk) 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Well it's official: steven-moffat-adds-twists-regeneration-riddle At the end of The Day of the Doctor, John Hurt was officially named as a doctor, representing him as the ninth incarnation. According to the BBC article, Tennant used up two regenerations, one being after Eccleston and the other from his hand (although this still desperately needs clarification). This puts Matt Smith as the Thirteenth, leaving Capaldi as the mystery Doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.136.124 ( talk) 06:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Think this needs to got to a RFC if we cant get consensus one way or another then thats where i will take it very shortly. For now these are the two options. The table currently uses a footnote with further explanation re the first doctor and this is what we would use again if going down in universe route. In the real world table it is exactly as laid out and there is already sufficient text in the article to support it. I disagree that we cannot list the War Doctor between Smith and Capaldi as text support statement they appeared concurrently as does the date appeared but again further explanation can be made through footnote as is already the case for first doctor. What cannot continue is edit warring on the basis of take to talk page when there isn't strong consensus for it not to be there. Blethering Scot 21:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The Doctor | Portrayed by | Tenure |
---|---|---|
First Doctor | William Hartnell | 1963–1966 |
Second Doctor | Patrick Troughton | 1966–1969 |
Third Doctor | Jon Pertwee | 1970–1974 |
Fourth Doctor | Tom Baker | 1974–1981 |
Fifth Doctor | Peter Davison | 1981–1984 |
Sixth Doctor | Colin Baker | 1984–1986 |
Seventh Doctor | Sylvester McCoy | 1987–1989, 1996 |
Eighth Doctor | Paul McGann | 1996 |
Ninth Doctor | Christopher Eccleston | 2005 |
Tenth Doctor | David Tennant | 2005–2010 |
Eleventh Doctor | Matt Smith | 2010–2013 |
War Doctor | John Hurt | 2013 |
The Doctor | Portrayed by | Tenure |
---|---|---|
First Doctor | William Hartnell | 1963–1966 |
Second Doctor | Patrick Troughton | 1966–1969 |
Third Doctor | Jon Pertwee | 1970–1974 |
Fourth Doctor | Tom Baker | 1974–1981 |
Fifth Doctor | Peter Davison | 1981–1984 |
Sixth Doctor | Colin Baker | 1984–1986 |
Seventh Doctor | Sylvester McCoy | 1987–1989, 1996 |
Eighth Doctor | Paul McGann | 1996 |
War Doctor | John Hurt | 2013 |
Ninth Doctor | Christopher Eccleston | 2005 |
Tenth Doctor | David Tennant | 2005–2010 |
Eleventh Doctor | Matt Smith | 2010–2013 |
The Doctor | Portrayed by | Tenure |
---|---|---|
First Doctor | William Hartnell | 1963–1966 |
Second Doctor | Patrick Troughton | 1966–1969 |
Third Doctor | Jon Pertwee | 1970–1974 |
Fourth Doctor | Tom Baker | 1974–1981 |
Fifth Doctor | Peter Davison | 1981–1984 |
Sixth Doctor | Colin Baker | 1984–1986 |
Seventh Doctor | Sylvester McCoy | 1987–1989, 1996 |
Eighth Doctor | Paul McGann | 1996 |
Ninth Doctor | Christopher Eccleston | 2005 |
Tenth Doctor | David Tennant | 2005–2010 |
Eleventh Doctor | Matt Smith | 2010–2013 |
-- Drmargi ( talk) 22:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I haven't been convinced that Hurt can appear in the table for the reasons I have already mentioned. The guideline WP:INUNIVERSE shows we should write from a real-world perspective, and I don't see how we can fit Hurt in from a real world perspective without confusion. I think This comment by an IP summarizes the position succinctly. Edgepedia ( talk) 08:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I was asked here to make a comment on here so a compromise should make the War Doctor to have a number since he is technically the 9th regeneration, regardless of name he is still the same person but with a slightly different nickname, later just classed as the 'Doctor' so it would make sense for the table to say 9th/War Doctor. This would bump up all numbers of the regeneration, making Chris = 10th, David = 11th, Matt = 12th, Peter = 13th, the current date's should stay the same but the 9th/war doctor should fit between Chris, Paul regenerations. It's all commented on by Matt Smith, David Tennant, refer to the War Doctor as the Doctor after changing the Doctors past also they also say this when the 3 Doctor's talk to the time-lords about their plan -- Ronnie42 ( talk) 12:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
As an impartial observer, and someone who isn't a Doctor Who fan, I would point out that ALL of these proposed tables appear to be IN UNIVERSE. They reflect a fan's interpretation of which actors and roles are important, and which aren't. The fact that they have fan-created names in them (like "Eighth Doctor") is a telltale sign: The years the actors portrayed the doctor is a more accurate *real world* reflection than a fan-derived nickname (and, indeed, looking at earlier edits of this page, that's exactly how they were listed). The individual pages should be titled "Doctor_Who_(1963-1966)" or perhaps "Doctor_Who_(William_Harnell)". Outside of the DW universe these fan created nicknames are meaningless. And worse, they are inaccurate: As mentioned previously, Peter Cushing was technically the "Second Doctor" -- the only way that Patrick Troughton can be considered the "Second Doctor" is by selecting which portrayals are canon, and which are not. Arguing that one occurred on TV, while the other occurred in the cinema is meaningless. Other shows exist in several mediums (e.g. The X-Files, Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, Star Trek and many others). The only reason Doctor Who has chosen to focus solely on the TV series is because that's what is considered important by the fans (i.e. canon). Again, I say this as an impartial observer, and someone who isn't a fan of Doctor Who. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker ( talk) 16:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
|- ! Accepted Nickname !! Portrayed by !! Tenure |- | " First Doctor" || William Hartnell || 1963–1966 |- | " Dr. Who" || Peter Cushing || 1965–1966 |- | " Second Doctor" || Patrick Troughton || 1966–1969 |- | " Third Doctor" || Jon Pertwee || 1970–1974 |- | " Fourth Doctor" || Tom Baker || 1974–1981 |- | " Fifth Doctor" || Peter Davison || 1981–1984 |- | " Sixth Doctor" || Colin Baker || 1984–1986 |- | " Seventh Doctor" || Sylvester McCoy || 1987–1989, 1996 |- | " Eighth Doctor" || Paul McGann || 1996 |- | " Ninth Doctor" || Christopher Eccleston || 2005 |- | " Tenth Doctor" || David Tennant || 2005–2010 |- | " Eleventh Doctor" || Matt Smith || 2010–2013 |} Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker ( talk) 05:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Well firstly that's a lot of comments, anyway I strongly believe that the War Doctor need's a number, I don't recall anywhere in 'Day of the Doctor' where anyone called him the 'war doctor', he's frequently called the 'Doctor' by the new 11th,12th Doctor and the 'Bad wolf girl/box conscious' all called 'John Hurt' the Doctor, the episode 'name of the doctor' called him the 'doctor', the 'war doctor' is only a controlled regeneration but is still known as the 'Doctor'. I don't know how I can be more clear, I accept John Hurt may have the name 'war doctor' but the fact the title 'doctor' is still in the name which makes him technically still the 'doctor', so the fact is he is the 9th Doctor. The time-table itself should put him between 8th, Christopher Eccleston so the table should be about the order of the regenerations. -- Ronnie42 ( talk) 17:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
"John Hurt is officially now a doctor" It would seem to me, he was iniitally billed as the "war doctor", but its quite clear from the way he is portrayed, his dialogue, the fact he is standing with all the other doctors in the line at the end of the ep, that he is a doctor of equal standing, just like the rest.Additiionally, the BBC have included him in the "line up" graphic of the doctors ( http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2013/11/john-hurt-doctor-line-up-picture-241113154317.html) Deathlibrarian ( talk) 22:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC) ...plus the line from the show, once Peter Capaldi appeared “All 13 of them.”....pretty hard to dispute! Deathlibrarian ( talk) 22:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
This is a BBC source AND quoting Steven Moffat...so its pretty clear. "Speaking to the Daily Mirror, he pointed out that the Metacrisis Doctor (generated when the Tenth Doctor was shot by a Dalek and he diverted the excess regeneration energy into his own severed hand) counts as one regeneration, and now so does the War Doctor. So the Eleventh Doctor is now the Thirteenth Doctor (despite what Mr Moffat may have previously clamed). And Peter Capaldi is lined up to play a man who cannot exist." http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2013/11/steven-moffat-adds-twists-regeneration-riddle/ Deathlibrarian ( talk) 03:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I would remind you of WP:INDY and WP:PRIMARY. While what the show's producers say is interesting, Wikipedia policy prefers reliable secondary sources independent of the show's producers. Bondegezou ( talk) 15:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
There are a number of sources that now clearly state that John Hurt is a doctor, including the BBC, "The Independent", quotes from the producer/Head writer, "The Mirror", "Radio Times", the Doctor Who website and Doctor Who News, and various other media. All these are acceptable sources, as per wikipedia guidelines, covering both WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY and together with what is indicated in the actual episode itself
On top of that, the BBC have included him in the official pic of all the doctors, in order.
Seriously, what more do we need? Deathlibrarian ( talk) 21:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
As for which table to use to invlude John Hurt, my personal preference is for the in universe table, as it makes more sense to me, but I agree with Edgepedia and Chunk5Darth, as per Wikipedia policy WP:INUNIVERSE, we need to present the order in real life as opposed to in Universe/fan viewpoint, so we should use the "real life" table with John Hurt in it (despite my personal whovian feelings :-) ). As for Peter Cushing, that's another argument, lets keep it simple for the moment. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 22:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
As this is my first post I hope you'll forgive its shortcomings.
I don't pretend to have fully mastered yet the details of Wiki's policy on in-universe versus real-life descriptions; in view, however, of the unique interconnection between the Whovian universe and the real world through the concept of regeneration, it seems to me that any worthwhile table must include elements of both.
Since the War Doctor is clearly intended to be as much of an incarnation of the Doctor as any of those currently listed in the table (see further below), I am strongly of the view that he should figure in the table itself. My personal preference would be to include the War Doctor in his in-universe place (between McGann and Eccleston), but in the final column make it clear that he first appeared in 2013, and in a few lines of text immediately after the table explain the circumstances of this incarnation's creation. In my opinion this would offer the best of both worlds, and would be the most helpful approach for those consulting the article.
The placement of the present textual mention of the War Doctor - i.e. after the Valeyard and the Dream Lord - seems misleading. I haven't checked what was said in the episode about the Dream Lord, but the description here of the Valeyard is inaccurate. He is not 'described as an incarnation "between" the Doctor's twelfth and final forms'; what the Master says to the Doctor (in episode 13 of 'Trial') is that 'The Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnations.' The term 'amalgamation' suggests a hybrid entity - whether created by accident or design we are not informed - rather than an actual incarnation of the Doctor. The War Doctor, on the other hand, is a genuine incarnation of the Doctor, on a par with all the others; the only difference is that, for a long period, he declined to use the title of 'Doctor'.
For these reasons, I would respectfully recommend both the inclusion of the War Doctor in the table (preferably in the way I have suggested above), and the reordering/revision of the subsequent text (a) to mention the War Doctor at the start, and (b) to modify the description of the Valeyard to quote the actual wording of 'Trial', rather than the current, somewhat inaccurate, paraphrase.
My apologies again for any errors in this post. Chronarch ( talk) 09:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Yes, Chronarch, I agree..and well put. The valeyard character is clearly more ambiguous and not decribed by primary and secondary sources as an actual incarnation of the doctor Deathlibrarian ( talk) 15:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
While I'm grateful for the responses, I'm concerned that we now seem to be blurring things by talking about 'versions' of the Doctor. I cannot see that, whether from an in-universe or a real-world perspective, it is terribly helpful to the reader to treat the Valeyard, the Dream Lord and the War Doctor as being all on a par, when this could easily be avoided, without losing anything, by a simple rewording. Moreover, as I said before, it is far from clear that the Valeyard is a 'version' of the Doctor in any meaningful sense. Surely there is nothing in Wiki policy which prevents our describing the contents of a fiction accurately, if we are to speak about it at all? Chronarch ( talk) 18:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. But isn't the problem that John Hurt played the Doctor, whereas Michael Jayston and Toby Jones played 'versions' of the Doctor (in the sense of amalgamations/manifestations of his dark side)? Why is the 'guest role' aspect so important? Isn't it more helpful to list all the actors who have played the Doctor in the series, and who also constitute 'incarnations' of the Doctor in the fictional universe? Shouldn't the latter be covered somehow in this article, in a separate table if absolutely necessary? Chronarch ( talk) 00:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's how it should look, clearly people have conflicting opinions on the naming of 'John Hurt' so I strongly believe that both names should be counted, I have already previously provided proof so here's how it should look.
The Doctor | Portrayed by | Tenure |
---|---|---|
First Doctor | William Hartnell | 1963–1966 |
Second Doctor | Patrick Troughton | 1966–1969 |
Third Doctor | Jon Pertwee | 1970–1974 |
Fourth Doctor | Tom Baker | 1974–1981 |
Fifth Doctor | Peter Davison | 1981–1984 |
Sixth Doctor | Colin Baker | 1984–1986 |
Seventh Doctor | Sylvester McCoy | 1987–1989, 1996 |
Eighth Doctor | Paul McGann | 1996, 2013 |
War Doctor/Ninth Doctor | John Hurt | 2013 |
Tenth Doctor | Christopher Eccleston | 2005 |
Eleventh Doctor | David Tennant | 2005–2010 |
Twelve Doctor | Matt Smith | 2010–2013 |
Thirteen Doctor | Peter Capaldi | 2013+ |
As you can see all 13 doctors are accounted for, already stated here. that there is only 13 doctors, making Moffat's statement about Matt being the 13th being false since Peter is clearly noticed as an Easter-egg as the 13th Doctor, it should show this in the list because he was officially shown before Matt's regeneration. -- Ronnie42 ( talk) 23:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Personally, for continuity and following The Time of the Doctor it should be as follows:
The Doctor | Portrayed by | Tenure |
---|---|---|
First Doctor | William Hartnell | 1963–1966 |
Second Doctor | Patrick Troughton | 1966–1969 |
Third Doctor | Jon Pertwee | 1970–1974 |
Fourth Doctor | Tom Baker | 1974–1981 |
Fifth Doctor | Peter Davison | 1981–1984 |
Sixth Doctor | Colin Baker | 1984–1986 |
Seventh Doctor | Sylvester McCoy | 1987–1989, 1996 |
Eighth Doctor | Paul McGann | 1996, 2013 |
War Doctor/Ninth Doctor | John Hurt | 2013 |
Tenth Doctor | Christopher Eccleston | 2005 |
Tenth Doctor | David Tennant | 2005–2008 |
Twelfth Doctor | David Tennant, regenerated after being shot by the Daleks | 2008-2010 |
Thirteenth Doctor | Matt Smith | 2010–2013 |
Fourteenth\First Doctor | Peter Capaldi after regeneration cycle reset | 2013+ |
Danny Newman 22:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannynewman ( talk • contribs)
We have multiple secondary sources that list the Doctors as Hartnell to Smith (no Hurt, Cushing, Jayston...) and some primary sources (BBC) that include Hurt, with the clearest being the one provided by Chunk5Darth above that places Hurt after Smith. Given the Wikipedia policies detailed above, it seems to me we should stick to a table without Hurt for now until secondary sources act differently. If we do include Hurt, it has to be after Smith. There is no support for an in-universe listing of Hurt after McGann at this time. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes indeed that is true about basing articels on policies. But that section also goes on to say that "primary sources that have been RELIABLY published may be used in Wikipedia;" none more reliable than the BBC, especially when they are talking about their creative content. Unless of course magazines who INTERPRET the Primary source as something completely different are more reliable? I can see it now. BBC says the Doctor is a time lord. But because he destroyed the time lords leaving the Daleks still around but no more time lords, I decide to write an article saying that my "careful 3rd party analysis" with my "conversations with key cast and crew" comes to the conclusion that The Doctor was indeed, all along a Dalek Collaborator and his journey through time and space has been one racked with guilt. A slightly more reliable newspaper, sees my article, see's the internet chat, agrees and then publishes the findings. So all the secondary sources are now saying something completely different to what the original BBC article says. But here, we have the situation where the Secondary sources and the Primary source are all singing from the same hymn sheet. But we have a group of editors who have started spouting a load of rubbish saying that everyone else is wrong and the the table is "just for TV Stars" when the guy who originally set up the article probably just wanted to show clearly who was the doctor in relation to events. Don't forget...in the context of Doctor Who, time is relative and it's a Timey Wimey big ball of string after all. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
“If anyone corrects you and says “You mean TWELFTH!” when you say “Matt Smith was the eleventh Doctor” then that person is being irritatingly pedantic and should be pitied, in a nice way and with a gentle friendly, not-patronising sort of love, because they will have long hard lives ahead of them.”
I just think we're taking this way too seriously. *shrug* Sceptre ( talk) 20:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Is this an existing yardstick for inclusion? Is there a policy that says that only those who were billed as main actors get to be in the table? Otherwise, it's Wikipedia according to Zythe. Chunk5Darth ( talk) 11:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Chronarch, if you would like to post your suggested new table here, that would help us see better what you envisage.
As per WP:RECENTISM, I am less concerned about providing an immediate reaction to "anyone consulting Wiki after watching the anniversary episode". We should have a long-term focus and past experience (notably with Scream of the Shalka) suggests that it can be difficult to judge the significance of short-term events in particular stories. Anyway, the article on " The Day of the Doctor" has plenty of detail for those interested in that particular story.
Compromise is a good thing and the way to work towards compromise is through a discussion like this, respecting WP:AGF etc. I am happy to see that this discussion has unfolded in a friendly and peaceable way.
Chunk5Darth: it seems to me fairly obvious that Hurt is not like Smith, Tennant... Hartnell. He has never been the current Doctor to the BBC or the public in the way other actors have. I have seen no secondary source listing him like Hartnell->Smith. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
All things considered, the best and the most plausible solution would be to create a Wikitable based on the BBC table in a template, and use that template in all the relevant articles. Chunk5Darth ( talk) 17:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with Chronarch this time, for all reasons stated above. Chunk5Darth ( talk) 19:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This has been a wide-ranging discussion. However, I suggest it is apparent that a clear majority of those taking part oppose including Hurt. There is clearly no WP:CONSENSUS for the changes suggested by Chronarch and Chunk5Darth. Should the facts on the ground change (we see more of Hurt, secondary sources include him in lists, etc.), then we can re-visit this, but is it time to move on? Bondegezou ( talk) 11:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure I put it on here before, but can't find it now. My idea - as history was changed in the 50th anniversary episode, perhaps the War Doctor regenerated into a DIFFERENT body (i.e Peter Capaldi, not Christopher Eccleston) , in such a way that we can consider that the last three Doctors now, never existed! So that gives only 9 regenerations to date......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.183.181 ( talk) 01:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Matt Smith as the Doctor clearly states in 'Time of the Doctor' that the fact is he is the 12th Doctor, he briefly mentions the 'grumpy man' to Clara Oswald in a reference to the 'war doctor' from the episode 'The day of the Doctor' before later regenerating into the 13th Doctor aka Peter Capaldi and the 12th Doctor couldn't originally regenerate because he had to use extra regeneration in one his previous incarnations and he eventually become the 13th by the absorbing energy that came from the big crack that opened in the sky above the town 'Christmas'. -- 88.104.186.50 ( talk) 01:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Having recently [ swapped the first and second columns] on the table on Doctor (Doctor Who), I came here to see if anybody had suggested something similar for the table here. I note that such a suggestion was repeatedly made by Chronarch and was either ignored or shot down for no clear reason (unwillingness to concede that they had any kind of a point?). It is my view that a table listing actors should list the actors' names primarily, in the first lefthandmost column, then secondary information such as the version of the character they played should follow in subsequent columns. Not only would this help calm the urge of a certain mindset to add Hurt et al to the table, I would argue that this is also the best way to clearly communicate the information (as well as our real-world intent) to the reader. Although suggested as some sort of "compromise" above, I am coming to this from a different angle. Any objections? Rubiscous ( talk) 16:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Any edits are being removed as the article currently falls under "WP:CONSENSUS". Not too sure where this consensus comes from as most people agree that John Hurt should be added and that overall, the article needs to be adjusted to show a 1st Regen Cycle and then the new 2nd one. I attempted to do so, but my edits were undone within minutes. My feeling is that there should be a vote. Not this "consensus" thing. The lack of John Hurt in the table and the missing info relating to the cycles hurts the integrity of the article. Mathewdyck ( talk) 21:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I saw the hidden comment and removed it because it has been discussed here. The table is wrong. The 8th Doctor does not regenerate into the 9th Doctor. Plain and simple. The table needs to be adjusted to the way I had it. It better explains the "Change of Appearance" section where the table is listed. Guest Star or not, John Hurt has appeared in more than one episode and has been mentioned now in the Christmas special. Do you even know what my table looked like? Not likely, but here it is again.
First Regeneration Cycle | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Actor | Incarnation | Tenure | ||
William Hartnell | First Doctor | 1963–1966 | ||
Patrick Troughton | Second Doctor | 1966–1969 | ||
Jon Pertwee | Third Doctor | 1970–1974 | ||
Tom Baker | Fourth Doctor | 1974–1981, 2013 | ||
Peter Davison | Fifth Doctor | 1981–1984 | ||
Colin Baker | Sixth Doctor | 1984–1986 | ||
Sylvester McCoy | Seventh Doctor | 1987–1989, 1996 | ||
Paul McGann | Eighth Doctor | 1996, 2013 | ||
John Hurt | War Doctor | 2013 | ||
Christopher Eccleston | Ninth Doctor | 2005 | ||
David Tennant | Tenth Doctor | 2005–2010, 2013 | ||
Matt Smith | Eleventh Doctor | 2010–2013 |
Second Regeneration Cycle | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actor | Incarnation | Tenure | ||||||||||||
Peter Capaldi | Twelfth Doctor | 2013– |
The order makes sense... regardless of when an episode was broadcast. If it's an issue about the "Series Lead" being removed then we can add a column that shows "Series Lead?". The integrity of the article is hurt by the lack of correct info. This table would make the most sense:
First Regeneration Cycle | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Actor | Incarnation | Series Lead? | Tenure | |
William Hartnell | First Doctor | Yes | 1963–1966 | |
Patrick Troughton | Second Doctor | Yes | 1966–1969 | |
Jon Pertwee | Third Doctor | Yes | 1970–1974 | |
Tom Baker | Fourth Doctor | Yes | 1974–1981, 2013 | |
Peter Davison | Fifth Doctor | Yes | 1981–1984 | |
Colin Baker | Sixth Doctor | Yes | 1984–1986 | |
Sylvester McCoy | Seventh Doctor | Yes | 1987–1989, 1996 | |
Paul McGann | Eighth Doctor | Yes | 1996, 2013 | |
John Hurt | War Doctor | No | 2013 | |
Christopher Eccleston | Ninth Doctor | Yes | 2005 | |
David Tennant | Tenth Doctor | Yes | 2005–2010 | |
Matt Smith | Eleventh Doctor | Yes | 2010–2013 |
Second Regeneration Cycle | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actor | Incarnation | Series Lead? | Tenure | |||||||||||
Peter Capaldi | Twelfth Doctor | Yes | 2013– |
Mathewdyck ( talk) 19:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Almost every post I read, someone says that it should be changed. I'm trying to understand too... but you confused me. You say: "The table in the article is not wrong. This because it's not about the story line of the Doctor i.e who regenerates into whom. It's about much more than that: the production, actors, stories reviews that go to make up the series." If this were true, why is the table located under "Section 3: Characters, Sub-Section 3.1: The Doctor, Paragraph 3.1.1: Changes of appearance"? This section is referring to the character of the Doctor and his changes of appearance. It has nothing to do with the production or story reviews. Its talking about the fictional character of the Doctor and his ability to regenerate. Therefore, the table should show all, I repeat, all regenerations. Either that or I propose major changes to that section and a new section be created. The current section should show all actors who have played the Doctor, which incarnation they were and when. The new section would be based on Regenerations only and should use the table that I have suggested as it meets the proper criteria (with added footnotes) to follow the story. Mathewdyck ( talk) 23:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, its not that easy to see if a "consensus" was actually reached. You all talk about looking at it from this "OUTUNIVERSE" view, yet other articles in Wikipedia have "INUNIVERSE" perspectives. Do we not care about integrity? Why does one article get treated differently than the next? If you need clarification, see the point made below about the "Starship Enterprise". The article mentions previous captains that are not even in the show and probably barely mentioned... yet here, we can't even add to the article to include a section that specifically talks about the regenerations of the Doctor and not the "the production, actors, stories reviews that go to make up the series". "Consensus" or not, most people will agree that a new section would be most logical. You cannot deny that John Hurt was The Doctor. Go to the BBC website. He's listed there. Here's a link that helps my cause: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01l1z04/profiles/war-doctor Mathewdyck ( talk) 17:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
LOL. Dumbed down? How is adding info that the BBC recognizes as fact about the show dumb the article down? Again, since everyone seems to lose it when someone mentions changing the table, I've proposed a new section based strictly on the in-universe regenerations. Lets not forget what the purpose of Wikipedia is... "...to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge." Lupercus ( talk) 19:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Please elaborate on how something about the TV Show that the BBC recognizes is "unencyclopaedic"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewdyck ( talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
As I see this is going nowhere fast, I'm retracting all statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewdyck ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
At the start of the episode he is at first known as the 'War Doctor', at the end of the episode both David, Matt (Doctors) refer to the John Hurt as the just the 'Doctor', officially the BBC has even classed the Doctor as an official regeneration of the Doctor lined up here and the image linked:
-- Ronnie42 ( talk) 10:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the War Doctor should be footnoted and have a section elsewhere in the document, but not appear in the table. His presence there would be misleading. He doesn't fit into the ordinal chronology and was never the standing Doctor as Matt Smith is; he's an additional feature and should be explained accordingly in narrative. Anything else would be confusing, and would mislead the reader. -- Drmargi ( talk) 20:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I think this is one thing where people are getting a bit too caught up. It's never been made clear whether the First Doctor was the first incarnation; he was only the first one to leave Gallifrey. During the seventies, there was a plot thread through stories such as The Deadly Assassin and The Brains of Morbius, even up to The Caves of Androzani, that the Fourth Doctor was actually the twelfth incarnation. This was later pushed backwards in Trial where the Valeyard was an amalgamation of the Doctor's evil between his twelfth and final regenerations. Hell, it's only in "The Name of the Doctor" that Eleven was explicitly mentioned as the eleventh (and, five seconds later, twelfth) incarnation.
The point I'm making is that the ordinal number is just a pointer to the audience with regards to how the Doctors are ordered. And no-one's going to really call Hurt the Ninth Doctor, he'll be always the War Doctor or, in ordinal terms, the Eighth-and-a-Half Doctor. He's in the official continuity as an official Doctor, having as much screen time as McGann, but Capaldi's Doctor will probably still be Twelve to the audience.
Sceptre (
talk)
23:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:INUNIVERSE specifically warns against listing by fictional chronology; before last week there was no difference been fictional and real-world chronology so this didn't matter. Hurt doesn't fit between Smith and Capaldi as he played alongside Smith and Smith will appear in the Christmas Special. Edgepedia ( talk) 20:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC) (after thought) and you can't really take McGann out as he's no. 8. Edgepedia ( talk) 20:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
(@Blethering Scot)I'm sorry that I had to explain step-by-step what writing about fiction is. The point is that Wikipedia articles are written from a real-world perspective. From a real-world perspective, the series leads are the most important (see List of Doctor Who serials#Series overview). I'm sorry that you can't see that and that from your POV everything has to be in-universe. But the fact remains, it has always been about real-world perspective and the history of the programme, which in this instance is about series leads.
As I have said, summarising in-universe is fine, and you can go off and make an in-universe list as long as you can place it in the appropriate place in the relevant articles, but not at the cost of real-world perspective. McGann was cast to continue the show in 1996 then Eccleston in 2005. Capaldi was cast to continue the show after Smith in 2013. Hurt played a version of the character in one episode whilst making a cameo in another as a guest star. That's real-world.
Again, feel free to create an in-universe list that has the progression as Eighth-War-Ninth because Wikipedia articles can have more than one list of different types. DonQuixote ( talk) 21:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Gentlemen, calm down. Blethering, whether you care to recognize it or not, there IS a third option: omitting Hurt from the existing table altogether. You can twist and turn the DQ's arguments all you care to, but he's been quite consistent in saying that from the beginning. It's also the option I favor, leaving you two options: construct a time-line including Hurt or explain him in narrative. Treating Hurt as the others when he was a guest character in one episode is inaccurate, misrepresents his place in the show chronology and will confuse the reader. -- Drmargi ( talk) 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Well it's official: steven-moffat-adds-twists-regeneration-riddle At the end of The Day of the Doctor, John Hurt was officially named as a doctor, representing him as the ninth incarnation. According to the BBC article, Tennant used up two regenerations, one being after Eccleston and the other from his hand (although this still desperately needs clarification). This puts Matt Smith as the Thirteenth, leaving Capaldi as the mystery Doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.136.124 ( talk) 06:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Think this needs to got to a RFC if we cant get consensus one way or another then thats where i will take it very shortly. For now these are the two options. The table currently uses a footnote with further explanation re the first doctor and this is what we would use again if going down in universe route. In the real world table it is exactly as laid out and there is already sufficient text in the article to support it. I disagree that we cannot list the War Doctor between Smith and Capaldi as text support statement they appeared concurrently as does the date appeared but again further explanation can be made through footnote as is already the case for first doctor. What cannot continue is edit warring on the basis of take to talk page when there isn't strong consensus for it not to be there. Blethering Scot 21:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The Doctor | Portrayed by | Tenure |
---|---|---|
First Doctor | William Hartnell | 1963–1966 |
Second Doctor | Patrick Troughton | 1966–1969 |
Third Doctor | Jon Pertwee | 1970–1974 |
Fourth Doctor | Tom Baker | 1974–1981 |
Fifth Doctor | Peter Davison | 1981–1984 |
Sixth Doctor | Colin Baker | 1984–1986 |
Seventh Doctor | Sylvester McCoy | 1987–1989, 1996 |
Eighth Doctor | Paul McGann | 1996 |
Ninth Doctor | Christopher Eccleston | 2005 |
Tenth Doctor | David Tennant | 2005–2010 |
Eleventh Doctor | Matt Smith | 2010–2013 |
War Doctor | John Hurt | 2013 |
The Doctor | Portrayed by | Tenure |
---|---|---|
First Doctor | William Hartnell | 1963–1966 |
Second Doctor | Patrick Troughton | 1966–1969 |
Third Doctor | Jon Pertwee | 1970–1974 |
Fourth Doctor | Tom Baker | 1974–1981 |
Fifth Doctor | Peter Davison | 1981–1984 |
Sixth Doctor | Colin Baker | 1984–1986 |
Seventh Doctor | Sylvester McCoy | 1987–1989, 1996 |
Eighth Doctor | Paul McGann | 1996 |
War Doctor | John Hurt | 2013 |
Ninth Doctor | Christopher Eccleston | 2005 |
Tenth Doctor | David Tennant | 2005–2010 |
Eleventh Doctor | Matt Smith | 2010–2013 |
The Doctor | Portrayed by | Tenure |
---|---|---|
First Doctor | William Hartnell | 1963–1966 |
Second Doctor | Patrick Troughton | 1966–1969 |
Third Doctor | Jon Pertwee | 1970–1974 |
Fourth Doctor | Tom Baker | 1974–1981 |
Fifth Doctor | Peter Davison | 1981–1984 |
Sixth Doctor | Colin Baker | 1984–1986 |
Seventh Doctor | Sylvester McCoy | 1987–1989, 1996 |
Eighth Doctor | Paul McGann | 1996 |
Ninth Doctor | Christopher Eccleston | 2005 |
Tenth Doctor | David Tennant | 2005–2010 |
Eleventh Doctor | Matt Smith | 2010–2013 |
-- Drmargi ( talk) 22:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I haven't been convinced that Hurt can appear in the table for the reasons I have already mentioned. The guideline WP:INUNIVERSE shows we should write from a real-world perspective, and I don't see how we can fit Hurt in from a real world perspective without confusion. I think This comment by an IP summarizes the position succinctly. Edgepedia ( talk) 08:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I was asked here to make a comment on here so a compromise should make the War Doctor to have a number since he is technically the 9th regeneration, regardless of name he is still the same person but with a slightly different nickname, later just classed as the 'Doctor' so it would make sense for the table to say 9th/War Doctor. This would bump up all numbers of the regeneration, making Chris = 10th, David = 11th, Matt = 12th, Peter = 13th, the current date's should stay the same but the 9th/war doctor should fit between Chris, Paul regenerations. It's all commented on by Matt Smith, David Tennant, refer to the War Doctor as the Doctor after changing the Doctors past also they also say this when the 3 Doctor's talk to the time-lords about their plan -- Ronnie42 ( talk) 12:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
As an impartial observer, and someone who isn't a Doctor Who fan, I would point out that ALL of these proposed tables appear to be IN UNIVERSE. They reflect a fan's interpretation of which actors and roles are important, and which aren't. The fact that they have fan-created names in them (like "Eighth Doctor") is a telltale sign: The years the actors portrayed the doctor is a more accurate *real world* reflection than a fan-derived nickname (and, indeed, looking at earlier edits of this page, that's exactly how they were listed). The individual pages should be titled "Doctor_Who_(1963-1966)" or perhaps "Doctor_Who_(William_Harnell)". Outside of the DW universe these fan created nicknames are meaningless. And worse, they are inaccurate: As mentioned previously, Peter Cushing was technically the "Second Doctor" -- the only way that Patrick Troughton can be considered the "Second Doctor" is by selecting which portrayals are canon, and which are not. Arguing that one occurred on TV, while the other occurred in the cinema is meaningless. Other shows exist in several mediums (e.g. The X-Files, Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, Star Trek and many others). The only reason Doctor Who has chosen to focus solely on the TV series is because that's what is considered important by the fans (i.e. canon). Again, I say this as an impartial observer, and someone who isn't a fan of Doctor Who. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker ( talk) 16:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
|- ! Accepted Nickname !! Portrayed by !! Tenure |- | " First Doctor" || William Hartnell || 1963–1966 |- | " Dr. Who" || Peter Cushing || 1965–1966 |- | " Second Doctor" || Patrick Troughton || 1966–1969 |- | " Third Doctor" || Jon Pertwee || 1970–1974 |- | " Fourth Doctor" || Tom Baker || 1974–1981 |- | " Fifth Doctor" || Peter Davison || 1981–1984 |- | " Sixth Doctor" || Colin Baker || 1984–1986 |- | " Seventh Doctor" || Sylvester McCoy || 1987–1989, 1996 |- | " Eighth Doctor" || Paul McGann || 1996 |- | " Ninth Doctor" || Christopher Eccleston || 2005 |- | " Tenth Doctor" || David Tennant || 2005–2010 |- | " Eleventh Doctor" || Matt Smith || 2010–2013 |} Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker ( talk) 05:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Well firstly that's a lot of comments, anyway I strongly believe that the War Doctor need's a number, I don't recall anywhere in 'Day of the Doctor' where anyone called him the 'war doctor', he's frequently called the 'Doctor' by the new 11th,12th Doctor and the 'Bad wolf girl/box conscious' all called 'John Hurt' the Doctor, the episode 'name of the doctor' called him the 'doctor', the 'war doctor' is only a controlled regeneration but is still known as the 'Doctor'. I don't know how I can be more clear, I accept John Hurt may have the name 'war doctor' but the fact the title 'doctor' is still in the name which makes him technically still the 'doctor', so the fact is he is the 9th Doctor. The time-table itself should put him between 8th, Christopher Eccleston so the table should be about the order of the regenerations. -- Ronnie42 ( talk) 17:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
"John Hurt is officially now a doctor" It would seem to me, he was iniitally billed as the "war doctor", but its quite clear from the way he is portrayed, his dialogue, the fact he is standing with all the other doctors in the line at the end of the ep, that he is a doctor of equal standing, just like the rest.Additiionally, the BBC have included him in the "line up" graphic of the doctors ( http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2013/11/john-hurt-doctor-line-up-picture-241113154317.html) Deathlibrarian ( talk) 22:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC) ...plus the line from the show, once Peter Capaldi appeared “All 13 of them.”....pretty hard to dispute! Deathlibrarian ( talk) 22:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
This is a BBC source AND quoting Steven Moffat...so its pretty clear. "Speaking to the Daily Mirror, he pointed out that the Metacrisis Doctor (generated when the Tenth Doctor was shot by a Dalek and he diverted the excess regeneration energy into his own severed hand) counts as one regeneration, and now so does the War Doctor. So the Eleventh Doctor is now the Thirteenth Doctor (despite what Mr Moffat may have previously clamed). And Peter Capaldi is lined up to play a man who cannot exist." http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2013/11/steven-moffat-adds-twists-regeneration-riddle/ Deathlibrarian ( talk) 03:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I would remind you of WP:INDY and WP:PRIMARY. While what the show's producers say is interesting, Wikipedia policy prefers reliable secondary sources independent of the show's producers. Bondegezou ( talk) 15:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
There are a number of sources that now clearly state that John Hurt is a doctor, including the BBC, "The Independent", quotes from the producer/Head writer, "The Mirror", "Radio Times", the Doctor Who website and Doctor Who News, and various other media. All these are acceptable sources, as per wikipedia guidelines, covering both WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY and together with what is indicated in the actual episode itself
On top of that, the BBC have included him in the official pic of all the doctors, in order.
Seriously, what more do we need? Deathlibrarian ( talk) 21:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
As for which table to use to invlude John Hurt, my personal preference is for the in universe table, as it makes more sense to me, but I agree with Edgepedia and Chunk5Darth, as per Wikipedia policy WP:INUNIVERSE, we need to present the order in real life as opposed to in Universe/fan viewpoint, so we should use the "real life" table with John Hurt in it (despite my personal whovian feelings :-) ). As for Peter Cushing, that's another argument, lets keep it simple for the moment. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 22:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
As this is my first post I hope you'll forgive its shortcomings.
I don't pretend to have fully mastered yet the details of Wiki's policy on in-universe versus real-life descriptions; in view, however, of the unique interconnection between the Whovian universe and the real world through the concept of regeneration, it seems to me that any worthwhile table must include elements of both.
Since the War Doctor is clearly intended to be as much of an incarnation of the Doctor as any of those currently listed in the table (see further below), I am strongly of the view that he should figure in the table itself. My personal preference would be to include the War Doctor in his in-universe place (between McGann and Eccleston), but in the final column make it clear that he first appeared in 2013, and in a few lines of text immediately after the table explain the circumstances of this incarnation's creation. In my opinion this would offer the best of both worlds, and would be the most helpful approach for those consulting the article.
The placement of the present textual mention of the War Doctor - i.e. after the Valeyard and the Dream Lord - seems misleading. I haven't checked what was said in the episode about the Dream Lord, but the description here of the Valeyard is inaccurate. He is not 'described as an incarnation "between" the Doctor's twelfth and final forms'; what the Master says to the Doctor (in episode 13 of 'Trial') is that 'The Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnations.' The term 'amalgamation' suggests a hybrid entity - whether created by accident or design we are not informed - rather than an actual incarnation of the Doctor. The War Doctor, on the other hand, is a genuine incarnation of the Doctor, on a par with all the others; the only difference is that, for a long period, he declined to use the title of 'Doctor'.
For these reasons, I would respectfully recommend both the inclusion of the War Doctor in the table (preferably in the way I have suggested above), and the reordering/revision of the subsequent text (a) to mention the War Doctor at the start, and (b) to modify the description of the Valeyard to quote the actual wording of 'Trial', rather than the current, somewhat inaccurate, paraphrase.
My apologies again for any errors in this post. Chronarch ( talk) 09:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Yes, Chronarch, I agree..and well put. The valeyard character is clearly more ambiguous and not decribed by primary and secondary sources as an actual incarnation of the doctor Deathlibrarian ( talk) 15:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
While I'm grateful for the responses, I'm concerned that we now seem to be blurring things by talking about 'versions' of the Doctor. I cannot see that, whether from an in-universe or a real-world perspective, it is terribly helpful to the reader to treat the Valeyard, the Dream Lord and the War Doctor as being all on a par, when this could easily be avoided, without losing anything, by a simple rewording. Moreover, as I said before, it is far from clear that the Valeyard is a 'version' of the Doctor in any meaningful sense. Surely there is nothing in Wiki policy which prevents our describing the contents of a fiction accurately, if we are to speak about it at all? Chronarch ( talk) 18:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. But isn't the problem that John Hurt played the Doctor, whereas Michael Jayston and Toby Jones played 'versions' of the Doctor (in the sense of amalgamations/manifestations of his dark side)? Why is the 'guest role' aspect so important? Isn't it more helpful to list all the actors who have played the Doctor in the series, and who also constitute 'incarnations' of the Doctor in the fictional universe? Shouldn't the latter be covered somehow in this article, in a separate table if absolutely necessary? Chronarch ( talk) 00:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's how it should look, clearly people have conflicting opinions on the naming of 'John Hurt' so I strongly believe that both names should be counted, I have already previously provided proof so here's how it should look.
The Doctor | Portrayed by | Tenure |
---|---|---|
First Doctor | William Hartnell | 1963–1966 |
Second Doctor | Patrick Troughton | 1966–1969 |
Third Doctor | Jon Pertwee | 1970–1974 |
Fourth Doctor | Tom Baker | 1974–1981 |
Fifth Doctor | Peter Davison | 1981–1984 |
Sixth Doctor | Colin Baker | 1984–1986 |
Seventh Doctor | Sylvester McCoy | 1987–1989, 1996 |
Eighth Doctor | Paul McGann | 1996, 2013 |
War Doctor/Ninth Doctor | John Hurt | 2013 |
Tenth Doctor | Christopher Eccleston | 2005 |
Eleventh Doctor | David Tennant | 2005–2010 |
Twelve Doctor | Matt Smith | 2010–2013 |
Thirteen Doctor | Peter Capaldi | 2013+ |
As you can see all 13 doctors are accounted for, already stated here. that there is only 13 doctors, making Moffat's statement about Matt being the 13th being false since Peter is clearly noticed as an Easter-egg as the 13th Doctor, it should show this in the list because he was officially shown before Matt's regeneration. -- Ronnie42 ( talk) 23:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Personally, for continuity and following The Time of the Doctor it should be as follows:
The Doctor | Portrayed by | Tenure |
---|---|---|
First Doctor | William Hartnell | 1963–1966 |
Second Doctor | Patrick Troughton | 1966–1969 |
Third Doctor | Jon Pertwee | 1970–1974 |
Fourth Doctor | Tom Baker | 1974–1981 |
Fifth Doctor | Peter Davison | 1981–1984 |
Sixth Doctor | Colin Baker | 1984–1986 |
Seventh Doctor | Sylvester McCoy | 1987–1989, 1996 |
Eighth Doctor | Paul McGann | 1996, 2013 |
War Doctor/Ninth Doctor | John Hurt | 2013 |
Tenth Doctor | Christopher Eccleston | 2005 |
Tenth Doctor | David Tennant | 2005–2008 |
Twelfth Doctor | David Tennant, regenerated after being shot by the Daleks | 2008-2010 |
Thirteenth Doctor | Matt Smith | 2010–2013 |
Fourteenth\First Doctor | Peter Capaldi after regeneration cycle reset | 2013+ |
Danny Newman 22:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannynewman ( talk • contribs)
We have multiple secondary sources that list the Doctors as Hartnell to Smith (no Hurt, Cushing, Jayston...) and some primary sources (BBC) that include Hurt, with the clearest being the one provided by Chunk5Darth above that places Hurt after Smith. Given the Wikipedia policies detailed above, it seems to me we should stick to a table without Hurt for now until secondary sources act differently. If we do include Hurt, it has to be after Smith. There is no support for an in-universe listing of Hurt after McGann at this time. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes indeed that is true about basing articels on policies. But that section also goes on to say that "primary sources that have been RELIABLY published may be used in Wikipedia;" none more reliable than the BBC, especially when they are talking about their creative content. Unless of course magazines who INTERPRET the Primary source as something completely different are more reliable? I can see it now. BBC says the Doctor is a time lord. But because he destroyed the time lords leaving the Daleks still around but no more time lords, I decide to write an article saying that my "careful 3rd party analysis" with my "conversations with key cast and crew" comes to the conclusion that The Doctor was indeed, all along a Dalek Collaborator and his journey through time and space has been one racked with guilt. A slightly more reliable newspaper, sees my article, see's the internet chat, agrees and then publishes the findings. So all the secondary sources are now saying something completely different to what the original BBC article says. But here, we have the situation where the Secondary sources and the Primary source are all singing from the same hymn sheet. But we have a group of editors who have started spouting a load of rubbish saying that everyone else is wrong and the the table is "just for TV Stars" when the guy who originally set up the article probably just wanted to show clearly who was the doctor in relation to events. Don't forget...in the context of Doctor Who, time is relative and it's a Timey Wimey big ball of string after all. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
“If anyone corrects you and says “You mean TWELFTH!” when you say “Matt Smith was the eleventh Doctor” then that person is being irritatingly pedantic and should be pitied, in a nice way and with a gentle friendly, not-patronising sort of love, because they will have long hard lives ahead of them.”
I just think we're taking this way too seriously. *shrug* Sceptre ( talk) 20:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Is this an existing yardstick for inclusion? Is there a policy that says that only those who were billed as main actors get to be in the table? Otherwise, it's Wikipedia according to Zythe. Chunk5Darth ( talk) 11:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Chronarch, if you would like to post your suggested new table here, that would help us see better what you envisage.
As per WP:RECENTISM, I am less concerned about providing an immediate reaction to "anyone consulting Wiki after watching the anniversary episode". We should have a long-term focus and past experience (notably with Scream of the Shalka) suggests that it can be difficult to judge the significance of short-term events in particular stories. Anyway, the article on " The Day of the Doctor" has plenty of detail for those interested in that particular story.
Compromise is a good thing and the way to work towards compromise is through a discussion like this, respecting WP:AGF etc. I am happy to see that this discussion has unfolded in a friendly and peaceable way.
Chunk5Darth: it seems to me fairly obvious that Hurt is not like Smith, Tennant... Hartnell. He has never been the current Doctor to the BBC or the public in the way other actors have. I have seen no secondary source listing him like Hartnell->Smith. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
All things considered, the best and the most plausible solution would be to create a Wikitable based on the BBC table in a template, and use that template in all the relevant articles. Chunk5Darth ( talk) 17:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with Chronarch this time, for all reasons stated above. Chunk5Darth ( talk) 19:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This has been a wide-ranging discussion. However, I suggest it is apparent that a clear majority of those taking part oppose including Hurt. There is clearly no WP:CONSENSUS for the changes suggested by Chronarch and Chunk5Darth. Should the facts on the ground change (we see more of Hurt, secondary sources include him in lists, etc.), then we can re-visit this, but is it time to move on? Bondegezou ( talk) 11:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure I put it on here before, but can't find it now. My idea - as history was changed in the 50th anniversary episode, perhaps the War Doctor regenerated into a DIFFERENT body (i.e Peter Capaldi, not Christopher Eccleston) , in such a way that we can consider that the last three Doctors now, never existed! So that gives only 9 regenerations to date......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.183.181 ( talk) 01:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Matt Smith as the Doctor clearly states in 'Time of the Doctor' that the fact is he is the 12th Doctor, he briefly mentions the 'grumpy man' to Clara Oswald in a reference to the 'war doctor' from the episode 'The day of the Doctor' before later regenerating into the 13th Doctor aka Peter Capaldi and the 12th Doctor couldn't originally regenerate because he had to use extra regeneration in one his previous incarnations and he eventually become the 13th by the absorbing energy that came from the big crack that opened in the sky above the town 'Christmas'. -- 88.104.186.50 ( talk) 01:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Having recently [ swapped the first and second columns] on the table on Doctor (Doctor Who), I came here to see if anybody had suggested something similar for the table here. I note that such a suggestion was repeatedly made by Chronarch and was either ignored or shot down for no clear reason (unwillingness to concede that they had any kind of a point?). It is my view that a table listing actors should list the actors' names primarily, in the first lefthandmost column, then secondary information such as the version of the character they played should follow in subsequent columns. Not only would this help calm the urge of a certain mindset to add Hurt et al to the table, I would argue that this is also the best way to clearly communicate the information (as well as our real-world intent) to the reader. Although suggested as some sort of "compromise" above, I am coming to this from a different angle. Any objections? Rubiscous ( talk) 16:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Any edits are being removed as the article currently falls under "WP:CONSENSUS". Not too sure where this consensus comes from as most people agree that John Hurt should be added and that overall, the article needs to be adjusted to show a 1st Regen Cycle and then the new 2nd one. I attempted to do so, but my edits were undone within minutes. My feeling is that there should be a vote. Not this "consensus" thing. The lack of John Hurt in the table and the missing info relating to the cycles hurts the integrity of the article. Mathewdyck ( talk) 21:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I saw the hidden comment and removed it because it has been discussed here. The table is wrong. The 8th Doctor does not regenerate into the 9th Doctor. Plain and simple. The table needs to be adjusted to the way I had it. It better explains the "Change of Appearance" section where the table is listed. Guest Star or not, John Hurt has appeared in more than one episode and has been mentioned now in the Christmas special. Do you even know what my table looked like? Not likely, but here it is again.
First Regeneration Cycle | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Actor | Incarnation | Tenure | ||
William Hartnell | First Doctor | 1963–1966 | ||
Patrick Troughton | Second Doctor | 1966–1969 | ||
Jon Pertwee | Third Doctor | 1970–1974 | ||
Tom Baker | Fourth Doctor | 1974–1981, 2013 | ||
Peter Davison | Fifth Doctor | 1981–1984 | ||
Colin Baker | Sixth Doctor | 1984–1986 | ||
Sylvester McCoy | Seventh Doctor | 1987–1989, 1996 | ||
Paul McGann | Eighth Doctor | 1996, 2013 | ||
John Hurt | War Doctor | 2013 | ||
Christopher Eccleston | Ninth Doctor | 2005 | ||
David Tennant | Tenth Doctor | 2005–2010, 2013 | ||
Matt Smith | Eleventh Doctor | 2010–2013 |
Second Regeneration Cycle | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actor | Incarnation | Tenure | ||||||||||||
Peter Capaldi | Twelfth Doctor | 2013– |
The order makes sense... regardless of when an episode was broadcast. If it's an issue about the "Series Lead" being removed then we can add a column that shows "Series Lead?". The integrity of the article is hurt by the lack of correct info. This table would make the most sense:
First Regeneration Cycle | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Actor | Incarnation | Series Lead? | Tenure | |
William Hartnell | First Doctor | Yes | 1963–1966 | |
Patrick Troughton | Second Doctor | Yes | 1966–1969 | |
Jon Pertwee | Third Doctor | Yes | 1970–1974 | |
Tom Baker | Fourth Doctor | Yes | 1974–1981, 2013 | |
Peter Davison | Fifth Doctor | Yes | 1981–1984 | |
Colin Baker | Sixth Doctor | Yes | 1984–1986 | |
Sylvester McCoy | Seventh Doctor | Yes | 1987–1989, 1996 | |
Paul McGann | Eighth Doctor | Yes | 1996, 2013 | |
John Hurt | War Doctor | No | 2013 | |
Christopher Eccleston | Ninth Doctor | Yes | 2005 | |
David Tennant | Tenth Doctor | Yes | 2005–2010 | |
Matt Smith | Eleventh Doctor | Yes | 2010–2013 |
Second Regeneration Cycle | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actor | Incarnation | Series Lead? | Tenure | |||||||||||
Peter Capaldi | Twelfth Doctor | Yes | 2013– |
Mathewdyck ( talk) 19:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Almost every post I read, someone says that it should be changed. I'm trying to understand too... but you confused me. You say: "The table in the article is not wrong. This because it's not about the story line of the Doctor i.e who regenerates into whom. It's about much more than that: the production, actors, stories reviews that go to make up the series." If this were true, why is the table located under "Section 3: Characters, Sub-Section 3.1: The Doctor, Paragraph 3.1.1: Changes of appearance"? This section is referring to the character of the Doctor and his changes of appearance. It has nothing to do with the production or story reviews. Its talking about the fictional character of the Doctor and his ability to regenerate. Therefore, the table should show all, I repeat, all regenerations. Either that or I propose major changes to that section and a new section be created. The current section should show all actors who have played the Doctor, which incarnation they were and when. The new section would be based on Regenerations only and should use the table that I have suggested as it meets the proper criteria (with added footnotes) to follow the story. Mathewdyck ( talk) 23:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, its not that easy to see if a "consensus" was actually reached. You all talk about looking at it from this "OUTUNIVERSE" view, yet other articles in Wikipedia have "INUNIVERSE" perspectives. Do we not care about integrity? Why does one article get treated differently than the next? If you need clarification, see the point made below about the "Starship Enterprise". The article mentions previous captains that are not even in the show and probably barely mentioned... yet here, we can't even add to the article to include a section that specifically talks about the regenerations of the Doctor and not the "the production, actors, stories reviews that go to make up the series". "Consensus" or not, most people will agree that a new section would be most logical. You cannot deny that John Hurt was The Doctor. Go to the BBC website. He's listed there. Here's a link that helps my cause: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01l1z04/profiles/war-doctor Mathewdyck ( talk) 17:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
LOL. Dumbed down? How is adding info that the BBC recognizes as fact about the show dumb the article down? Again, since everyone seems to lose it when someone mentions changing the table, I've proposed a new section based strictly on the in-universe regenerations. Lets not forget what the purpose of Wikipedia is... "...to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge." Lupercus ( talk) 19:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Please elaborate on how something about the TV Show that the BBC recognizes is "unencyclopaedic"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewdyck ( talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
As I see this is going nowhere fast, I'm retracting all statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewdyck ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)