Talk:The Doctor

Infobox Image Update
Hello. Is there any possibility of updating the images used for both the Twelfth Doctor and the Thirteenth Doctor's for ones that are more appropriate? I guess I get the "eyebrows" thing so that image isn't *too* bad I suppose (still think better could be done), but surely the Thirteenth Doctor deserves an image of herself in her actual clothing rather than the image currently in use which is from her opening story The Woman Who Fell to Earth and displays her still wearing the ragged and battered remains of her previous incarnation's clothing? I hope you'll take these suggestions under advisement. Thank you for reading. --Alan-WK ☎  02:19, January 13, 2020 (UTC)

The Timeless Child
So, obviously there will have to be some changes. For starters, the Jo Martin Doctor added to More Ambiguous section of the Doctor's incarnations. Other than that, how big a rewrite are we looking at and how much should be kept to other pages likeTimeless Child?--TheOneTrueJack ☎  21:00, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, as far as I can put it together, it's the 8 Timeless Child regenerations, at least 5 more, the 8 Morbius regenerations, Ruth, 4 more, Hartnell - Matt, Capaldi - Present. We know that the Timeless Child regenerations and the Morbius ones can't be the same cycle as the Doctor was kidified after each 13, so it seems. So Jodie is not, at least the 27th Doctor now.--HarryPotterRules1 ☎  21:16, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


 * If we take it that The Timeless Child was at the start of Time Lord society and for whatever reason was never cryogenically frozen or forced into the future. Then it stands to reason that he/she is as old as Time Lord society. In The Ultimate Foe who we used to call The Sixth Doctor says that they've been around for 10 Million years. Now if we take The Eleventh Doctors life of 1100 years as a measure for a standard regenerations life span as this was the longest and seemed to die of natural causes. Then at MINIMUM The Doctor has had 9,091 lives which are not including any that were cut short by falling off any cliffs or mother figures experimenting on them. --Thebobbrom ☎  23:53, March 2, 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems like the Thirteen lives rule was put in place much later on. So that wouldn't apply to the Timeless Child incarnations --TheOneTrueJack ☎  21:24, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


 * Except we can't call any of those before Hartnell any variant of the [number] Doctor. Cause if we do that we'll have to re-route, in no exaggeration, the "ENTIRE" Wikia from scratch. --DCLM ☎  21:29, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


 * Well obviously we can't do that. The Morbius Doctors can be referred to as such, and the Timeless Child incarnations can be included in the Timeless Child page. But should they both (as two sperate groups) be put in the More Ambiguous section of the Doctor's incarnations? And how much should the main Doctor page talk about them?

Well, that's the thing. I don't believe the Doctor is bound to the 13 lives. The Timelords just sort of "kid-i-fied" the Doctor again when he reached the end of his 13 "lives"; that's what the whole Brendan stuff was. The Doctor believed he was bound to the 13 "lives" because he didn't remember anything before hand. But, in actuality, he wasn't bound to it at all. So it could literally be the 8 on the table plus 5 more - then kid-i-fied and made to forget - then the 8 morbius, Ruth and 4 more - then Kid-i-fied and made to forget - then Hartnell onwards and the Timelords only gave the "new" cycle to the Doctor to hide their lie.--HarryPotterRules1  ☎  21:46, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


 * That would make sense if the Time Lords didn't have to restore the Doctor's regeneration ability in The Time of the Doctor. Though if they restored the Doctor's original ability, it would explain the ambiguity of how many regenerations the Doctor has now.--WarGrowlmon18 ☎  21:55, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


 * The Brendan stuff was a cover-story to hide the truth about the Time Lords' beginning. Brendan, his parents, the Sergeant etc. never existed. They were images layered on top of the real truth. --DCLM ☎  22:00, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


 * The Timeless Child could regenerate indefinitely. But THE DOCTOR was limited to 13 lives. That's not really a matter of perspective. It was seen that the Doctor could only regenerate 12 times. This means that the limitation of 12 regenerations was also bestowed on the Doctor, or maybe perhaps after they "stopped" being the Timeless Child. --DCLM ☎  22:02, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


 * That's my point. Did they restore it? I believe the Doctor was bound to the 13 body limits because he believed he was. He actually wasn't - he just thought he was because he believed he was a Timelord, when he isn't - he's something different. The Timelords gave him a "new" cycle to hide the truth of what he was - constantly and continually able to regenerate.--HarryPotterRules1 ☎  22:04, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


 * The Doctor IS a Time Lord. You can't get around that. However as the Seventh Doctor said "I'm far more than just another Time Lord". And he WAS limited down. That's what they did, as other media stories have explained was done at some point to the Time Lord race. --DCLM ☎  22:09, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


 * No, wrong. We know now that the Doctor is not a Timelord. The Doctor is an entirely different species who was studied by the original Timelord/Shebogan to create regeneration. The Doctor only believed she/he was a Timelord. --HarryPotterRules1 ☎  22:18, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm up with Harry. The Doctor is not a Timelord anymore, but the "ancestor" species of the Time Lords: a Timeless Child (not official name but just to make it clear). --Con Carne (Di la verdad, o cobras...) 10:09, March 2, 2020 (UTC)


 * No. The Doctor was MADE into a Time Lord. Also whoever changed the page, please don't just change it without a conclusion to this. Con Carne, don't just make a change this major. It needs proper discussion. You and Harry agreeing, doesn't alone make it so. We need proper consultation that admins also join in on before we can just decide something this major. --DCLM ☎  10:19, March 2, 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the Board of Discussions. I'll make a thread. --DCLM ☎  10:21, March 2, 2020 (UTC)


 * Just one thing, it wasn't me, I haven't changed anything in the article. :( --Con Carne (Di la verdad, o cobras...) 11:49, March 2, 2020 (UTC)


 * I know, that was my bad. I didn't looks properly. Sorry about that. I DID change my statement to say "whoever changed the page". Sorry for the mistunderstanding. --DCLM ☎  11:53, March 2, 2020 (UTC)

How did you make the docpic slideshow?
How did you make the slideshow feature/template entitled "docpic" inside the infobox? I'd like to achieve something similar for a wiki I'm working on. JustWilhelm ☎  10:10, July 27, 2020 (UTC)

"The Doctor's Species"
I agree that we should keep the "the doctor's species" under their species but why isn't there also "Time Lord" as well. Although the Doctor started life as whatever species they were when Tecteun found them, since Hartnell -> Whittaker, they have been bound to the thirteen incarnation cycles with two hearts and should unequivocably be called a time lord since being changed into one by the time lords using the chameleon arch (as hinted at by those Brendan scenes).
 * Hi! If The Doctor's species were the page about the species of the Timeless Child, you would be correct, but it's not. That's "Timeless Child's species". The page The Doctor's species is an overview detailing all the conflicting accounts of whether the Doctor is a Time Lord, a human, half-human, a member of the Timeless Child's species, etc.


 * Also, it's not evident that the Brendan scene corresponds to a chameleon arch specifically. It could just as easily have just been a deaging/mindwiping process. According to The Timeless Children the Shobogans became the Time Lords when Tecteun spliced DNA of the Timeless Child into them, so it's a perfectly valid interpretation that the Timeless Child was the original two-hearted binary-vascular-systemed species, and it's the Shobogans who were altered to resemble the Doctor, not the other way around. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  13:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Usage of "Dr. Who"
Okay, seeing as my edits on TV Comic stories have been questioned, I shall explain why I am using the name "Dr. Who" and how policy backs me up on this.

As a bit of context, the names "First Doctor" and "Second Doctor" were never used in the characters' original televised runs. The only times they are used are in stories such as PROSE: The Eight Doctors and other works by Terrance Dicks. (see more about Dicks' naming conventions over at Forum:Is using "First Doctor", "Second Doctor" etc in-universe?, however, me linking this does not mean I agree with the conclusion.) These names have been retroactively applied to these characters, despite evidence from the television stories directly contradicting this, perhaps most notably in TV: The Power of the Daleks when the "Patrick Troughton" Doctor mentioned that the "regeneration" he undertook was a restorative feature of his TARDIS and that he had used it before, meaing that Troughton was not playing the "Second Doctor". (This also means there have been "Pre-Hartnell Doctors" from pretty early on folks!). A precedent notably seen over on Talk:Tzim-Sha and the various talk pages of Amy Pond, is that the name that the characters actually use to refer to themselves as takes precendent. So, in the case of the Doctor, this policy applies. We, as the rule abiding users, should use the name, the title that the Doctor chose for himself, which is in most stories, "the Doctor". In the case of TV Comic, "the Doctor" is short for "Dr. Who", so this indicates to me that "the Doctor" should be the name that is most widely used, and "Dr. Who" for his name in place of the regular usage of "[insert number here] Doctor", in sources that actually state that "Dr. Who" is the Doctor's full name of course. This also would be mean that "[insert number here] Doctor" would be acceptable if substantiated by the respective source.

Now, the argument has been made that "Dr. Who" is not as clear cut as "the [insert number here] Doctor", however, the aforementioned precedent I cited comes into play here. (Additionally, adjectives can be used to adequately describe which "Dr. Who" the source is talking about.) Due to the ruling by admin @Scrooge MacDuck... "Where you are correct is that with all the conflicting accounts of what this fellow calls himself, we should probably strive to use the names given by each individual sources in individually-sourced statement. Information from COMIC: 4-Dimensional Vistas does belong on this page, sorry. But a paragraph sourced to that story should refer to him as "the Time Meddler", not "the Monk". And so on."

- @Scrooge MacDuck

...as stated at Talk:The Monk/Archive 1, accompanied by the polcies given by Tardis:Valid sources, we should use the name of the character as given within the story, regardless of whether or not another story uses a different name. The Doctor refers to himself as "Dr. Who"? That is the name we use. An example of this, as aforementioned admin @Scrooge MacDuck gave at User talk:Danochy, is COMIC: 4-Dimensional Vistas, which uses the name "The Time-Meddler" to refer to the Monk as "The Time-Meddler" was the name given in the source; this name is perfectly acceptable for use so long as it is cited by its respective story, despite "the Monk" being a more well-known name. There is an exception to this, which is that the character's best known name should be used in infoboxes, for clarity. I, admittedly, did not know this, however as soon as it was brought up, I immediately backtracked and switched "Dr. Who" for "First Doctor" becuase I wanted to follow the policies exactly

Furthermore, I am also backed up by Tardis:Neutral point of view, which states quite clearly at the top of the page... "Media doesn't matter. One of the most important aspects of this wiki is that all media have equal weight here. Television is not the most important source of information on this wiki. That which is said in a short story in the 1967 Doctor Who Annual, or a Faction Paradox audio drama, is just as valid as the latest episode of BBC Wales Doctor Who."

- T:NPOV

...therefore, the names retroactively applied to the Hartnell and Troughton Doctors do not supersede "Dr. Who".

Despite this, I am not advocating for the name "Dr. Who" to be intergrated into the pages of sources that do not use it. Even so, this change being implemented into the pages of television and other notable sources will obviously require a Forum thread, owing to the controversial nature of this proposed name change. Additionally, a name change towards certain incarnations of the Doctor may be beneficial, seeing as certain major plot threads state that William Hartnell's Doctor was not the first. Another note against the current naming of the Doctors is that their names are barely even substantiated by any valid sources, so perhaps a new naming style like with the Monk may actually be the best course of action. The Doctor (An Unearthly Child), The Doctor (Planet of the Spiders), etc will likely be better for compliance with T:NPOV. I am rambling though, and this is really its own separate discussion that of course should be brought to the Forums when @CzechOut works out the problems, so I'll stop talking about this and focus on this little facet of the problem that can be resolved without much effort or discussion.

I will mention however, as my actions are well within policy, and I only changing the names in stories published by TV Comic, which again, unambiguously uses the name "Dr. Who". I suspect that my actions will continue to be correct despite certain objections held by editors, but do remember, Tardis:You are bound by current policy and Tardis:Canon policy apply, in case if anybody is thinking that them simply objecting to this on a talk page will be enough to overturn policy or that if TV Comic is non-canonical. 📯 📂 14:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I largely agree with the direction of these edits, but don't forget about T:DOCTORS. On the page for a TV Comic story, I agree that we should use the name for the Doctor used in that story, with the exact incarnation number specified in the lede or the notes section; but on other pages, it's important for comprehensability's sake that each Doctor be identified by incarnation, T:NPOV be damned. I'm partial to "the first Dr. Who", myself. – n8 (☎) 20:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'm in 100% agreement with N8 here. Specify "First Doctor" or "First Dr. Who" where necessary for the sake of clarity, specify "Dr. Who" or "The Doctor" (as appropriate to the text) following the initial numerical identifier.


 * Also, is the quote where 2 mentions having regenerated before really in the TV serial? I'm certain it originated in the 1993 novelisation. I.e. it's a reference to The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius). In fact, Epsilon, your argument against numbering falls apart when you consider The Brain of Morbius, as the same logic would suggest we can't even refer to Tom Baker's Doctor from that era as the Fourth Doctor! Danochy ☎  20:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That bit in the novelization was based on a deleted scene from the original script. But even then, for a long time it was thought that Ian coined the title "the Doctor" and passed it along to other companions via word-of-mouth. (For instance, the First Doctor on TV never really referred to himself as "the Doctor".) So even if there were any number of incarnations before Hartnell, he still would have been the "First Doctor". – n8 (☎) 20:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No, no, I am pretty sure it was mentioned in the television serial. And actually, the Fourth Doctor shouldn't be used on Baker's Doctor, as up until The Deadly Assassin, he wasn't the Fourth Doctor, especially as The Brain of Morbius literally showed that he had multiple incarnations before Hartnell. So "Fourth Doctor" is really not a good name. As for the "Dr. Who" bit, if an incarnation is to be used, it should be styled as "first Dr. Who", in accordance with Tardis:Doctors, though I would still prefer ditching the numbering system in accounts where it is blatantly untrue. As for what the Doctor calls himself, there is a f deal of evidence to show that he refers to himself as "the Doctor" and "Dr. Who". 📯 📂 21:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It's nice that you're "pretty sure" it was mentioned, but I am absolutely certain that it wasn't.


 * I've said this to you before: the single purpose of every wiki is to be legible and usable, and all the other rules are in service of that goal. So if a rule makes a wiki less legible or usable, it bends. (Check out Interference - Book Two if you want to see this in action.) What would it look like if we got rid of T:DOCTORS and the numbering system? What did it look like on The Power of the Daleks after your edits to it? Every user would have to hover over every instance of "the Doctor" or "Dr. Who" to see what dab term was pipe switched away. And that would be neither legible nor usable.


 * Whether "Fourth Doctor" is a good name has nothing to do with what he called himself or how it fits with T:NPOV, and it has everything to do with the fact that "Fourth Doctor" is his universally recognized name. If T:DOCTORS breaks T:NPOV, T:DOCTORS wins every single time. You're doing nothing but hurting your case and wasting your time by complaining about numbering rather than focusing on more limited compromises that might be actually achievable. – n8 (☎) 12:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I am once again in agreement with Nate. Changing the name to "Dr. Who" in the comic plot summaries is all well and good, but changing it on actors pages is pretty pedantic (and the redirect just plain pointless). Yes in the 60s, William Hartnell was not known as the "First Doctor", but this wiki is not being read in the 60s, it is being read in the 21st century and the people of the 21st century know him as the First Doctor (and have done for decades). And changing all accounts of "the x Doctor" to "Dr Who" or "the Doctor" (such as The Power of the Daleks edit) is massively confusing and unhelpful.


 * P.S. Apologies, Epsilon for not replying to your message on my talk page. When I saw that you had created this thread, I figured this would be a more appropriate place to put my thoughts. LauraBatham ☎  12:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I’m no expert on wiki policy, but I would agree that there’s a need for the wiki to be easily legible and usable by readers. Referring to the Doctor as Dr Who specifically in the context of TV Comic stories seems reasonable, but renaming all the Doctors as variants of The Doctor (An Unearthly Child) would be potentially difficult for readers to navigate and put this wiki out of touch with 99% of discussion around Doctor Who where the Doctors are referred to by those familiar numbers. I don’t think the recent developments changes this at all, as a previous revelation also altered the numbering of the Doctors’ incarnations but the norm of referring to Eccleston’s Doctor as the Ninth Doctor, Tennant’s as Tenth, Smith’s as Eleventh etc has remained the same. SherlockTheII ☎  16:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm sorry, Epsilon, but dabbed page names for First Doctor onwards are simply never going to happen. And infoboxes should use a name that is specific to the page we are linking. If we had some other in-universe moniker specific to the Troughton Doctor, then perhaps it would be worth weighing that option… but we cannot start putting just "Dr Who", or indeed "The Doctor", in the |doctor= field of infoboxes. This helps no one whatsoever.


 * Using "Dr. Who", and refraining from using "First" or "Second", makes sense for plot summaries, as well as for the writing of paragraphs cited to these stories. Yes, plot description of, say, The Highlanders should not mention "the Second Doctor", just "the Doctor" or "Dr Who". But that doesn't mean that the legibility essentially real-world constructs such as infoboxes (whether it be the story's infobox or the actors') should be compromised — nor that it is false to refer to the man in The Highlanders as the Second Doctor in an in-universe sense. He is in fact "the Second Doctor" — albeit "according to some accounts". Thus, while we must not give the impression that the story uses this name, "the Second Doctor lived through these events" is a valid statement within the wider the DWU.


 * The thing about T:NPOV is that it mostly applies to what statements we make about the DWU, not how pages are named. Because pages cannot truly have several names at once, we necessarily have to "prioritise" one version over another when a character has several valid names. T:NPOV still has its place in terms of making sure that, for example, it is not "TV by default" that wins this assessment, rather than the name that actually makes the most sense and best reflects DWU sources in aggregate. But it is not inherently a T:NPOV breach to say Troughton was the Second Doctor just because some stories number the Doctors differently. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am endorsing what Scrooge MacDuck, LauraBatham and NateBumber have said, above. Standardisation is necessary on a wiki (and universe) of this size, especially where characters as central as the Doctor are concerned.


 * Also of note, as to why T:DOCTORS trumps any T:NPOV arguments: even with the last decade of Doctor Who on television firmly renumbering the Doctor's incarnations, in one way or another, "Twelfth Doctor" is a title, not always an accurate description.


 * This is where capitalising Twelfth, by convention, happens to also give the right idea: he is not necessarily the Doctor's twelfth incarnation, but he is, by most sources and common understanding, the "Twelfth Doctor". We decided in 2013 to stick with this and not confuse things, and we are not going back on that. The wiki would unfortunately be quite illegible. 08:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)