Talk:The Doctor

Archived
The page was simply getting too long to allow for clarity of thought. Thus, the pre-September 2012 version of the page now sits at Archive 3. The discussion that was active as of earlier today — but criss-crossed with references to the earlier discussion — now sits at Archive 4. 18:32: Mon 03 Sep 2012

Infobox image
There is discontent about the image used in the infobox. As we search for a new solution, it's important to remember what's already been ruled out.

Things to avoid in the design
The following proposed solutions have, as is reflected both in archives of this page, and at talk:The Master, already been ruled out by the community:
 * Collages which contain all 11 Doctors
 * Collages which grossly violate T:ICC
 * Collages which don't clearly show their smallest images at 250px width. (This is mostly why an 11-up design doesn't work; no matter how you design it, some of the images are going to be miniscule when viewed in situ in the infobox.)

Symbolism or rotation?
Given that a redesign of the latest collage image (again, seen at top right), would simply be an exercise in moving the squares around, there's no point in offering a new collage. It won't be demonstrably better than that which already exists. It'll just be a variation on the same. Thus, as Archive 4 makes clear, we've moved on to a new question: do we have a symbolic representation of the Doctor, or do we rotate the images in some way? Tangerineduel has suggested symbolism might be the way to go. He's advanced the notion of using the Doctor's calling card seen briefly in Remembrance of the Daleks. There may be other images which equally represent the Doctor; I've only half-jokingly suggested that better symbolism might be a closeup on a question mark collar.

Another thought is that we can just rotate the images. At present, the incarnation shown is chosen randomly, which means that you get a different Doctor on (most) every page load. (Reload this page to try it out.) I'm looking into a javascript trick to simply rotate through different pics, so that you don't have to reload the page to get a different image.

Note, too, that it doesn't have to be these eleven images. It doesn't even have to be just 11 images. It could be 121 images, so we see a lot of "moods" of the Doctor. But it should be an equal number of images for each incarnation.

The choice
Our choice now is between:
 * 1) Keeping the collage
 * 2) Going to something that symbolises the Doctor, but doesn't actually show any incarnation's face
 * 3) Rotating between full-sized images of each incarnation

Discussion
Discuss the choice, below. 19:00: Mon 03 Sep 2012


 * Would a specific dislike of one option go under that header as well? d ● • ·  19:07, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the headings of the following sections are labelled, "I like " — not "I hate ". It had been intended that you would clearly indicate the choice you preferred, so that we'd get a clear indication of preference.  For that reason, I'm removing your remarks under "collage", since you prefer rotation.  01:19: Tue 04 Sep 2012

I like the collage

 * I support the idea of a collage consisting of Hartnell, Smith, plus a Doctor representing 1966-1989, 1989-2005 and 2005-2010 respectively, but I'm not sure whether to keep Eccleston or change it to Tennant. -- Tybort (talk page) 19:43, September 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * Just leave it as it is. For the millionth time. We do not need to change the image. It is fine as it is. I am getting very, very tired of people whining and moaning about the main images for the Doctor, the Master, Cybermen, Silurians, Daleks etc. What's next? Borusa? Romana? K9? I'm all in favour of having a discussion, but it is only needed once. If, after the discussion, you don't like an article image, tough. There are thousands of pages on this wiki that have no images on them and needs images - these are much, much more important than a pointless discussion about a page that already has a main image. I am really tempted to close this discussion, since, as I stated before, there are many articles that need images, and User:CzechOut will agree, placing images on them is much more important than reviving a inactive discussion. Rant over. MM/ Want to talk? 22:58, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with the current image. It's clear, shows the Doctor has more than one face and isn't cluttered as the result of some base desire to see equal treatment. I'm really not a fan of the rotation as I can't see what purpose it serves. The user has to sit there watching the images change when they could just look at a select collage. We shouldn't implement it simply to appease those who are complaining, that's just insulting to the whole idea of a debating. I don't think we should use the rotation just to show off some fancy coding either as such novelties soon wear off. Just leave it as it is and if this discussion should climb out of the pit again, we should simply redirect them here and then take no further part in it.-- 08:26, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't dislike the collage. I like it better than the rotating images. The collage at least represents a single idea of the Doctor. The collage of images doesn't represent a single united idea. We've had images of the various incarnations on the article before and removed them, we don't need to return to that. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:16, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

I like the symbolism

 * As I've maintained the article isn't about the individual incarnations of the Doctor but rather his character as represented from the start to the present. So something abstract that represents instead of showing the Doctor is what is needed here. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:11, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

I like the rotation

 * I support rotation. The Doctor is not a symbol, but a man. And as a character, like any other character on this wiki, he is best depicted by seeing his actual face.  The rotation solves the issue of leaving any Doctors out unnecessarily, while allowing the image to be large enough (obviously) to tell who you're looking at.  If possible, a rotating caption reading "[actor] as the [nth] Doctor" would be ideal. d ● • ·  19:07, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly understand why the collage isn't good enough, but I think rotation will finally put an end to this discussion, so I support that method. Yes, it needs tweaking, and what's in place now is the band-aid of random display.  But, in principle, if a bit of javascript can rotate through pics labelled "First Doctor", "Second Doctor", etc., I don't think anyone will be able to reasonably complain.  And that's really all I care about. Ending this discussion in such a way that we can easily accommodate future Doctors.  01:29: Tue 04 Sep 2012


 * if we can't have all the doctors in one image, then rotation is the next best thing. i greatly object to leaving any doctors out as that would be like saying they are less important than the others which is simply not true.  so, rotation it is for me.  Imamadmad  ☎  07:32, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Imamadmad has a point. We treat all stories, whether television, audio, comic, etc, equally on this wiki, there is no preference. Including only some images of a character seems to show a preference. No matter how reasonable the choices included may seem to us, someone is always going to want "their" Doctor included and will change the picture and this debate will start up all over again. Shambala108 ☎  14:54, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Get rid of the infobox
There is another, slightly more extreme solution to the discussion of a "primary image" for the article and that's to get rid of the infobox altogether.

The infobox is there to basically summarise the article, as we've seen with previous discussions having the actor field in there didn't work for the article. Currently the infobox isn't doing very much, it's stating what's said in the first sentence, giving the first appearance and lists of Aliases and Appearances.

So, let's get rid of the the whole infobox. This would solve the question of the image above, instead we'd have images that would actually illustrate the content of the article. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:28, September 4, 2012 (UTC)