Talk:Third Doctor

Vengeance of the Stones
Vengeance of the Stones was moved between Spearhead from Space and Doctor Who and the Silurians because "the Doctor says he has only had Bessie a short time" (even though the introduction of Yates and his promotion to captain and there being no Liz almost certainly places Vengeance between Inferno and Terror of the Autons). What time signature or chapter in Vengeance says this anyway? Because I can't find it. Also, the first episode of The Silurians pretty clearly states that that story is the first time the Doctor has got it working after getting the car, but that's neither here nor there. -- Tybort (talk page) 17:34, November 4, 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm. If you can't find it, then we must be dealing with a mistake on someone's part. I trust your judgment more than anyone else's on this subject, so I'll leave it to you to find where best this takes place on the timeline page. Thank you, and apologies for any time wated on this.BananaClownMan ☎  18:31, November 4, 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone's part? You wrote the edit. You're not supposed to use other people's writing about Doctor Who stories like fansites or reference guides to write articles. You're meant to use the stories themselves. See T:CITE DEF. And the timeline page and the Theory:Timey-wimey detector isn't an official authority on anything and is discouraged from being linked to on the mainspace. It's literally supposition. -- Tybort (talk page) 19:17, November 4, 2017 (UTC)


 * I think someone is trying to put together the different sources of information. There is also a confusion as in Call to Arms in that he spent most of his first year chasing up and down the UK looking for Silurian nests with Benton. There is also a Liz companion chronicle where she mentions Yates so there is some cross over. I'll see if I can find the reference. I've seen people put it before Silurians. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 19:26, November 4, 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok the reference is in Shadow of the Past which is set between Silurians and Ambassadors. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 22:12, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

Image Change
As today is what would have been Jon Pertwee's one hundredth birthday I thought it'd be a fitting time to return to the infobox image change discussion started in 2015. The proposition of this image by OS25 is what I think to be almost the perfect replacement. Does anyone want to voice their thoughts to end this years long silence? --Borisashton ☎  15:11, July 7, 2019 (UTC)


 * I’m actually kind of startled that the current image has stayed for so long when this replacement exists. Very firmly in support of the swap. – N8 ☎ 12:33, July 9, 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. The proposed replacement is a much better picture and, as far as I can tell, is well within the image policy. What are admin's thoughts? LauraBatham ☎  12:56, July 9, 2019 (UTC)


 * Why is it so startling? The original is not a bad image. However, this is one of the very very very rare cases when a new proposed image actually not only follows our requirements but is also better than the current image. Shambala108 ☎  04:17, July 10, 2019 (UTC)


 * It is kind of startling, especially when one considers the two images came from pretty much the same scene. Anyway, where to go from here then? --Borisashton ☎  23:12, July 11, 2019 (UTC)


 * I very much dislike the current image and support the change. -- Saxon (✉️) 11:00, July 18, 2019 (UTC)

Just a couple of reminders: no change is to be made to the current image until this discussion is closed by an admin, and any/all images proposed must meet all our image guidelines. The most important ones for this discussion are Tardis:Image use policy and Tardis:Guide to images. Shambala108 ☎  14:33, July 18, 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, this has had more than a fair shake, small a conversation as it was. An admin even already agreed that the proposed new image "new proposed image actually not only follows our requirements but is also better than the current image".


 * And it does — even setting aside the mild preference one might have for a 3/4 view rather than a side-view, the new picture has better definition; the current one is slightly grainy and is lit in a suboptimal way, such that Pertwee's hair blends in with the sky in the top left corner.


 * In view of the evident consensus among those who cared to voice an opinion, I'm going to move forward with the proposed image change. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:09, November 14, 2020 (UTC)


 * I am a fair bit late to this discussion, but, the claim above that this image satisfies Tardis:Guide to images is wrong.
 * That policy states...

"Where possible, you should go with the an extremely tight cropping of a person's face."

- Tardis:Guide to images


 * ...and the forehead and chin are, by definition, part of the face; I'm not saying we should replace this image, but we should find this shot in Carnival of Monsters and get a crop of the face that doesn't cut off half of Three's face. Is that alright? 📯 📂 19:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * As long as you follow the other requirement stated by the policy: "Much better infobox pic - face covers 60-75% of frame". Shambala108 ☎  21:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The current image is the whole shot from Carnival of Monsters. There is maybe some slight cropping to make it more in line with the preferred width and height ratio, but that's about it. LauraBatham ☎  23:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Shambala108 and the exact image attached to that policy backs up my point about the forehead and chin. The face covering "60-70% of the frame includes the chin and forehead.

Cheers, Fractal Doctor ☎  19:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)