Talk:John Hurt

Split
Shouldn't this article be primary about the DWU John Hurt, with the real-world Hurt in a BTS section? We always give preference to in-universe articles. An alternative — which I find preferable — would be a split between John Hurt (in-universe) and John Hurt (actor) (real-world actor who portrays the Doctor). Or something along those lines. --SOTO ☎ 05:57, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it should. I knew something was off but couldn't quite figure out what. Anoted ☎  06:01, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. If we don't split it (and I'm not really in favor of splitting), the in-universe info should take precedence, and the real-world info should be placed at the end of the article, in the "behind the scenes" section. This would also necessitate removing the "real world" tag. Shambala108 ☎  14:04, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken a stab at writing this article in an in-universe perspective and putting the real world stuff in a behind the scenes section. Let me know what you think. There's very little on John Hurt in-universe and I can see why splitting this article would be problematic. In-universe is preferred over real-world, and most people will likely be looking for real world John Hurt. But I'm not sure how great of a job we can in a combined article, especially because the infobox has to be moved down. So the question is whether or not this article is too awkward and whether we'd be better off splitting it, even though in-universe Hurt would get preference. Anoted ☎  16:15, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * People would go to John Hurt, and then use to get to John Hurt (actor). Not very complicated. Plus, that long BTS section with the infobox looks ridiculous. Also, we should get rid of, since we're going to provide all that information in the real world article. --SOTO ☎ 20:35, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

There is a precedent forum discussion on this very topic, forum:Production team members who become characters in the DWU, but nobody cared too much for that discussion, despite being open for three months, and even though those three months included the time series 6a was broadcast.

So it had a fair shot at community involvement, but the community didn't bite. Of course, that in itself is a consensus: it means that the community left it up to Tangerineduel and me to decide.

And I think what emerged was this. It's ridiculous to give major behind-the-scenes people like Tom Baker and John Lucarotti a dab term, simply because they have a minor presence in the DWU. So Tom Baker (actor) and Kylie Minogue (singer) ain't happening. Tangerineduel then suggested that we make the comic book appearance of Tom Baker be Tom Baker (TV Action!). This, obviously, never occurred.

I suppose the reason why, at least from my perspective, is that this would immediately be hard to defend under our normal naming conventions, since in-universe articles are supposed to "win" the un-dabbed term. What emerged instead was simply that we've included a line or two in an otherwise article explaining that they were made a part of the DWU by virtue of their appearance in. And that's what you'll find now at John Lucarotti, Amy Pickwoad, Sean Longcroft, Kylie Minogue and a few other places.

And there's nothing special about John Hurt that would give us cause to change that de facto policy. Certainly it's wholly wrong to start off this article with the minor mention in Torchwood. Our readers are going to expect us to start an article on John Hurt with information about the actor, not an incredibly fleeting remark made in a Doctor Who spinoff. Although there are several people agreeing that the in-universe information should bubble to the top, doing so would necessitate a change in other articles that would be both time-consuming and insensible. Therefore, in order to reduce our combined workload, I'm just going to make this article comply with previous pages of the same kind.

It's important that we use dab terms consistently. Dab terms are really for when you're talking about materially different things. The Five Doctors (TV story) is different to The Five Doctors (novelisation) and they're both different to the in-universe video game called The Five Doctors. Adam Smith is a character in Torchwood. Adam Smith (director) is a director whose likeness or identity is not referred to in Torchwood. Adam Smith (writer) is neither the director, nor someone whose identity was used in Torchwood.

But Tom Baker (TV Action!) is meant to be construed as Tom Baker. And the John Hurt Sato talks about in Torchwood is the subject of this article. Therefore, to ensure that our use of dab terms remains consistent, fictional references of real people go on the page. And, as a bonus, this allows us to discuss the fictional appearance using "normal" English, rather than the sorta "fictional, this-all-happened-in-the-past-and-we-know-about-it-because-we-live-at-the-end-of-the-universe English" our in-universe perspective requires us to use. 18:36: Thu 23 May 2013

Can of worms
Possible can of worms here: now that John Hurt establishes a precedent for previously unseen incarnations, what does that do with regards to The Morbius Doctors Controversy?
 * No. He hasn't established anything yet. He's appeared for all of 30 seconds.  We have no idea what his story is.  Have to wait for his actual appearance.  02:29: Wed 31 Jul 2013
 * And now that this has happened, there is no correlation to the Morbius Doctors. In fact, there is now canonical dialogue specifically stating that there 13 Doctors in existence as of the events of DOTD. If anything, this probably puts that whole controversy to bed forever. 68.146.70.124talk to me 01:34, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

Removed embedded note
Prior to the broadcast of Day of the Doctor, CzechOut placed a warning at the top of the edit page regarding inserting certain information about Hurt that could not be clarified without causing issues for unbroadcast episodes. Now that Day of the Doctor has aired, such concerns no longer exist as the special not only clarified his role as the Doctor, it also introduced Peter Capaldi as a future incarnation of the Doctor, thereby eliminating most of the prohibition regarding referencing him, so I've taken the "Be Bold" approach and removed the note as no longer needed and have inserted the comment about Oscar nomination since no clarification is now necessary. 68.146.70.124talk to me 01:31, December 4, 2013 (UTC)