"Look alike"
I'm not sure whether this has been spoken about before but "look alike" isn't the proper spelling of this word. The two official spellings are "lookalike" and "look-alike". "(to) look alike" is a verbal phrase, not a noun. Changing this little thing may be a lot of work, but I personally think we should ensure our English is correct on this Wiki. I know everyone knows what we mean by "look alike", but everyone would know what we meant if we used the Americanism "realize", but we don't because this a Wiki that uses British English. Not a great comparison, I know.
It's just a suggestion. If admins are fine with what we already have, then so be it, but I wanted to point it out regardless as it's been playing on my mind for a while now. And since we now have "Twelfth Doctor (Shadow World)", it just crept back into my mind. TheFartyDoctor Talk 22:07, May 26, 2017 (UTC)
regarding the people who voiced the Doctor in radio dramas
no offense but to quote the Tenth Doctor "That's just cheating", I mean that's a bit of a stretch isn't it? --Draph91 ☎ 16:38, January 15, 2019 (UTC)
and I mean their live action appearances, not their radio drama roles, if the characters they voiced looked like an incarnation of the Doctor --Draph91 ☎ 16:41, January 15, 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've always thought that this category was often misunderstood and misused. Shambala108 ☎ 20:15, January 15, 2019 (UTC)
so will you remove some of the pages?--Draph91 ☎ 23:12, January 15, 2019 (UTC)
Setting boundaries
I propose that instead of deleting the category, it should contain only those which have been explicitly mentioned as looking like the Doctor in a valid narrative. I think this category contains some interesting info but has been largely reduced to "Other characters that have been played by actors who played the Doctor". The fact that Second Time Lord (The War Games) is in here because of a never mentioned connection to The Doctor (Seven Keys to Doomsday) is frankly absurd. --Borisashton ☎ 22:33, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with this proposition. For a long time, this category has annoyed me, but with this rule, all speculation would be removed from its usage. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 22:36, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this category should be confined to characters who are actually mentioned to resemble the Doctor, and I would rather the category live on, but as always, we have to remember that users adding a category likely will not see or read the description. If there's room for misuse, and we decide to define exact parameters, then we'd have to actively monitor its use. That said, there are plenty of categories like that, and we've had no problem so far reverting and undoing when a category is used incorrectly. Would renaming this something like "Individuals said to look like the Doctor" aid in clarity, or is the current name evident enough on its own?
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 08:05, March 1, 2019 (UTC)
- I think "Individuals said to look like the Doctor" has a nice ring to it and would certainly dispel any concerns of its ambiguity. Category:Look alikes of the Master also exists but needs to be deleted as per Tardis:Rule of three. --Borisashton ☎ 16:00, March 1, 2019 (UTC)
- This page is problematic, John Smith (Tenth Doctor) and Ruth Clayton are not lookalikes of the Doctor - they ARE him. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 23:32, March 30, 2020 (UTC)
- …or her, as the case may be, cough cough. When in doubt, use "them".
- This page is problematic, John Smith (Tenth Doctor) and Ruth Clayton are not lookalikes of the Doctor - they ARE him. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 23:32, March 30, 2020 (UTC)
- But more to the point, why do you think we have pages about those characters if they're just the Doctor? It's kind of the whole point of Human Nature/The Family of Blood (TV story) that John Smith really, really isn't the Doctor. He comes into being when the Doctor's essence vacates his body and goes to hide in the fobwatch. But he is, for every philosophical intent and purpose, a different individual. That's the whole tragedy of it. John Smith has to die — to be, in the episode's own words, executed — for the Tenth Doctor to come back and beat the bad guys.
- It's a bit of a weird case to be sure, but it's I think undeniable that both John Smiths (and, by extension, all Chameleon Arch identities) are to be treated as different people from the Doctor. Now, it goes without saying that those different people look just like the Doctor. Ergo, if they're people who are emphatically not the Doctor, but look like the Doctor, they are lookalikes of the Doctor. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:41, March 30, 2020 (UTC)
- We will not agree on this subject, and therefore it is too ambiguous to keep the category on them. The characters still are the Doctor. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 23:47, March 30, 2020 (UTC)
- Your personal hang-ups are not relevant. If the Wiki chooses to side with "John Smith isn't the Doctor", then we should be consistent with that decision. Or should we move every page about a NuWho Doctor to "Of ambiguous canonicity" because some fans think the BBC Wales series isn't "canon"?… --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:57, March 30, 2020 (UTC)
- We will not agree on this subject, and therefore it is too ambiguous to keep the category on them. The characters still are the Doctor. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 23:47, March 30, 2020 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a weird case to be sure, but it's I think undeniable that both John Smiths (and, by extension, all Chameleon Arch identities) are to be treated as different people from the Doctor. Now, it goes without saying that those different people look just like the Doctor. Ergo, if they're people who are emphatically not the Doctor, but look like the Doctor, they are lookalikes of the Doctor. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:41, March 30, 2020 (UTC)