Talk:Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks)

Scope
What exactly is the scope of this page? There are many stories through the 1980s which refer to other incarnations as "Dr. Who". Some of these are from a nebulous early period before there were any clear differences between Hartnell and Cushing's versions of the character, so they could be applicable to both pages. How are we drawing the distinction?

I see a couple options. There are three groups of stories: (A) "stories which explicitly feature Hartnell", (B) "stories which explicitly feature Cushing", and (C) "stories which aren't explicit". As I see it, there are several options for how we combine or separate these groups.


 * So far we've been putting (A) and (C) on First Doctor and covering (B) on its own page, but that was a unique scenario as a result of Cushing's invalidity, which now no longer applies.


 * A more even-handed approach might be to cover (A) and (C) on First Doctor, and also cover (B) and (C) on Dr. Who. But this still erects an anachronistic division between Cushing and Hartnell.


 * A third option would be to cover (A), (B), and (C) on First Doctor, with Dr. Who as a redirect to The Doctor; and then cover (A) on First Doctor (An Unearthly Child) and (B) on Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks). I think that's the fairest approach and best long-term structure for our coverage, but I understand if it might be a bridge too far for those less familiar with the diversity of 1960s Dr. Who media.

I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts. – n8 (☎) 22:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally feel like the most intuitive thing would be to cover (A), (B) and (C) on First Doctor and (B) on Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) (whose rename to Dr. Who I am not convinced should have been carried out without a discussion!). While an (A)-exclusive First Doctor (An Unearthly Child) page is a nice idea in theory I don't think it would have much practical use beyond making an abstract point about the equal validites of "Cushing-only" and "Hartnell-only" perspectives, and I am also skeptical that you'll ever get a consensus in that particular direction, though we'll see.


 * Furthermore, I feel like there is a degree to which (B) isn't a wholly coherent thing. Dr. Who and the Daleks is quite arguably intended as a variant account of "the First Doctor" on par with the Target or Cigarette Sweets version — but the authorial intent on something like Dr. Who & the Mechonoids is altogether different! While it'd be hard to formalise, I would really like to refine the above into a solution where we cover "classic-era material where Dr Who is played by Peter Cushing" on First Doctor to a greater extent than we would stuff like …and the Mechanoids or House on Oldark Moor, which are more directly "The Cushing Doctor(TM) as opposed to the First Doctor, whether in televised or 60s-EU-flavour". The distinction between (B) and (C) (let alone between A and B) may be anachronistic when talking about the 60s stuff, but it's not anachronistic when referring to latter-day "Cushingverse" efforts, and we need to cover those fairly, too. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Scrooge, that's very sensible and a good application of the precedent nailed down at Talk:Magnus (Divided Loyalties); and I agree this rename may have been hasty – it's certainly what prompted these thoughts of mine. But by bringing up …and the Mechanoids and House on Oldark Moor, you may have bolstered the case for First Doctor (An Unearthly Child) more than you realise. You point out that those stories – let's call them (B') – demand coverage of (B) separately from (A), since they feature "The Cushing Doctor(TM) as opposed to the First Doctor"; but is there not also (A'), like The Five Doctors, where the First Doctor(TM) is definitely portrayed as a Time Lord: "as opposed to the Cushing Doctor"? – n8 (☎) 17:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)