Talk:Forty-Fifth Doctor

Talk
I don't have strong feelings on the matter, but as documented in the Behind the scenes section, this character is only ever referred to in the source(s) where he appears as "the 45th Doctor", and never as "the Forty_fifth Doctor" or "the Forty-Fifth Doctor". Shouldn't that count for something? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  15:38, May 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * We should probably follow T:DOCTORS here. That policy was designed to standardise how the wiki spells Doctor incarnations and it was neccesary because of alternative spellings that also exist such as "1st Doctor" etc. I don't think it really makes sense to not go policy on this matter when it was created partly for this very reason. --Borisashton ☎  15:46, May 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * I felt as though there's a difference between a policy of "if there's both 1st Doctor and First Doctor available, we go with the latter" and choosing to use "Forty-Fifth Doctor" in a situation where no one has given us that form. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  15:59, May 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * There might have been a difference if we didn't have specific policy on it but as it stands T:DOCTORS overrules other naming conventions on the matter. As the decades go on and we get pages such as "Twenty-Fifth Doctor", "Thirty-Third Doctor" and "Forty-Forth Doctor" this page name will increasingly start to stick out like a sore thumb. Best to follow precedent and sort it out now in my opinion. --Borisashton ☎  23:18, May 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:22, May 2, 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's at all certain that the BBC will insist on fully spelt-out names forever. If we're planning decades in advance, well, "the 247th Doctor" is clearly a much more practicable name than "the Two-Hundred-and-Forty-Seventh Doctor". The TV show has yet to feature a Doctor with a "double-barrelled" name, but it seems much more likely that, when the Twentieth Doctor regenerates, it'll be into a 21st Doctor, not a Twenty-First Doctor. I would say the fact that we've already seen reports of a "45th Doctor" twice, years apart, in totally different contexts - never a "Forty-Fifth Doctor" - is a pretty clear early indicator of this. --Gowlbag ☎  16:38, May 3, 2020 (UTC)


 * This one's easy. Existing policy requires this (if it's not deleted/merged) to be renamed "Forty-fifth Doctor". Shambala108 ☎  21:19, May 3, 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone point me to the quote and/or policy page where it’s specified that Doctors should be named via spelled-out numbers rather than numerals? I’ve just read T:DOCTORS three times and I fail to see any such specification. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 05:40, May 4, 2020 (UTC)

Delete/Merge
Not sure that it matters, but isn't Showrunner Showdown an interview? We don't have articles on the Cybs, who only exist in interviews. Surely this should be featured in the Behind the Scenes section of Doctor Moon a la the Spider Dalek. Toy  Story   Fan  15:55, May 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * The 45th Doctor and Doctor-Moon-as-Doctor are different incarnations, though — or else you'd assume River would recognise Doctor Moon instantly. Clearly the Colin Salmon avatar the Doctor has inside the Library is, so to speak, the 46th Doctor (though not a regeneration). So it wouldn't really be proper to cover him in the behind the scenes section of Doctor Moon, just like the Rown Atkinson Doctor isn't covered in the bts section of Eighth Doctor.


 * Yes, Showrunner Showdown is a DWM article rather than a story (mostly; it has a bit of a tongue-in-cheek narrative with the "boxing match" framing and the monsters holding up signs in illustrations, but I won't press that). And that's precisely why this page is tagged, but there's plenty of precedent for Doctors from invalid, four-little-rules-breaking works to have pages. The category Category:Non-DWU_Doctors is filled with nothing but.


 * I'm unsure what you're driving at with the Spider Dalek link. The page you link to is a page about Spider Daleks as they exist in valid sources, with links about their invalid appearance in the invalid Spider Dalek (TV story) — but as I said, the 45th Doctor has not appeared in any valid material, even if Doctor Moon, who, per the invalid source Showrunner Showdown, is who the 45th Doctor becomes, has. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  15:59, May 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Scrooge, I don't think it would make sense to have this information solely on Doctor Moon's page - as the idea of the 45th Doctor has been mentioned in interviews on other occasions (see the behind the scenes section on this page) which have no relation to Doctor Moon. Xx-connor-xX ☎  16:23, May 2, 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning stuff from valid soucrs
Putting this here to avoid this becoming an edit war, but @BCM: while it's true we don't mention the Shalka Master's appearance in the EDAs on The Master (Scream of the Shalka), it was my belief that this was because Scream of the Shalka is invalid for Rule 4 reasons: since it's not held (we have decided) to be set in the mainstream DWU by its creators, stuff from the mainstream DWU is not applicable to it.

The 45th Doctor narrative in Showrunner Showdown, on the other hand, is emphatically held to be "true" by both Davies and Moffat. It is invalid to us because of Rule 1, not Rule 4. As such, I see no reason not to mention the valid context, which is obviously relevant to the topic of the page. Doctor Moon's valid history is meant to apply to the 45th Doctor's future, and we're doing our readers a disservice by not recognising it properly. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  16:08, May 2, 2020 (UTC)

similar case
You can see in The Dying Days (novel) that Lance Parkin, in an unpublished and therefore NOTVALID chapter, described the "42nd doctor". It enventually became the mysterious old man (Beige Planet Mars) in Bernice Summerfield VNA cowritten by Parkin.

It might be of interest for those wanting to debate the creation of a 45th doctor page.RingoRoadagain ☎  03:31, May 4, 2020 (UTC)
 * This is interesting — but has the 42nd Doctor been mentioned under that name in a licensed work, the way the 45th Doctor's story was told, albeit in an invalid context, within the pages of DWM? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  09:41, May 4, 2020 (UTC)