Talk:The Doctor

Ok, this is chaos
There seems to be no consistency on whether we use promotional pictures or screencaps for the individual Doctor articles, and for the collage on this page. For example, First Doctor has a promo image, Seventh Doctor has a screencap, and Tenth Doctor has something which looks like a screencap but I'm pretty sure is actually a high-quality image from the Doctor Who website and not technically a capture from an episode. We're going through Eleventh Doctor images like a bucket of popcorn - why do we really need one from the latest story he was in? It's not even a particularly good picture. Do we actually have a policy on this sort of thing?--The Traveller 11:38, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * We do have a policy on this. We don't use promotional pictures on in-universe articles whatsoever. I'm sure that all of the images on each Doctor's page are screencaps. But I agree with you that the Eleventh Doctor's page needs one image that stays. I thought that there was no problem with the original one from The Eleventh Hour (the one that represents him on this article's image). The image should be put back and kept that way. --The Thirteenth Doctor 12:39, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm almost certain that the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Doctors have images which aren't screencaps. I assume a "screencap" is an image captured directly from an episode. Take the First Doctor article - while it's clearly William Hartnell in character as the First Doctor, that image never appeared in An Unearthly Child. You can tell just by looking at pictures whether or not they're screencaps. Screencaps tend to be lower-resolution, may have motion blur, and in the case of the classic series might have video noise. Perhaps they're not promotional images, but they're certainly photographs, which are clearly of higher quality than screencaps.--The Traveller 17:41, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Main image
Why was the main image removed? Right now, out of the images that are still being considered for the Master, one of them uses all the TV images, two of them use all the images, and one of them uses images of Masters that have appeared in an entire story and only in a visual medium. If we go by the precedent of any of those choices, we would still need to have all eleven Doctors.Icecreamdif 21:36, July 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Skittles the hog, the Master image discussion was also for the layout of the images on top of which Masters to use. It didn't come across to me either, but that's what they said. -- Tybort (talk page) 21:56, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Well, since all the versions of the Master's main image that had 11 Masters have been rejected, I don't think the exact same format could really be used for both the Doctor and the Master anyway.Icecreamdif 22:05, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Multiple images in main image
There's been a fairly lengthy discussion on Talk:The Master concerning whether or not to use all the images of a Time Lord's incarnations or just a few or one or two to define the article.

On species articles we tend to use just one image such as Dalek, despite them changing their outward appearance fairly often.

Should we continue to use an image like this one; File:Eleven-doctors.jpg, which was previously on the page prior to this discussion.

Or, like the images on the Master's and Rassilon's articles should we include not just TV but other portrayals like comic strips, audio/novel covers etc to truly reflect what this wiki covers? --Tangerineduel / talk 15:45, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but aren't the eleven canonical Doctors already depicted on screen and film? There aren't any canon Doctors that only appear in books or comics. -- Doctor Kermit ( Complain. ) 15:56, August 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * What I meant is that we could have instead of a TV depiction of any of Doctors 1-11 there could be a comic or cover-based depiction of any of the Doctors 1-11. Say the Seventh Doctor in his linen suit from the NA days or the Eighth Doctor from DWM comics, or even the 1-6 from MA covers etc. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:18, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

We should probably use images from the TV show where possible, just because an actor portraying a character looks better than a drawing of the character. Since its the same incarnations in the TV show as anywhere else, it makes most sense to just use the TV images in the infobox.Icecreamdif 21:32, August 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we have a GIF file that changes from 1 Doctor to another and scroll through all? -- Future Companion


 * GIFs aren't really good to use, they're limited in the colours that are used to create a GIF and if you want something detailed it ends up taking up a lot of space / takes a significant time to load. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:28, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

If we must have images of every single incarnation of a Time Lord, then we should just use the image that was already there. Otherwise, we can show just the Eleventh Doctor, or show both the First and Eleventh Doctors as was discussed for the Master.Icecreamdif 22:02, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as at companion and now the Master, I would prefer the image be representative, not exhaustive. I do think Smith should get pride of place and positional dominance, but I don't think we need all 11, since the article is chock full of the 11, anyway.  The infobox need only summarise.   21:57:35 Thu 18 Aug 2011

How about we use four images. The First Doctor from the black & white era, one of the Doctors from 3-7 for the classic color era (maybe the fourth since he was probably the most popular), the eigth doctor from the TV movie, and the Eleventh as the current one and representing the new series.Gowron8472 07:19, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with using pictures of all 11 Doctors, aside from aesthetics. And arguing "this doesn't make the page look pretty" (AKA aesthetics) is not a very good argument. -- Bold  Clone  18:59, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the decision on the Master's page has sort of set a precedent for not using every incarnation of a Time Lord in the infobox, hasn't it.Icecreamdif 04:03, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, the discussion of the Master's images was basically either "the pictures aren't relevant," or "the pictures don't make the page as pretty." I thought we just should have left it that way--show the canon images of the Master. -- Bold  Clone  14:47, August 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * What about adding a picture of each beside their entry under "The Doctor's incarnations" section? -- TARDIS 1701
 * Been there, done that; it didn't work. I am actually the person who removed the pictures. -- Bold  Clone  02:56, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't even know this discussion existed. Now I do. We really should use all of the incarnations. He's the main character! BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 12:41, August 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've been thinking about it, and actually, we don't need all the Doctor. There, I said it. We should just have five, like the on at the Master. Here is my image suggestion:


 * Smith dominates the design, because he is the current Doctor, and this is from DW: The Impossible Astronaut, where he says "Space, 1969". Best moment in my opinion.
 * Baker (Tom not Colin) is at the bottom left hand corner. I just had to include him. He played the Doctor for so long, so he's got to be on this image. The screenshot is from DW: The Deadly Assassin (thanks CzechOut)
 * Hartnell is the black-and-white one. I included him because a) he's the original and initial Doctor (and, in a way, his true appearance) and b) it shows that the Doctor has appeared in black-and-white, and not all in colour (bit similar to the Master image, CzechOut had to use a comic Master to show they exist). This screenshot is from DW: The Ark.
 * Tennant and Eccleston are the ones at the bottom-right hand-corner. I felt they needed to be included, as they are the most recent Doctors. I included Eccleston because this Doctor was the one after the Time War, I just felt we needed to show that. I chose Tennant because he's very well-known, he's played the Doctor for about five years or minus one year. Every fan knows him, not saying he's typecast, but I think as he's also recent (like Eccleston) he needs to included.

Many thanks to CzechOut, who inspired the design, and added some of the images I've needed. So... what do you make of the image? BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 08:12, August 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the design, the only thing I would chnage is the Tenth Doctor. I would replace it with the Eighth Doctor. At the moment, the image is has to much of the New series in it, and I think two Old Series plus to New Series, with the Eighth Doctor (who current exists in neither the old or new series.)


 * Also, keep the basic design (one big, two squares and two smaller ones), but chnage them about. Maybe put the squares and smaller squares at the top of the page? Or out the two smaller squares in between the squares.


 * Keep the Eleventh as the main image, then have the First and Ninth Doctor as the big squares and the Fourth and Third as the smaller squares.


 * Nice work though! MM/ Want to talk? 09:48, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But replacing the Tenth Doctor image is a bit of a tough one. As these are five images, the images won't be equal, if you know what I mean. As he's the second most recent incarnation I think he should be featured. BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 09:52, August 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * We have the first incarnation and the Eleventh. They should be in. Then we have the Ninth Doctor, who was the first "New Series" Doctor, so he should be included. That means we should not have the Tenth Doctor, it should not matter if they were most popular or most recent, since we have the current. The would strongly advise replacing the Tenth with the Eighth, so it's not New Series heavy. With having the Ninth/Eleventh and First/Fourth, we have a equal and fair number for fans of either the old or new series.


 * The point is, we should have two from each series, plus the Eighth Doctor, so I really think you should replace either the Tenth or the Ninth Doctor with the Eighth. So as to balance the image out. MM/ Want to talk? 09:58, August 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with showing all the incarnations, aside from "it doesn't make the page pretty"? -- Bold  Clone  15:20, August 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * That is great work BroadcastCorp.
 * I also think the Eighth Doctor should be included as he's often forgotten, yet his appearance TV wise bridges the two 'Wilderness years'. I'd suggest getting rid of Nine/Ten and putting Eight in there, or get rid of just Ten or Nine and replace with Eight.
 * The infobox is a summary of the page, so we don't need to have all the images, plus we've had the all images in one box, which is kinda what lead us to this discussion. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:42, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Can't you put a bit of a spin on it. Not much, just so it's not the exact same layout as the Master's image.-- 16:54, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Okay why can't we put the tenth and another doctor's pic to the right and left of 11's pic? Cory Jaynes 19:18, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

I think there are more than enough Doctor's in the image right now. I understand that Eccleston is there because he is the first new series companion, but is he really that significant. He was only in one season. I would suggest removing him and making the McGann's image bigger. I don't really see the need to keep the classic and new series perfectly equal. A new series Doctor already takes up about half of the image, and the Classic series is a much bigger part of the show than the new series is. There are seven Doctors in the classic series, and only three in the new series, and about 30 years worth of classic episodes with only about five years worth of new episodes.Icecreamdif 01:51, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

The seven doctors image has way too many. We don't need both the third and the fourth, as they are both from the same era of the show. I personally like the Third better, but the Fourth was more popular and was around the longest, so he should be on their instead. We definetly don't need both the ninth and the tenth for the same reason. I don't think that we need either as we have the eleventh, but if we must have one I would go with the tenth as he was more popular and was around for longer. As it is now, it seems more like we are just excluding some of the Doctors rather than only including a few.Icecreamdif 18:29, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

I like the design of the seven Doctors image, but the pictures would need changing as they're not that great. We don't want to be using the same images that are in the individual infoboxes.-- 20:19, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

The sevend doctors image just isn't ver representative of his character or the show. Think about it, there is one image from the 60s, 2 from the 70s, nothing from the 80s, one from the 90s, and three from the 2000s. At the very least, either the 3rd or fourth doctor should be changed to either the 5th, 6th, or 7th, but the main image really doesn't need to have more than half of the doctors. We should try to stick with just four or five images. Icecreamdif 20:41, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * If the general consensus of the wiki is to only have some of the Doctors shown (which I still think is rubbish idea), then go with the five Doctors, as shown above, not the seven. Seven images of varying size and no pattern is just not going to help anyone. -- Bold  Clone  23:32, September 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. I think we should either have ALL or just the current one.
 * 2. I think we should set the photos up in a WHEEL or CLOCK with the current Doctor in the center and the others going around in the proper order. -- Future Time Lord

Each Doctor's got it's own page, so there's really no reason to put all1 Doctors in the infobox on this page. We also don't want just the Eleventh Doctor, as that would be misleading, uggesting that Matt Smith is the only person to portray the Doctor. Plus, that would set a precedent for other Timelords who have regenerated, who all have multiple images in the infobox. I think we should go with a four Doctors image, with just Hartnell, T. Baker, McGann, and Eccleston, but if everyone wants to have five then I think that we should also include Eccleston as he was the last Doctor of the Classic Series.Icecreamdif 01:45, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

No he wasn't. McCoy was the last Doctor of the classic series. Eccleston was the first Doctor of the revived series. DomeSeven 15:34, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I mistyped. I meant to say McCoy.Icecreamdif 16:39, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

How bout we do a montage thing like in eleventh hour? I know they have some like that on youtube. Cory Jaynes 05:11, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that we do a poll to see the opinion of the majority of the Wiki's fallowers opinion. This seemed to work on the Master's page. (I'm not gonna do it, for it's propably more of an admin job.) OttselSpy25 talk to me 00:25, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a poll might be appropriate, although I don't think it really worked on the Master page (the most popular image in the poll is not the image that's currently being used...) It'd be interesting if we could set up an animated gif that could scroll through all the Doctors. Is anyone skilled enough in making those to make one (if one doesn't already exist somewhere)? Memnarc 17:01, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Objection of the image use
Sorry, but I must step in and say that I completely disagree about only using a certain number of images of the Doctor. Either they all are represented, or none are. Someone above said that it wouldn't be fair to just have Smith as it would seem as though he was the only actor to portray the Doctor, so really what is the difference between missing ten of them out or missing six of them out? Nothing. There is no difference. Incarnations of the Doctor are still not being represented when they should be. Nothing makes Eleven better than Six, or Four better than Seven, or any incarnation better than any other. Either all should be represented or none should. If the only argument is that it makes the page look messy then that is not a good argument, because as a wiki we are here to provide fact first, not miss out bits to make the wiki look good. --The Thirteenth Doctor talk to me 21:36, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree with this, 13D. The question here isn't about fact but exhaustiveness.  If we have only a few incarnations listed, we aren't implying that these are the only or preferred incarnations.  It's better, from a layout and design standpoint, to have clear imagery rather than absolutely complete imagery.  It's simple math:  Infobox pics are 250px. Divide that by 11 and you've got 22px per image.  Even if you do a 2-up design, you've got 41px per image, with two rows of ~6.  That's tiny.  A 3-up design, on 4 rows, gives you 83px per image — but that would also mean something massively tall.  This isn't 1982, where we only had 5 Doctors.  We need to consider how well we can see each' picture, and how well that overall picture illustrates the concept of the Doctor.  Do 11 pictures really do a better job than 3 or 4?  I don't think they do.  17:59: Thu 06 Oct 2011

I agree. By The Thirteenth Doctor's logic, the image on The Master's page suggests that Eric Roberts was a better Master than Derek Jacobi, which is a statement that I think few would agree with. I still think that the best system would be if we had one from the black & white era, one from the classic color era, one from the TV Movie, and one from the new series. One, Four, Eight, and Eleven would be a good way to go. I am not being biased with my choices, as my favorite Doctors from each of these eras are Two, Three, Eight, and Ten, but One is the original Doctor, Four was the Doctor for longer than any of them, Eight is obviously the only one who had more than two lines in the TV Movie, and Eleven is the current Doctor. Either way, we should try to agree on something, because its been months since we've had a picture in the Doctor's infobox.Icecreamdif talk to me 20:18, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely, completely and WHOLE HEARTEDLY disagree with and dislike the new image. I don't see a consensus on this page either. Why did a few admins take it upon themselves to make a change? I think it needs more discussion from the community on the whole. 214.13.69.132talk to me 09:25, March 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * No consensus was actually reached. The topic just sorta, stopped. I added the five doctor image based on the comments, but it was only to be a "filler" image until we actually decided upon one. MM/ Want to talk? 10:49, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

More image talk
It's a reasonable position to hold -- that all images should be included or none. Given the reality that including eleven in one block would result in itty bitty images, the best answer would seem to be eleven images -- so far -- and I would suggest a strict chronological order. Boblipton talk to me 20:31, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

Why must it be all or none? The Master's image is missing a few of his incarnations, but there's nothing wrong with that image. The article makes it pretty clear that there are eleven Doctors, so nobody is going to think that there are only four or five after looking at the infobox.Icecreamdif talk to me 03:11, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

This is getting confusin; a solution would be nice.
We need a picture at the top, so if someone feels like jigsawing together the current Eleven faces of the Doctor, please do.

Also, we should try putting pictures back with the indiviual incarntions breif bios. However, with Doctors who wore vastly different outfits in their time, like the Fourth's radical outfit redigin in his final year compared to his other six years, let's include dual pictures. If you need another example, try the Tenth switching his brown suit with the blue one, of the Seventh's outfit change in season 26 that is unlike the one in seasons 24 and 25. Kinda getting the idea?

(Forgetful 10th doctor fan talk to me 23:21, November 14, 2011 (UTC))

Casting
Do we need to add to add those considered for the role, rather than just the ones that actually got the role in the "Casting" section? Seems a bit messy otherwise. -- Tybort (talk page) 11:42, April 2, 2012 (UTC)