Talk:Fugitive Doctor

Ruth Clayton
Currently, Ruth Clayton redirects to this page. However, shouldn't Ruth have her own page; a precedent has been set in the cases of similar Time Lords who have undergone biological change via a Chameleon Arch, including John Smith (Tenth Doctor), John Smith (Seventh Doctor) and Yana. 66 Seconds ☎  23:55, January 27, 2020 (UTC)
 * Just today, one of our administrators, User:SOTO, recommended that we have just such a talk-page discussion, to determine whether we can write about the Fugitive Doctor, and about Ruth Clayton-the-human, as two separate characters, without risking essentially having the same information on both pages. I'd say yes, personally. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  00:02, January 28, 2020 (UTC)
 * But didn't we have exactly that dilemma with Yana and the Master too. I mean, originally Yana didn't have enough information to warrant a separate page from the Master as at that time, all we had was 2 minutes of Jacobi as the Master. Wouldn't that be the same for Ruth and her version of the Doctor, meaning right now we don't have enough separate information to split them into two pages. --DCLM ☎  08:26, January 30, 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, we don't even know where in the Doctor's timeline she fits in. We have to wait for more information to be given. --DCLM ☎  08:37, January 30, 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the problem with the timeline is, but at any rate, I would say the reason this differs from Yana is that the War Master in Utopia was Yana for basically the whole story. He opens the watch, kills one (1) person, and then immediately dies and regenerates. Whereas here, the Ruth Doctor does plenty of things not related to her Chameleon Arch identity. It would be perfectly possible to separate her personality and biography from Ruth Clayton's.
 * Furthermore, unlike the War Master in Utopia, the Ruth Doctor lives to travel another day, leaving no serious doubt on whether we'll see her again. I've got two words for you people, as I often do: "future-proofing." --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  18:04, January 30, 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say let's do that after her potential next appearance on the show. --DCLM ☎  18:20, February 1, 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Scrooge MacDuck. Looking at this Doctor's biography as is, we have enough information on Ruth Clayton as an identity, and on this incarnation of the Doctor to warrant two separate pages. It doesn't matter that we don't know the number of this incarnation, or even the possibilty that she could be lying when she says she is the Doctor; that would only ever affect this page, and would have no bearing on the page for Ruth Clayton. 66 Seconds ☎  00:11, February 2, 2020 (UTC)

Add her to the "More ambiguous" section of the Incarnations of the Doctor template
For now, she fits as an ambiguous incarnation, and I think it would be easier to get to her page if she is there in the template.DenisLuiz ☎  00:11, January 30, 2020 (UTC)


 * Right now with the information at hand, I think there needs to be some serious consideration as to if she might belong under "Widely Accepted". Looking at the other characters under "More Ambiguous" (Dream Lord, The Curator, The Valeyard, Meta-Crisis, The Watcher) and it's clear the Jo Martin Doctor is much more definitive than they are. She is presented as a normal, genuine incarnation of the Doctor. The only snag is that we don't know where she belongs in the overall order. It's implied she is pre-Hartnell, but nothing is definitive. But I would argue that if the War Doctor belongs under "Widely Accepted" then so does the Jo Martin Doctor. I can't see the logic in having them be separate, seeing as how similar they are within the context of the show. --TheOneTrueJack  ☎  18:02, March 4, 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. The "Fugitive" Doctor is certainly more certain than the rest of the "More Ambiguous" list. Only her placement in the list of regenerations is currently unknown.- UtherSRG ☎  22:58, March 4, 2020 (UTC)

"The Doctor" from the Rose novelisation
Is it worth mentioning the Tall Black Woman Doctor mencione in the novelisation of Rose, even thought it’s from 2018, the coincidence may be of note
 * Who knows if it's a coincidence? But let's wait a tick. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:50, February 25, 2020 (UTC)