![]() | 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 |
BBC on its website says new episodes are being made but none will be aired in 2016 due to coverage of the Olympics and other special events. The annual Christmas Special episode is still scheduled for 25 December. By the way, in an early episode, granddaughter Susan says she made up the phrase Time and Relative Dimension in Space to match the letters TARDIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.144.22 ( talk) 20:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this video [1] Rachel Talalay calls "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" a two-parter, and she is the director so she would know. The production team clearly think of the episodes as a two-parter, Rachel Talalay would not have called the episodes a two-parter if they were not officially designated as such. As well as this, the video is newer than issue 495 of DWM, it was posted on YouTube on 21 January 2016 (it was originally posted on the official website on 12 January 2016 [2]), DWM issue 495 was released 7 January 2016, meaning that this video is the most up to date source we have, it is the most recent statement on the official designation of the episodes, and one of the justifications of using DWM as a source in the previous discussion was that it was the most up to date source, which it isn't. We have to go by the most up to date source, there is no justification for going by an older source which is contradicted by the most recent source. Fan4Life ( talk) 11:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Certain summaries listed on the season/series pages are too long per WP:TVPLOT, which gives a limit of 200 words for summaries used in {{ Episode list}}, and WP:FILMPLOT, which gives a limit of 750 words for films. They have been tagged, and are listed below. Alex|The|Whovian ? 08:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Episodes
|
---|
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Doctor Who has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Pearl Mackie in the "Various Companions as of" section as she was confirmed as the new companion. Thanks. 94.7.47.248 ( talk) 18:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey all Who fans. Quite some time ago there was a really awesome article that had columns listing every serial of Doctor Who, the Doctor who appeared in it, the year of production, and the year the story was set in. The columns could be ordered chronologically so a "non-time traveler" could see which doctors were crossing paths in which years. For instance, when one of the more recent doctors witnesses the JFK shooting, this is just a few days before the First Doctor sends Susan to school in the Earthly Child. Very cool article but can't locate it using the search engines. does anyone remember this? Is it still on Wikipedia? - O.R. Comms 20:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads up. I noticed this has popped up [3]. Would some of these images might do with a better fair use rationale? Cheers, Dresken ( talk) 11:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I would like to pinpoint the inaccuracy of the map portraying the countries where doctor who episodes either current or classic are available. As of 2016 Netflix has become available in Pakistan and Doctor Who in its current version is available on Pakistani Netflix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.169.39 ( talk) 11:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I've never been happy with the introduction to the Doctor Who article. It heavily favors the 2005 revival of the series, specifically naming new series creator Russell T. Davies (twice) and Christopher Eccleston, but not bothering to credit the show's original production team (creator Sydney Newman, producer Verity Lambert, first Doctor William Hartnell - who is at least as important as Eccleston to the show's history). I would either name *no* actors in the intro, or at least try to balance the references; here we have three modern actors referenced and none of the older ones, not even the guy who originated the role. Also, saying the BBC has produced Doctor Who "since 1963" is misleading, since it ignores the long interim period between the two versions of the show. I think a lot of the problems stem from the fact that we're really talking about two different shows here, awkwardly crammed together into one article; and like a lot of Wikipedia, the article favors recent stuff over old stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbinDallas ( talk • contribs)
Articles for episodes and specials should no longer be created until one of the following options are met. 1) After the episode has aired, per the consensus and typical method used by WP:TV and MOS:TV across most television-series articles (of which Doctor Who is not unique). 2) If the episode has not aired, the content needs to meet the general notability guide, and have enough content to create a separate article; that is, the episode article should not simply be duplicate information from the series article that it belongs to. Alex|The|Whovian ? 08:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The first sentence of the third paragraph of the intro isn't correct. It states that Twelve actors have headlined the series when only eleven have, but thirteen actors have portrayed the doctor. PabloTheMagnanimous ( talk) 17:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe it should be noted in the first paragraph of the premise that the chameleon circuit may be broken but that it is fixable and the Doctor chooses not to fix it because he likes the way the T.A.R.D.I.S. looks in this form. PabloTheMagnanimous ( talk) 17:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
According to the show and books a Time Lord is specifically someone who entered and graduated the Time Lord Academy. Gallifreyans are transcripted at age eight and taken to see the un-tempered schism, the event that according to legend started the Master on the path to insanity, to see if they are suited to be trained to be a Time Lord. During their time in the academy they are given a second heart which is what allows them to hold regeneration energy. A normal Gallifreyan only has one heart and cannot regenerate, this is explored in the 70's in novelization when a pirate steals the Doctors second heart so that he can regenerate.
Given these details it should be noted in the article that the Doctor is a self proclaimed Time Lord even though by his own admission on several occasions he never fulfilled all the requirements to be a Time Lord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PabloTheMagnanimous ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it would benefit to add in the premise that the Doctors fascination with Earth possibly stems from the Doctor being half human as revealed in the 1996 movie. I realize that the movie wasn't originally accepted as canon, but with the inclusion of Mcgann in the 50th anniversary special and the Big Finish audio stories featuring Mcgann, it would seem the events of the movie should be accepted into canon. PabloTheMagnanimous ( talk) 17:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't have to say anything about canon, I was simply bringing up canon to reinforce my point about adding the comment about the Doctors fascination possibly stemming from the Doctor being half human as revealed in the 1996 movie. I think it holds more credibility to point to events from actually released material in the Who universe rather than sources who talk about the show. PabloTheMagnanimous ( talk) 17:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
A draft has been start for Series 11 at Draft:Doctor Who (series 11); contributions are welcome, but the article should not be moved to the mainspace until the series has began filming. Alex|The|Whovian ? 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The article states that, "In April 2015, Steven Moffat confirmed that Doctor Who would run for at least another five years, extending the show until 2020." I dispute the use of the word "confirmed" and suggest "predicted" instead. User:AlexTheWhovian disagrees. We've been discussing this at Draft talk:Doctor Who (series 11), but AlexTW pointed out the use of the phrase here.
As far as I can see, the citation given merely quotes an interview with Moffat. He's making a personal prediction of what he thinks will happen. It's not a decision that is within his power, nor is it a decision the BBC would take (when have the BBC ever confirmed a series will still be going five years hence?). AlexTW contends this constitutes an official statement by the BBC because the citation is a BBC News article, but that appears to me to misunderstand the editorial independence of BBC News when it is covering entertainment news pertaining to the BBC. The article is carefully phrased to be clear that this is something Moffat said: it doesn't state this to be a fact about reality. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
leaving the show. An informed prediction, sure, but not a confirmation. Bondegezou ( talk) 23:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Given the imminent release of series 10 on April 15, 2017, why not add The Doctor Who Companion as a reference site.
A good resource for readers/viewers, who want to check what last year was all about before the start of series 10 http://thedoctorwhocompanion.com/2017/03/23/march-2016-17-one-year-in-doctor-who/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by John verbic ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The article erroneously refers to the Eleventh Doctor as the Doctor's twelfth regeneration. He was the tenth.
First Doctor = Original Second Doctor = First Regeneration Third Doctor = Second Regeneration Fourth Doctor = Third Regeneration Fifth Doctor = Fourth Regeneration: This is mentioned in The Five Doctors special. Richard Hurndall as the First Doctor asks Peter Davison as the Fifth: "Regeneration?" To which he replies, "Fourth." The First Doctor then says, "So there are FIVE of me now!" Sixth Doctor = Fifth Regeneration Seventh Doctor = Sixth Regeneration Eighth Doctor = Seventh Regeneration Ninth Doctor = Eighth Regeneration Tenth Doctor = Ninth Regeneration Eleventh Doctor = Tenth Regeneration Twelfth Doctor = Eleventh Regeneration Thirteenth Doctor = Twelfth Regeneration
Thus, if The Doctor were not given a new set of regenerations, the Thirteenth Doctor would be unable to regenerate and would die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:42D0:E182:1B8F:B199:C723 ( talk) 20:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You left out the War Doctor. So you are wrong. Oakymut2016 ( talk) 22:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Is Pearl Mackie the companion in Dr Who right now? This is the question behind a recent edit dispute. Should she be listed in the infobox as the companion (with Matt Lucas) now or not until her first episode airs?
Several editors are defending the current position that she's not the companion until her first episode starts broadcasting. Others, including myself, disagree. I think that position falls foul of WP:INUNIVERSE. Mackie is clearly already in the role because that first episode has been made, she's all over promotional materials, she's presented that way and, thus, reliable sources have responded and describe her in that role. Do a Google news search and there are hundreds of articles talking about Mackie as the companion in the present tense. Waiting for her face to actually appear on screen is privileging the fiction over the reality of making and promoting a television show, and Wikipedia favours the latter over the former.
The principle of least surprise also argues that we should be listing her now. That's what readers will expect. They'll be coming to the article to learn about the new season and the new companion. The infobox should reflect that.
Pearl Mackie is the companion in Dr Who right now, because Dr Who is a production, not a fictional universe. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and reliable sources describe her as the companion now. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
DonQuixote said, "Seriously? That's called being an actor--companions aren't real people, they're fictional characters. Mackie is an actor who will portray a fictional character, a companion, in series 10--which is what reliable sources are saying. Context matters. The fictional character Bill hasn't appeared in an episode yet as it hasn't aired (unpublished work) and shouldn't go in the infobox." That's an obvious violation of WP:INUNIVERSE. Our focus on Wikipedia is writing about actors, not about fictional characters. From an WP:OUTUNIVERSE perspective, Mackie has been playing the new companion for a while.
DonQuixote then said, "We're taking opening credits, and end credits, as an indication for whether the infoboxes should be updated". That's a clear violation of WP:PRIMARY: you are privileging a primary source over secondary sources. Our focus on Wikipedia is on secondary sources over primary sources.
Could you clarify how you feel your stance is not in violation of WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:PRIMARY? Bondegezou ( talk) 09:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
We know Saturday's episode exists because WP:RS tell us that it exists.Does that mean the episode counts in the infobox should be updated? If so, why? They haven't aired. If not, then why should they remain as they are now, but Pearl Mackie should be added? -- Alex TW 14:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I just need to obtain a consensus on this articleThen mission accomplished! Consensus is already extremely clear, given that it's only you arguing the same point now, and consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. Many valid points have been put across, I'm sorry that you don't feel that they apply. WP:DEADHORSE seems to be the best course here. -- Alex TW 16:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Have a look at the article for Alien: Covenant. It has an infobox. It lists a bunch of people as "Starring". Yet this film has not yet been shown anywhere in the world: "it hasn't happened yet" in User:AlexTheWhovian's terms. Why can we list who stars in Alien: Covenant before it premieres, but we can't list Pearl Mackie as starring in Dr Who the day before broadcast?
This isn't some special case either. Film articles routinely list people as "Starring" before they're seen. What Wikipedia policy explains why that's fine for a film, but not for a TV show? Bondegezou ( talk) 20:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I have been back through this discussion. If we leave aside the arguments about where and when to discuss this matter and actually look at the arguments for why Mackie should not be added until her first episode airs, it largely comes down to one line of reasoning. Illustrative quotes are given below:
However, that argument fails because we can see numerous TV articles that list people as “Starring” before anything has been broadcast: e.g. Star Trek: Discovery, American Gods (TV series), Twin Peaks (2017 TV series), Cloak & Dagger (TV series), The Handmaid's Tale (TV series), My Sassy Girl (TV series), &c. (All shows covered by WP:TV, by the way.) Forgive me for being blunt, but every one of those quotations is demonstrably untrue.
The only other argument I can see is: “Per the documentation of {{ Infobox television}}” ( AlexTheWhovian, 17:55, 8 April). Well, I read the documentation and it doesn't say anything about when to update the “Starring” line. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Bill Potts (Doctor Who)#Requested move 18 April 2017. The requested move discussion concerns whether "(Doctor Who)" is or is not required in the title of the article for the character. --
Alex
TW
12:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
John Hurt's War Doctor should be added to the list because if anyone has watched the Doctor Who 50th Anniversary Episode -- The Day of the Doctor -- he is listed in the Credits of the Doctor as the fourth name from the top. Here is how it is shown in the Credits of the episode...
Matt Smith, David Tennant <--- There should be a note that David Tennant's "11th" Doctor used a regeneration cycle to repair his body but redirected it the rest of the Regeneration Energy to his severed hand, Christopher Eccleston, John Hurt <--- This shows that even though he is the War Doctor he is the 9th one in the line who at the end REGAINS his name as the Doctor, Paul McGann, Sylvester McCoy, Colin Baker, Peter Davidson, Tom Baker, Jon Pertwee, Patrick Troughton, William Hartnell,
Also it should be considered that though Peter Capaldi is considered the 13th Doctor (also mentioned in "The Day of the Doctor") that he should be considered the 14th Doctor due to David Tennant's Doctors 11th Regeneration was redirected to his severed hand as everyone can see in Season 4 Episodes 12 and 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekkie38 ( talk • contribs) 00:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Doctor Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Doctor Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to follow up on my edit the documentation for the field states "Related TV shows, i.e. remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, etc." I just don't see how the various "making of" shows that have been a part of the series since its return in 2005 (how can that be 12 years ago already - timey wimey again) fit into that description. As ever that is just one editors take on things and other input is welcome. MarnetteD| Talk 16:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Doctor Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
"BBC Television" and "BBC-1" were seen as two seperate entities within the BBC in 1964 (and the months at the end of 1963 prior to the changeover).
Check out the BBC Genome service to see how the channel was listed at the change over period in April 1964. It became a new channel by default when BBC-2 was introduced.
What harm does it do adding one line noting that the first five months of Doctor Who went out on BBC-TV? None. Less than none?
Besides, there's no consistancy on wiki on the channel name. The Quatermass serials of the 1950s, for example, are just listed for 'BBC'. Not 'BBC-1', which by your definition of Doctor Who it would merit (it doesn't, but that's another matter). They actually went out on the BBC 'Television Service', but 'BBC' would suffice.
From 23 November 1963 to April 21 1964, Doctor Who was broadcast on "BBC-TV". The entry should be amended to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 ( talk) 14:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
As a result, on 3 November 2010, BBC One HD launched as a separate simulcast of the channel and at approximately the same time, BBC HD's broadcast hours were extended to twelve hours a day.(from BBC HD) DonQuixote ( talk) 17:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.(emphasis mine) DonQuixote ( talk) 18:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
It has been officially announced, Jodie Whittaker is the new Doctor in the house. Please update the wiki to reflect this. Sources : https://twitter.com/bbcdoctorwho/status/886608420241117185 & http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40624288
Uh, Alex, you might want to recheck that. There is (at the time of my posting this) NO mention of Jodie Whittaker anywhere. Got the feeling somebody (whose not happy with a female Doc) is quickly re-editing her out.
I can't locate the edit button on the main page. Has it been removed? How do I add this external link for Jodie Whittaker's facebook group? I've noticed other major social network sites are missing too. Are the Wikipedia admins for this page still living in 1963 when Doctor Who first started? 1.128.96.251 ( talk) 07:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
There's been some edit war over "a female will be Dr Who" vs. "a woman will be Dr Who"; apparently some feel strongly about this. I don't see why it matters either way. So I thought I'd help others follow WP:BRD and discuss rather than war.
I'm wondering if part of this has to do with MOS:ENGVAR? I heard Brits tend to use female primarily as an adjective, while Yanks use it as noun or adjective. (I'm a Yank, so IDK.) If true, I think ENGVAR/COMMONALITY would say we use "a woman", since both Yanks and Brits understand that, while "a female" might sound odd to Brits.
Comments? -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
After a week, unanimous consensus is "a woman". Closing. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 13:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The introduction of the article speaks of "a Time Lord called 'the Doctor'". In actual fact his name was stated to be "Doctor Who" as long ago as 1966. Writer and executive producer Steven Moffat was very clear about this:
The outgoing writer and executive producer also cleared up the issue of whether the character's name is Doctor Who or the Doctor.
"There isn't any doubt about it, I'm sorry," Moffat said. "It was established in The War Machines (episode) that his name is Doctor Who."
He provided evidence to back up his point, including signing letters "Doctor W" and the third Doctor having a "Who" licence plate.
"He doesn't often call himself Doctor Who because it's a bloody stupid name," Moffat added.
I added text to this effect in the introduction (and in the body); his actual name is important enough to be there, and it is actually false to say "a Time Lord called 'the Doctor'", if anything it is "a Time Lord usually referred to as 'the Doctor'".
The text should read:
The programme depicts the adventures of a Time Lord called "Doctor Who" and sometimes signing as "Doctor W", almost always referred to as " the Doctor", [1] an extraterrestrial being ...
To say he is called the Doctor is actually incorrect.
Does anybody have any reason not to change the text to show the name established 50 years ago, and reflect the writer's statement?
writer and executive producer [said] there isn't any doubt ... it was established in The War Machines (episode [broadcast in 1966]) that his name is Doctor Who.
Pol098 ( talk) 17:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I want information on who's idea was it to create a dr who. Nothing in this article says anything. Whos idea was it for the Tardis and the design. The Embryo stage of this show needs a paragraph in itself. -- 2605:6000:3D11:3200:925:3D5E:F608:35E4 ( talk) 00:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Doctor Who has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
need to add Jodie whittaker to the list of doctors and the pic need a update The13thdoctor ( talk) 17:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Since the Doctor is an alien who doesn't seem to follow along human gender forms, I feel like the pronouns should be "them/they" instead of "he/him", especially since Jodie Whittaker has been cast. There are even several references made in the show that suggests the Doctor and Time Lords in general, don't strictly conform to gender. It would also be inclusive of the multiple bodies the Doctor has and will possess.
Example
"The Doctor often finds events that pique his curiosity as he tries to prevent evil forces from harming innocent people or changing history, using only his ingenuity and minimal resources, such as his versatile sonic screwdriver."
"The Doctor often finds events that pique their curiosity as they try to prevent evil forces from harming innocent people or changing history, using only their ingenuity and minimal resources, such as their versatile sonic screwdriver."
Zoesteph ( talk) 17:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Anyone who knows how to create a graph can you make one for the new series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNerdz12 ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 August 2017 (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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 |
BBC on its website says new episodes are being made but none will be aired in 2016 due to coverage of the Olympics and other special events. The annual Christmas Special episode is still scheduled for 25 December. By the way, in an early episode, granddaughter Susan says she made up the phrase Time and Relative Dimension in Space to match the letters TARDIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.144.22 ( talk) 20:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this video [1] Rachel Talalay calls "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" a two-parter, and she is the director so she would know. The production team clearly think of the episodes as a two-parter, Rachel Talalay would not have called the episodes a two-parter if they were not officially designated as such. As well as this, the video is newer than issue 495 of DWM, it was posted on YouTube on 21 January 2016 (it was originally posted on the official website on 12 January 2016 [2]), DWM issue 495 was released 7 January 2016, meaning that this video is the most up to date source we have, it is the most recent statement on the official designation of the episodes, and one of the justifications of using DWM as a source in the previous discussion was that it was the most up to date source, which it isn't. We have to go by the most up to date source, there is no justification for going by an older source which is contradicted by the most recent source. Fan4Life ( talk) 11:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Certain summaries listed on the season/series pages are too long per WP:TVPLOT, which gives a limit of 200 words for summaries used in {{ Episode list}}, and WP:FILMPLOT, which gives a limit of 750 words for films. They have been tagged, and are listed below. Alex|The|Whovian ? 08:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Episodes
|
---|
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Doctor Who has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Pearl Mackie in the "Various Companions as of" section as she was confirmed as the new companion. Thanks. 94.7.47.248 ( talk) 18:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey all Who fans. Quite some time ago there was a really awesome article that had columns listing every serial of Doctor Who, the Doctor who appeared in it, the year of production, and the year the story was set in. The columns could be ordered chronologically so a "non-time traveler" could see which doctors were crossing paths in which years. For instance, when one of the more recent doctors witnesses the JFK shooting, this is just a few days before the First Doctor sends Susan to school in the Earthly Child. Very cool article but can't locate it using the search engines. does anyone remember this? Is it still on Wikipedia? - O.R. Comms 20:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads up. I noticed this has popped up [3]. Would some of these images might do with a better fair use rationale? Cheers, Dresken ( talk) 11:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I would like to pinpoint the inaccuracy of the map portraying the countries where doctor who episodes either current or classic are available. As of 2016 Netflix has become available in Pakistan and Doctor Who in its current version is available on Pakistani Netflix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.169.39 ( talk) 11:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I've never been happy with the introduction to the Doctor Who article. It heavily favors the 2005 revival of the series, specifically naming new series creator Russell T. Davies (twice) and Christopher Eccleston, but not bothering to credit the show's original production team (creator Sydney Newman, producer Verity Lambert, first Doctor William Hartnell - who is at least as important as Eccleston to the show's history). I would either name *no* actors in the intro, or at least try to balance the references; here we have three modern actors referenced and none of the older ones, not even the guy who originated the role. Also, saying the BBC has produced Doctor Who "since 1963" is misleading, since it ignores the long interim period between the two versions of the show. I think a lot of the problems stem from the fact that we're really talking about two different shows here, awkwardly crammed together into one article; and like a lot of Wikipedia, the article favors recent stuff over old stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbinDallas ( talk • contribs)
Articles for episodes and specials should no longer be created until one of the following options are met. 1) After the episode has aired, per the consensus and typical method used by WP:TV and MOS:TV across most television-series articles (of which Doctor Who is not unique). 2) If the episode has not aired, the content needs to meet the general notability guide, and have enough content to create a separate article; that is, the episode article should not simply be duplicate information from the series article that it belongs to. Alex|The|Whovian ? 08:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The first sentence of the third paragraph of the intro isn't correct. It states that Twelve actors have headlined the series when only eleven have, but thirteen actors have portrayed the doctor. PabloTheMagnanimous ( talk) 17:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe it should be noted in the first paragraph of the premise that the chameleon circuit may be broken but that it is fixable and the Doctor chooses not to fix it because he likes the way the T.A.R.D.I.S. looks in this form. PabloTheMagnanimous ( talk) 17:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
According to the show and books a Time Lord is specifically someone who entered and graduated the Time Lord Academy. Gallifreyans are transcripted at age eight and taken to see the un-tempered schism, the event that according to legend started the Master on the path to insanity, to see if they are suited to be trained to be a Time Lord. During their time in the academy they are given a second heart which is what allows them to hold regeneration energy. A normal Gallifreyan only has one heart and cannot regenerate, this is explored in the 70's in novelization when a pirate steals the Doctors second heart so that he can regenerate.
Given these details it should be noted in the article that the Doctor is a self proclaimed Time Lord even though by his own admission on several occasions he never fulfilled all the requirements to be a Time Lord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PabloTheMagnanimous ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it would benefit to add in the premise that the Doctors fascination with Earth possibly stems from the Doctor being half human as revealed in the 1996 movie. I realize that the movie wasn't originally accepted as canon, but with the inclusion of Mcgann in the 50th anniversary special and the Big Finish audio stories featuring Mcgann, it would seem the events of the movie should be accepted into canon. PabloTheMagnanimous ( talk) 17:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't have to say anything about canon, I was simply bringing up canon to reinforce my point about adding the comment about the Doctors fascination possibly stemming from the Doctor being half human as revealed in the 1996 movie. I think it holds more credibility to point to events from actually released material in the Who universe rather than sources who talk about the show. PabloTheMagnanimous ( talk) 17:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
A draft has been start for Series 11 at Draft:Doctor Who (series 11); contributions are welcome, but the article should not be moved to the mainspace until the series has began filming. Alex|The|Whovian ? 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The article states that, "In April 2015, Steven Moffat confirmed that Doctor Who would run for at least another five years, extending the show until 2020." I dispute the use of the word "confirmed" and suggest "predicted" instead. User:AlexTheWhovian disagrees. We've been discussing this at Draft talk:Doctor Who (series 11), but AlexTW pointed out the use of the phrase here.
As far as I can see, the citation given merely quotes an interview with Moffat. He's making a personal prediction of what he thinks will happen. It's not a decision that is within his power, nor is it a decision the BBC would take (when have the BBC ever confirmed a series will still be going five years hence?). AlexTW contends this constitutes an official statement by the BBC because the citation is a BBC News article, but that appears to me to misunderstand the editorial independence of BBC News when it is covering entertainment news pertaining to the BBC. The article is carefully phrased to be clear that this is something Moffat said: it doesn't state this to be a fact about reality. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
leaving the show. An informed prediction, sure, but not a confirmation. Bondegezou ( talk) 23:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Given the imminent release of series 10 on April 15, 2017, why not add The Doctor Who Companion as a reference site.
A good resource for readers/viewers, who want to check what last year was all about before the start of series 10 http://thedoctorwhocompanion.com/2017/03/23/march-2016-17-one-year-in-doctor-who/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by John verbic ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The article erroneously refers to the Eleventh Doctor as the Doctor's twelfth regeneration. He was the tenth.
First Doctor = Original Second Doctor = First Regeneration Third Doctor = Second Regeneration Fourth Doctor = Third Regeneration Fifth Doctor = Fourth Regeneration: This is mentioned in The Five Doctors special. Richard Hurndall as the First Doctor asks Peter Davison as the Fifth: "Regeneration?" To which he replies, "Fourth." The First Doctor then says, "So there are FIVE of me now!" Sixth Doctor = Fifth Regeneration Seventh Doctor = Sixth Regeneration Eighth Doctor = Seventh Regeneration Ninth Doctor = Eighth Regeneration Tenth Doctor = Ninth Regeneration Eleventh Doctor = Tenth Regeneration Twelfth Doctor = Eleventh Regeneration Thirteenth Doctor = Twelfth Regeneration
Thus, if The Doctor were not given a new set of regenerations, the Thirteenth Doctor would be unable to regenerate and would die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:42D0:E182:1B8F:B199:C723 ( talk) 20:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You left out the War Doctor. So you are wrong. Oakymut2016 ( talk) 22:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Is Pearl Mackie the companion in Dr Who right now? This is the question behind a recent edit dispute. Should she be listed in the infobox as the companion (with Matt Lucas) now or not until her first episode airs?
Several editors are defending the current position that she's not the companion until her first episode starts broadcasting. Others, including myself, disagree. I think that position falls foul of WP:INUNIVERSE. Mackie is clearly already in the role because that first episode has been made, she's all over promotional materials, she's presented that way and, thus, reliable sources have responded and describe her in that role. Do a Google news search and there are hundreds of articles talking about Mackie as the companion in the present tense. Waiting for her face to actually appear on screen is privileging the fiction over the reality of making and promoting a television show, and Wikipedia favours the latter over the former.
The principle of least surprise also argues that we should be listing her now. That's what readers will expect. They'll be coming to the article to learn about the new season and the new companion. The infobox should reflect that.
Pearl Mackie is the companion in Dr Who right now, because Dr Who is a production, not a fictional universe. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and reliable sources describe her as the companion now. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
DonQuixote said, "Seriously? That's called being an actor--companions aren't real people, they're fictional characters. Mackie is an actor who will portray a fictional character, a companion, in series 10--which is what reliable sources are saying. Context matters. The fictional character Bill hasn't appeared in an episode yet as it hasn't aired (unpublished work) and shouldn't go in the infobox." That's an obvious violation of WP:INUNIVERSE. Our focus on Wikipedia is writing about actors, not about fictional characters. From an WP:OUTUNIVERSE perspective, Mackie has been playing the new companion for a while.
DonQuixote then said, "We're taking opening credits, and end credits, as an indication for whether the infoboxes should be updated". That's a clear violation of WP:PRIMARY: you are privileging a primary source over secondary sources. Our focus on Wikipedia is on secondary sources over primary sources.
Could you clarify how you feel your stance is not in violation of WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:PRIMARY? Bondegezou ( talk) 09:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
We know Saturday's episode exists because WP:RS tell us that it exists.Does that mean the episode counts in the infobox should be updated? If so, why? They haven't aired. If not, then why should they remain as they are now, but Pearl Mackie should be added? -- Alex TW 14:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I just need to obtain a consensus on this articleThen mission accomplished! Consensus is already extremely clear, given that it's only you arguing the same point now, and consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. Many valid points have been put across, I'm sorry that you don't feel that they apply. WP:DEADHORSE seems to be the best course here. -- Alex TW 16:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Have a look at the article for Alien: Covenant. It has an infobox. It lists a bunch of people as "Starring". Yet this film has not yet been shown anywhere in the world: "it hasn't happened yet" in User:AlexTheWhovian's terms. Why can we list who stars in Alien: Covenant before it premieres, but we can't list Pearl Mackie as starring in Dr Who the day before broadcast?
This isn't some special case either. Film articles routinely list people as "Starring" before they're seen. What Wikipedia policy explains why that's fine for a film, but not for a TV show? Bondegezou ( talk) 20:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I have been back through this discussion. If we leave aside the arguments about where and when to discuss this matter and actually look at the arguments for why Mackie should not be added until her first episode airs, it largely comes down to one line of reasoning. Illustrative quotes are given below:
However, that argument fails because we can see numerous TV articles that list people as “Starring” before anything has been broadcast: e.g. Star Trek: Discovery, American Gods (TV series), Twin Peaks (2017 TV series), Cloak & Dagger (TV series), The Handmaid's Tale (TV series), My Sassy Girl (TV series), &c. (All shows covered by WP:TV, by the way.) Forgive me for being blunt, but every one of those quotations is demonstrably untrue.
The only other argument I can see is: “Per the documentation of {{ Infobox television}}” ( AlexTheWhovian, 17:55, 8 April). Well, I read the documentation and it doesn't say anything about when to update the “Starring” line. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Bill Potts (Doctor Who)#Requested move 18 April 2017. The requested move discussion concerns whether "(Doctor Who)" is or is not required in the title of the article for the character. --
Alex
TW
12:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
John Hurt's War Doctor should be added to the list because if anyone has watched the Doctor Who 50th Anniversary Episode -- The Day of the Doctor -- he is listed in the Credits of the Doctor as the fourth name from the top. Here is how it is shown in the Credits of the episode...
Matt Smith, David Tennant <--- There should be a note that David Tennant's "11th" Doctor used a regeneration cycle to repair his body but redirected it the rest of the Regeneration Energy to his severed hand, Christopher Eccleston, John Hurt <--- This shows that even though he is the War Doctor he is the 9th one in the line who at the end REGAINS his name as the Doctor, Paul McGann, Sylvester McCoy, Colin Baker, Peter Davidson, Tom Baker, Jon Pertwee, Patrick Troughton, William Hartnell,
Also it should be considered that though Peter Capaldi is considered the 13th Doctor (also mentioned in "The Day of the Doctor") that he should be considered the 14th Doctor due to David Tennant's Doctors 11th Regeneration was redirected to his severed hand as everyone can see in Season 4 Episodes 12 and 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekkie38 ( talk • contribs) 00:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Doctor Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Doctor Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to follow up on my edit the documentation for the field states "Related TV shows, i.e. remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, etc." I just don't see how the various "making of" shows that have been a part of the series since its return in 2005 (how can that be 12 years ago already - timey wimey again) fit into that description. As ever that is just one editors take on things and other input is welcome. MarnetteD| Talk 16:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Doctor Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
"BBC Television" and "BBC-1" were seen as two seperate entities within the BBC in 1964 (and the months at the end of 1963 prior to the changeover).
Check out the BBC Genome service to see how the channel was listed at the change over period in April 1964. It became a new channel by default when BBC-2 was introduced.
What harm does it do adding one line noting that the first five months of Doctor Who went out on BBC-TV? None. Less than none?
Besides, there's no consistancy on wiki on the channel name. The Quatermass serials of the 1950s, for example, are just listed for 'BBC'. Not 'BBC-1', which by your definition of Doctor Who it would merit (it doesn't, but that's another matter). They actually went out on the BBC 'Television Service', but 'BBC' would suffice.
From 23 November 1963 to April 21 1964, Doctor Who was broadcast on "BBC-TV". The entry should be amended to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 ( talk) 14:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
As a result, on 3 November 2010, BBC One HD launched as a separate simulcast of the channel and at approximately the same time, BBC HD's broadcast hours were extended to twelve hours a day.(from BBC HD) DonQuixote ( talk) 17:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.(emphasis mine) DonQuixote ( talk) 18:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
It has been officially announced, Jodie Whittaker is the new Doctor in the house. Please update the wiki to reflect this. Sources : https://twitter.com/bbcdoctorwho/status/886608420241117185 & http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40624288
Uh, Alex, you might want to recheck that. There is (at the time of my posting this) NO mention of Jodie Whittaker anywhere. Got the feeling somebody (whose not happy with a female Doc) is quickly re-editing her out.
I can't locate the edit button on the main page. Has it been removed? How do I add this external link for Jodie Whittaker's facebook group? I've noticed other major social network sites are missing too. Are the Wikipedia admins for this page still living in 1963 when Doctor Who first started? 1.128.96.251 ( talk) 07:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
There's been some edit war over "a female will be Dr Who" vs. "a woman will be Dr Who"; apparently some feel strongly about this. I don't see why it matters either way. So I thought I'd help others follow WP:BRD and discuss rather than war.
I'm wondering if part of this has to do with MOS:ENGVAR? I heard Brits tend to use female primarily as an adjective, while Yanks use it as noun or adjective. (I'm a Yank, so IDK.) If true, I think ENGVAR/COMMONALITY would say we use "a woman", since both Yanks and Brits understand that, while "a female" might sound odd to Brits.
Comments? -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
After a week, unanimous consensus is "a woman". Closing. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 13:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The introduction of the article speaks of "a Time Lord called 'the Doctor'". In actual fact his name was stated to be "Doctor Who" as long ago as 1966. Writer and executive producer Steven Moffat was very clear about this:
The outgoing writer and executive producer also cleared up the issue of whether the character's name is Doctor Who or the Doctor.
"There isn't any doubt about it, I'm sorry," Moffat said. "It was established in The War Machines (episode) that his name is Doctor Who."
He provided evidence to back up his point, including signing letters "Doctor W" and the third Doctor having a "Who" licence plate.
"He doesn't often call himself Doctor Who because it's a bloody stupid name," Moffat added.
I added text to this effect in the introduction (and in the body); his actual name is important enough to be there, and it is actually false to say "a Time Lord called 'the Doctor'", if anything it is "a Time Lord usually referred to as 'the Doctor'".
The text should read:
The programme depicts the adventures of a Time Lord called "Doctor Who" and sometimes signing as "Doctor W", almost always referred to as " the Doctor", [1] an extraterrestrial being ...
To say he is called the Doctor is actually incorrect.
Does anybody have any reason not to change the text to show the name established 50 years ago, and reflect the writer's statement?
writer and executive producer [said] there isn't any doubt ... it was established in The War Machines (episode [broadcast in 1966]) that his name is Doctor Who.
Pol098 ( talk) 17:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I want information on who's idea was it to create a dr who. Nothing in this article says anything. Whos idea was it for the Tardis and the design. The Embryo stage of this show needs a paragraph in itself. -- 2605:6000:3D11:3200:925:3D5E:F608:35E4 ( talk) 00:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Doctor Who has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
need to add Jodie whittaker to the list of doctors and the pic need a update The13thdoctor ( talk) 17:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Since the Doctor is an alien who doesn't seem to follow along human gender forms, I feel like the pronouns should be "them/they" instead of "he/him", especially since Jodie Whittaker has been cast. There are even several references made in the show that suggests the Doctor and Time Lords in general, don't strictly conform to gender. It would also be inclusive of the multiple bodies the Doctor has and will possess.
Example
"The Doctor often finds events that pique his curiosity as he tries to prevent evil forces from harming innocent people or changing history, using only his ingenuity and minimal resources, such as his versatile sonic screwdriver."
"The Doctor often finds events that pique their curiosity as they try to prevent evil forces from harming innocent people or changing history, using only their ingenuity and minimal resources, such as their versatile sonic screwdriver."
Zoesteph ( talk) 17:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Anyone who knows how to create a graph can you make one for the new series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNerdz12 ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)