![]() | Doctor Who Redirect‑class | ||||||
|
Cho-Je wasn't an incarnation of the Doctor. Why is he listed here? 23skidoo 19:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Since the Valeyard is identified on screen as being a future incarnation of the Doctor, I wonder if he should be included in the "Other Doctors" section of the template? 23skidoo 05:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
per this change - here.
Good idea, but two main problems. Firstly, the characters name is not Doctor Who. Secondly, the Watcher and the Valeyard were in the TV series - but they were "intermediate" versions and not actual regenerations. So I reverted. StuartDD ( t • c ) 13:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The Doctors are read horizontally, that's annoying given there's just 2 in a row but 5 in a column. Could someone change it so they read vertically? I think there's a col1= -ish attribute that could be used for this but I'm scared I'll delete Wikipedia or something if I start messing with it. :) + Hexagon1 ( t) 02:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
is there any way to return it to a vertical format as i find the horizontal format confusing and it was only a few days since this was the format —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.117.42 ( talk) 20:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Should there be a section for 'The Curator' in the 'Other Doctors' section, given that he is hinted he could be a future Doctor but it is uncertain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.249.18 ( talk) 09:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Though none of these Doctors have articles of their own, or are really likely to do so, they belong in this template. Atkinson was, after all, referred to as the "ninth Doctor" on the cover of Doctor Who Magazine #278 in 1999, while Joanna Lumley (the 13th Doctor) appeared on the cover of issue #328 in 2003. Inside that issue, Andrew Pixley wrote up the story as a part of his ongoing Archives column, a treatment reserved for "proper" episodes of the series. The story was placed on equal footing with other stories of the classic era during the 40th anniversary celebrations on BBC Gold. There, it was broadcast interspersed with "proper" episodes of the series.
Like other "ninth Doctors", Atkinson himself has received at least passing "official" status through press statements and at various points on the BBC website. [1] [2] The story itself was the most "official" production between the television movie and Scream of the Shalka. Parody, it might have been — but parody by the copyright holders.
Perhaps a line at the very bottom of the template could be entered as, The Doctors of The Curse of Fatal Death CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I have found no metnion of an 11th Doctor anywhere so i will remove Andrew Lincoln. In fact Tennant is confirmed to star through 2009 so i doubt there will be any news on an 11th doctor for some time S-m-r-t ( talk) 12:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Matt Smith.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.254.42 ( talk) 18:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Who's a clever boy? </sarcasm> U-Mos ( talk) 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as #11 is a future Doctor, and #10 is still current, is it possible to rearrange the template to give more prominance to #10. Currently it implies that #11 is the current Doctor. 84.70.51.168 ( talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Should we really have Hurndall credited as the First Doctor. He only protrayed him once, during The Five Doctors. By all means have him credited on the First Doctor page, but on the template? By that we'll have to credit Colum Regan for him being the Doctor in Journey's End and perhaps Selvester McCoy as the Sixth Doctor also as well as th Seventh. I think it's only fair to just have William Hartnell on the template. -- Imagine Wizard ( talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 19:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The Doctor Who Confidential that introduced Matt Smith yesterday mentioned Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, T Baker, Davison, C Baker, McCoy, McGann, Eccleston and Tennant. It did not mention The Valeyard or The Watcher or Hurndall, let alone DonnaDoctor or Human Meta-Crisis Doctor. Thus, it seems to me odd that a navigation box about the incarnations of the Doctor should include The Watcher and The Valeyard, or Hurndall. The Watcher wasn't even a speaking part and the actor who played the role so non-notable that he doesn't have a Wikipedia article about him! If you're going to include obscure entries, then why those ones and not others, like for The Curse of the Fatal Death Doctors, the Other or Muldwych [3]?
Let us be encyclopaedic about this, taking into account notability, an out-of-universe perspective and what citable sources say rather than a 'fannish', in-universe perspective. Navigation boxes are summaries, for ease of navigation, not exhaustive lists. I suggest this box should list the incarnations of the Doctor and their actors that most citations give, namely Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, T Baker, Davison, C Baker, McCoy, McGann, Eccleston, Tennant and, now, Smith. No Hurndall (but of course he can be described under the First Doctor article). No Watcher. No Valeyard. Peter Cushing, fair enough, and I'll not argue about the Shalka Doctor. Being bold, I'll make that change now. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
To me this template would look far better if the names were in 'vertical order'. i.e.:
1 6 2 7 3 8 4 9 5 10 11
This is far easier to read, rather than worrying about your eyes crossing the large gap when reading horizontally. Anyone else agree? -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 19:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Whilst I understand that there is currently no reliable name for this incarnation thus far (presumably to change with the 50th), I feel that the John Hurt Doctor needs to be listed as an 'other Doctor'. I used the name Secret Doctor because 11 refers to him in " The Name of the Doctor" as 'his greatest secret', which is the closest thing to a name/title this incarnation has thus far been given. -- Goodsmudge( Talk) 17:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Could we get some clarity on WP policy here? If we are using real world perspective, the section marked "incarnations" is incorrect, rather it should be something like "series leads" - these two ideas are not synonymous, and John Hurt was credited on screen with the other 11 actors to play the Doctor during "Day of the Doctor", the show clearly identifies his character as an incarnation of the Doctor - both in universe (Character dialogue) and in the real world (crediting the actor with the role). If we are listing "incarnations" of the Doctor, then the war doctor should be placed between eight and nine - if we are listing lead actors, then it should be correctly labelled as such. Ph 1980 ( talk) 15:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
If we're excluding The War Doctor from the main list on the basis that he was never a series lead should the Eighth be pulled also? Kie ( talk) 12:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The Valeyard seems to have a lot of prominance in this navbox considering that he is never explicitly revealed to be an actual incarnation of the Doctor, just a 'distillation of his darker side', which is not necessarily the same thing. IMO the list should just have 1-12 and War, but since we've decided to differentiate the 'series leads' I think that the 12 leads should be in their section, the War Doctor alone in the 'others' section and the Valeyard (if we have to fit him in somewhere) moved to the 'see also' section. Unless I'm missing something and there is onscreen confirmation that the Valeyard is an actual incarnation. 176.253.243.174 ( talk) 16:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
She's just been announced as the Thirteenth. Is it too soon to put her on this box? NP Chilla ( talk) 15:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
We need to be very careful about adding actors here. WP:PERFNAV is against this, and I believe the only reason we're making an exception is because the main actors are synonymous with the role. I would personally like to remove all the actors from here, but what we should not be doing is including actors like Cushing, Hurt, etc, as the inclusion of the navbox on their pages (well, all of the actors' pages really) puts WP:UNDUE weight to the role of the Doctor over other roles they may have played. Therefore, for now, please restrict the actors to just the main performers, unless we have consensus to remove all of the actors. -- wooden superman 09:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
BBC statement confirms it: we'll have to adjust the template. https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2022/doctor-who-david-tennant-14th-doctor/ LinguistiCaralis ( talk) 20:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Should be listed between the Thirteenth and Fifteeth, as this is meant for navigation of the Doctors, not the actors who played him. 128.151.71.7 ( talk) 12:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Doctor Who Redirect‑class | ||||||
|
Cho-Je wasn't an incarnation of the Doctor. Why is he listed here? 23skidoo 19:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Since the Valeyard is identified on screen as being a future incarnation of the Doctor, I wonder if he should be included in the "Other Doctors" section of the template? 23skidoo 05:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
per this change - here.
Good idea, but two main problems. Firstly, the characters name is not Doctor Who. Secondly, the Watcher and the Valeyard were in the TV series - but they were "intermediate" versions and not actual regenerations. So I reverted. StuartDD ( t • c ) 13:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The Doctors are read horizontally, that's annoying given there's just 2 in a row but 5 in a column. Could someone change it so they read vertically? I think there's a col1= -ish attribute that could be used for this but I'm scared I'll delete Wikipedia or something if I start messing with it. :) + Hexagon1 ( t) 02:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
is there any way to return it to a vertical format as i find the horizontal format confusing and it was only a few days since this was the format —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.117.42 ( talk) 20:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Should there be a section for 'The Curator' in the 'Other Doctors' section, given that he is hinted he could be a future Doctor but it is uncertain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.249.18 ( talk) 09:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Though none of these Doctors have articles of their own, or are really likely to do so, they belong in this template. Atkinson was, after all, referred to as the "ninth Doctor" on the cover of Doctor Who Magazine #278 in 1999, while Joanna Lumley (the 13th Doctor) appeared on the cover of issue #328 in 2003. Inside that issue, Andrew Pixley wrote up the story as a part of his ongoing Archives column, a treatment reserved for "proper" episodes of the series. The story was placed on equal footing with other stories of the classic era during the 40th anniversary celebrations on BBC Gold. There, it was broadcast interspersed with "proper" episodes of the series.
Like other "ninth Doctors", Atkinson himself has received at least passing "official" status through press statements and at various points on the BBC website. [1] [2] The story itself was the most "official" production between the television movie and Scream of the Shalka. Parody, it might have been — but parody by the copyright holders.
Perhaps a line at the very bottom of the template could be entered as, The Doctors of The Curse of Fatal Death CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I have found no metnion of an 11th Doctor anywhere so i will remove Andrew Lincoln. In fact Tennant is confirmed to star through 2009 so i doubt there will be any news on an 11th doctor for some time S-m-r-t ( talk) 12:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Matt Smith.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.254.42 ( talk) 18:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Who's a clever boy? </sarcasm> U-Mos ( talk) 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as #11 is a future Doctor, and #10 is still current, is it possible to rearrange the template to give more prominance to #10. Currently it implies that #11 is the current Doctor. 84.70.51.168 ( talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Should we really have Hurndall credited as the First Doctor. He only protrayed him once, during The Five Doctors. By all means have him credited on the First Doctor page, but on the template? By that we'll have to credit Colum Regan for him being the Doctor in Journey's End and perhaps Selvester McCoy as the Sixth Doctor also as well as th Seventh. I think it's only fair to just have William Hartnell on the template. -- Imagine Wizard ( talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 19:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The Doctor Who Confidential that introduced Matt Smith yesterday mentioned Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, T Baker, Davison, C Baker, McCoy, McGann, Eccleston and Tennant. It did not mention The Valeyard or The Watcher or Hurndall, let alone DonnaDoctor or Human Meta-Crisis Doctor. Thus, it seems to me odd that a navigation box about the incarnations of the Doctor should include The Watcher and The Valeyard, or Hurndall. The Watcher wasn't even a speaking part and the actor who played the role so non-notable that he doesn't have a Wikipedia article about him! If you're going to include obscure entries, then why those ones and not others, like for The Curse of the Fatal Death Doctors, the Other or Muldwych [3]?
Let us be encyclopaedic about this, taking into account notability, an out-of-universe perspective and what citable sources say rather than a 'fannish', in-universe perspective. Navigation boxes are summaries, for ease of navigation, not exhaustive lists. I suggest this box should list the incarnations of the Doctor and their actors that most citations give, namely Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, T Baker, Davison, C Baker, McCoy, McGann, Eccleston, Tennant and, now, Smith. No Hurndall (but of course he can be described under the First Doctor article). No Watcher. No Valeyard. Peter Cushing, fair enough, and I'll not argue about the Shalka Doctor. Being bold, I'll make that change now. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
To me this template would look far better if the names were in 'vertical order'. i.e.:
1 6 2 7 3 8 4 9 5 10 11
This is far easier to read, rather than worrying about your eyes crossing the large gap when reading horizontally. Anyone else agree? -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 19:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Whilst I understand that there is currently no reliable name for this incarnation thus far (presumably to change with the 50th), I feel that the John Hurt Doctor needs to be listed as an 'other Doctor'. I used the name Secret Doctor because 11 refers to him in " The Name of the Doctor" as 'his greatest secret', which is the closest thing to a name/title this incarnation has thus far been given. -- Goodsmudge( Talk) 17:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Could we get some clarity on WP policy here? If we are using real world perspective, the section marked "incarnations" is incorrect, rather it should be something like "series leads" - these two ideas are not synonymous, and John Hurt was credited on screen with the other 11 actors to play the Doctor during "Day of the Doctor", the show clearly identifies his character as an incarnation of the Doctor - both in universe (Character dialogue) and in the real world (crediting the actor with the role). If we are listing "incarnations" of the Doctor, then the war doctor should be placed between eight and nine - if we are listing lead actors, then it should be correctly labelled as such. Ph 1980 ( talk) 15:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
If we're excluding The War Doctor from the main list on the basis that he was never a series lead should the Eighth be pulled also? Kie ( talk) 12:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The Valeyard seems to have a lot of prominance in this navbox considering that he is never explicitly revealed to be an actual incarnation of the Doctor, just a 'distillation of his darker side', which is not necessarily the same thing. IMO the list should just have 1-12 and War, but since we've decided to differentiate the 'series leads' I think that the 12 leads should be in their section, the War Doctor alone in the 'others' section and the Valeyard (if we have to fit him in somewhere) moved to the 'see also' section. Unless I'm missing something and there is onscreen confirmation that the Valeyard is an actual incarnation. 176.253.243.174 ( talk) 16:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
She's just been announced as the Thirteenth. Is it too soon to put her on this box? NP Chilla ( talk) 15:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
We need to be very careful about adding actors here. WP:PERFNAV is against this, and I believe the only reason we're making an exception is because the main actors are synonymous with the role. I would personally like to remove all the actors from here, but what we should not be doing is including actors like Cushing, Hurt, etc, as the inclusion of the navbox on their pages (well, all of the actors' pages really) puts WP:UNDUE weight to the role of the Doctor over other roles they may have played. Therefore, for now, please restrict the actors to just the main performers, unless we have consensus to remove all of the actors. -- wooden superman 09:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
BBC statement confirms it: we'll have to adjust the template. https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2022/doctor-who-david-tennant-14th-doctor/ LinguistiCaralis ( talk) 20:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Should be listed between the Thirteenth and Fifteeth, as this is meant for navigation of the Doctors, not the actors who played him. 128.151.71.7 ( talk) 12:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)