Talk:The Doctor

Origin

Since the timeless children, there is some debate among fans as to whether the Doctor is fully Gailfreyan. Hence some users have edited "Unknown, Gallifrey (adopted)" Has there been confirmation or not from the writers? ~~ 92.17.199.182 (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Russell t davies has said he is still a time lord because he has said many adopted people adopt the family name like he has adopted the species name. Blob02 (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

David Tennant is there twice

Although there seems to be a consensus to distinguish between the tenth and fourteenth doctors in an in-universe sense, there is only one David Tennant (the actor). When listing the fourteen lead actors, he should only be listed once.

The infobox says “Portrayed by” and seems to proceed to claim the character was portrayed by two David Tennants (2005-2010) and (2023). That is incorrect, he was portrayed by the same man (2005-2010, 2023). There is a clear precedent in Sean Connery’s non-consecutive portrayals of James Bond which are listed in that character’s infobox as (1962-1967, 1971, 1983). Even in this specific Doctor Who list, David Bradley’s non-consecutive appearances as distinct incarnations of the character are listed as (2017, 2022).

The subsection titled Actors begins by saying “The actors who have played the lead role of the Doctor to date in the programme, and the dates of their first and last regular television appearances in the role, are:” and follows that up with a table listing the fifteen in-universe incarnations of the character instead of listing the actors who have played the lead role in the programme to date as promised. Either the table needs to be revamped or the sentence leading into it needs to be rewritten.

I would propose something like:

Actor	No. of series	No. of episodes	Incarnation	Original start		Original end
				Date	Age	Date	Age
William Hartnell	4	134 (29 stories)	First Doctor	23 November 1963	55	29 October 1966	58
Patrick Troughton	3	119 (21 stories)	Second Doctor	5 November 1966	46	21 June 1969	49
Jon Pertwee	5	128 (24 stories)	Third Doctor	3 January 1970	50	8 June 1974	54
Tom Baker	7	172 (41 stories)	Fourth Doctor	28 December 1974	40	21 March 1981	47
Peter Davison	3	69 (20 stories)	Fifth Doctor	4 January 1982	30	16 March 1984	32
Colin Baker	2	31 (8 stories)	Sixth Doctor	22 March 1984	40	6 December 1986	43
Sylvester McCoy	3	42 (12 stories)	Seventh Doctor	7 September 1987	44	6 December 1989	46
Paul McGann	—	1 (1 story)	Eighth Doctor	27 May 1996	36	27 May 1996	36
Christopher Eccleston	1	13 (10 stories)	Ninth Doctor	26 March 2005	41	18 June 2005	41
David Tennant	3	50 (39 stories)	Tenth Doctor	25 December 2005	34	1 January 2010	38
			Fourteenth Doctor	25 November 2023	52	9 December 2023	52
Matt Smith	3	44 (39 stories)	Eleventh Doctor	3 April 2010	27	25 December 2013	31
Peter Capaldi	3	40 (35 stories)	Twelfth Doctor	23 August 2014	56	25 December 2017	59
Jodie Whittaker	3	31 (24 stories)	Thirteenth Doctor	7 October 2018	36	23 October 2022	40
Ncuti Gatwa	1	10 (9 stories)	Fifteenth Doctor	25 December 2023	31	TBA	TBA

or:

Actor	Incarnation	No. of series	No. of episodes	Original start		Original end
				Date	Age	Date	Age
William Hartnell	First Doctor	4	134 (29 stories)	23 November 1963	55	29 October 1966	58
Patrick Troughton	Second Doctor	3	119 (21 stories)	5 November 1966	46	21 June 1969	49
Jon Pertwee	Third Doctor	5	128 (24 stories)	3 January 1970	50	8 June 1974	54
Tom Baker	Fourth Doctor	7	172 (41 stories)	28 December 1974	40	21 March 1981	47
Peter Davison	Fifth Doctor	3	69 (20 stories)	4 January 1982	30	16 March 1984	32
Colin Baker	Sixth Doctor	2	31 (8 stories)	22 March 1984	40	6 December 1986	43
Sylvester McCoy	Seventh Doctor	3	42 (12 stories)	7 September 1987	44	6 December 1989	46
Paul McGann	Eighth Doctor	—	1 (1 story)	27 May 1996	36	27 May 1996	36
Christopher Eccleston	Ninth Doctor	1	13 (10 stories)	26 March 2005	41	18 June 2005	41
David Tennant	Tenth Doctor	3	47 (36 stories)	25 December 2005	34	1 January 2010	38
	Fourteenth Doctor	—	3 (3 stories)	25 November 2023	52	9 December 2023	52
Matt Smith	Eleventh Doctor	3	44 (39 stories)	3 April 2010	27	25 December 2013	31
Peter Capaldi	Twelfth Doctor	3	40 (35 stories)	23 August 2014	56	25 December 2017	59
Jodie Whittaker	Thirteenth Doctor	3	31 (24 stories)	7 October 2018	36	23 October 2022	40
Ncuti Gatwa	Fifteenth Doctor	1	10 (9 stories)	25 December 2023	31	TBA	TBA

184.144.62.38 (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I have been WP:BOLD and changed the infobox per your suggestion, as this would appear to be straightforward. As you say, there is one David Tennant, not two. I don't think the table should be changed, though. I understand your reasoning for the suggested forms above, but if you tie both roles to a single Tennant entry like that, it breaks the sorting of the table, keeping Tenth and Fourteenth together no matter if you want to sort it by one through fifteen. For that reason, I think the table still needs to have the characters separated. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This was reverted by an IP editor and, without seeing this discussion or that you had made your edit WP:BOLDly, I restored your edit. Ordinarily I would have left it in its original state and discussed here but missed that. I strongly agree with the above comments that listing him twice implies they are different actors. The infobox says "portrayed by" so he should be listed once with the dates. A comparable (but obviously different!) situation is Living with Yourself which stars Paul Rudd as the protagonist and his clone – but the infobox only lists Rudd as "starring" once.

Nonetheless, if other editors disagree, feel free to re-revert to the original state and we can discuss per WP:BRD. Irltoad (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I've done some more research and have some additional comments to make that supports Tennant being in the infobox once. 1) I checked the instructions for Template:Infobox character and for the 'portrayed' field, it says "Name of the individuals who portrayed the character." This seems straightforward; there's only one individual named David Tennant who prortrayed the character, so he gets named once. 2) The edit summary of the IP editor who reverted me ends with "If he appears in the list once then it may seem to some people that he only played one incarnation". I'd like to turn that around and ask, "Who reading this list will see David Tennant named twice and jump to the conclusion that he played two different incarnations?" If you haven't watched the show, are you really going to think Tennant played a different incarnation in his second appearance? I don't think so. And if you have watched the show, you don't need to list Tennant twice to know that his 2023 appearance was as a different incarnation. 3) In any case, regardless of the incarnations, the character is still "The Doctor". One David Tennant has portrayed the Doctor.

As for the subsection headed Actors, I think this could be solved by changing to order of the columns slightly and renaming the section. At the risk of having WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS invoked on me, I had a look at how List of US Presidents handles their non-consecutive president, Grover Cleveland. Their table has the President number in the first column, so Grover Cleveland is listed separately at 22 and 24 rather than having his presidencies rowspanned together. It strikes me we could do the same here; have the incarnation numbers for the first column, then there's no issue with Tennant appearing twice in the table. The subsection may need to be renamed Incarnations. Which, given this is a character article, I don't see a huge issue with. But on this one I'm not inclined to be bold because it's nowhere near as straightforward as the infobox issue. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

List of presidents of the United States is a great article that spends most of its lead explaining how and why it is not a list of men who have held the office, it is instead a list of presidencies. If the table here is going to be based around the in-universe incarnations, I think it would make sense to rename the subsection and rewrite its introductory sentence.

I also think that the List of actors who have played the Doctor falls foul of this and is sitting on the fence about what it is trying to be. Template:Doctor Who places it alongside character pages and calls it a page about the “Doctors”. The article’s title, lead and infobox are explicitly about the 14 actors who have played the part. But the core table is a list of incarnations with two David Tennants. I may be overstepping however, that’s probably a different argument for a different talk page, and as an IP editor renaming a 20 year old article or reformatting its titular list is probably above my pay grade. 184.144.62.38 (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

that’s probably a different argument for a different talk page Just a note to say that I have started a section on Talk:List of actors who have played the Doctor#The Tennant Problem where this can be discussed separately from the discussion of this page. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to The Doctor. Strong consensus in favour of moving, no obvious policy reasons not to do the move. The doctor will remain a redirect to Doctor. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC) I did the actual move, due to admin-only page-move protections, based on FOARP's closure. DMacks (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

---

The Doctor (Doctor Who) → The Doctor – The definite article 'the' in the title designates this topic as the primary one for 'The Doctor' (but only with the definite article). This is consistent with titles such as The Guardian, The Signpost, The Postal Service, The Edge, The 1975, and The Undertaker. A Google search for "The Doctor" returns results related to Doctor Who, as does a Google image search. Similarly, a Google News search returns Doctor Who-related coverage. While a search for "The Doctor" on JSTOR for produces variable results, a search for "The Guardian" on JSTOR wouldn't establish the newspaper as the primary topic alone. A Google Ngram analysis reveals that the term 'The Doctor' saw an increase in usage in 2005, coinciding with the show's revival. Worldwide Google Trends indicate that "The Doctor" is predominantly used in reference to searches about Doctor Who, per the 'related topics' and 'related searches'; with a notable peak in November 2013, coinciding with the show's 50th anniversary special. This 'The Doctor' (with the definite article) has more coverage from reliable sources than others (with the definite article) listed on the disambiguation page. Amendment: Pageview Analysis (with a date range of 'All time') comparing all of the pages titled 'The Doctor' show that this topic has more views by a clear margin. It is limited to 10 pages, so I've split it into two: first second. On Wikipedia this topic is the most sought after 'The Doctor' (with the definite article) on the entire site. Note: When researching, "The Doctor" should be enclosed in quotation marks as some databases often exclude definite articles. Svampesky (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC), amended 03:07, 02 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, per the nom and the cited data. "The Doctor" with the definite article seems to be used to refer specifically to the Doctor Who character widely and commonly enough that the parenthetical is unnecessary. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. "The Doctor" is a very common phrase in daily life. The argument that the TV series constitutes the primary use of the word "The Doctor" does not hold any water for me. Cfls (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The term doctor is very common, but just to be clear are you saying that "The Doctor" (capital D) is also very commonly used in reference to subjects other than the character? ╠╣uw [talk] 13:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cfls. Even as a fan of the series, this is not the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• The nominator presents their argument well, but I'm wary of relying too much on view counts when we're comparing a pop culture topic to a fundamental social topic. Doctor Who has much more significance than most TV shows, but even so, it is relevant primarily in the Western world, and in the long term, the concept of a doctor will likely be around long after the show is cancelled. That said, it's fairly unlikely that someone looking for info on physicians would search for "the doctor". Sdkb ^talk 18:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Support while I am iffy, the fact is that no one searching "the doctor" is looking for the concept of a doctor. The Doctor has a case for this more than most pop culture topics, given they're the main focus of a well-known and heavily analyzed television program that has been part of culture for over 60 years, far longer than most forms of media. It's a difference of a definite article versus generic terminology, and at the very worst, Wikipedia:DIFFCAPS applies here since very few would search for a doctor with a definite article, let alone with a capital on both "The" and "Doctor". Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support on the basis of WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:NATURALDIS. A general doctor is referred to as "the doctor" with a lowercase d, not "The Doctor". A hatnote can resolve any confusion. Similar situations include Ice Cube (the rapper) versus Ice cube (a cubed piece of ice). cookie monster 755 21:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose but on different grounds to what has been mentioned so far. While I agree that the definite article and DIFFCAPS sufficiently disambiguates it with the physician meaning, there are other subjects & articles titled "The Doctor" – largely listed under Doctor and including films, albums, and other fictional characters; as well as being a nickname for several real people. Disambiguation is necessary for these articles. Irltoad (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Change to Weak Support On further thought, I think there is some evidence this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "The Doctor" for the reasoning that the proposing editor provided (coverage from RSPs). I'm not totally convinced that it's necessary but I am generally in favour if consensus agrees that it is the primary topic. It should, of course, have a hatnote directing to Doctor for "other uses" Irltoad (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment to draw attention to a previous RFC on the topic. Obviously this was 9 years ago and opinion & consensus changes, but interested parties may want to give it a skim. Irltoad (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Looking at a glance, a lot of the opposition seems to be because the page at the time was called "Doctor (Doctor Who)" instead of "The Doctor (Doctor Who)" which would have caused numerous naming problems at the time. Given the current title, this shouldn't be a problem. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  That was my main takeaway, too, also from a glance. Agreed that it shouldn't present a problem now. Irltoad (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Due to pageviews, it seems to be far and away the primary topic, but only for the capitalized version due to DIFFCAPS. The doctor should still go to the disambiguation page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support I disagree that the TV series isn't the primary use of The Doctor. It's the most widely known and discussed iteration of the term. Waqar💬 18:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support It's WP:NATURAL. U-Mos (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support, per Clara Oswald. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• The Doctor primary use should be Star Trek. IKhitron (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  The Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager) which is only Star Trek on the disambiguation has far fewer page views than this article, and a notability tag (not looked into myself), how is that primary? Indagate (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent incorrect editing

User:Blob02 keeps making edits to the article, some of which is irrelevant, and even the useful parts are either unreferenced, or cited with a bare ref. Despite me and User:Irltoad requesting him to understand how to edit first, using the resources already present on his talk page, he persists in arguing at my talk page (and to a much lesser extent on his and also irltoad's talk page). WP:Dispute Resolution says to bring the dispute to an article talk page to have uninvolved eyes see the matter, so that's what I'm doing. Pinging @Blob02 and Irltoad: to bring it to the involved editors' attention. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean to cause irritance I thought me replying was how editors argue and discuss what should be made.im grateful for the corrected references. I've finished editing now anyway, I agree with your arguments and think the way it is, is how it should be. Blob02 (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Supernatural section

the supernatural section keeps getting removed with poor or false reasoning from DonQuixote and U-Mos. DonQuixote said its "orignal research implying what is written is false when it isnt. The episodes are linked, if you watch the episodes it is shown that it is not false. And U-mos said mentioning bi generation is more of a shift in Doctor who after the time war than the supernatural which if you look at the edit history I have explained why that's not the case. Blob02 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

don also said the format isn't wikipedia style when what has been removed was done in that format by someone else and not me Blob02 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

And it isnt ad far as i can see Blob02 (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• it is

Blob02 (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yours was even worse, I was trying to keep the stuff you kept because you won't stop adding it back; of course it was bad. And it's not wikipedia style, and you decline to keep reading about how it can be properly added and improved; I don't see how you would know it is in the correct style. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear something that shows it's incorrect. It's a community therefore it's not solely up to the poster to correct mistakes. What was posted was 85 good if not 90. I don't desire to edit anymore dr who once this is back as I agree with everything previously. Blob02 (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

And i didnt keep posting it originally. You have framed it that way. Somebody could of told me then why it was wrong instead they immorally just removed it. Blob02 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I added this topic to talk to people in question, its not really anything to do with you drwhofan93 Blob02 (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

In a nutshell, Wikipedia is a glorified term paper. Start with a direct quote from a reliable source and then paraphrase it. DonQuixote (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

No quotes here: In other media, more has been revealed of the Doctor's early life. In the Past Doctor Adventures novel Divided Loyalties, the Doctor recalls his Academy years in a dream induced by the Celestial Toymaker. According to this, he was a member of an organisation called the Deca, ten brilliant Academy students campaigning for increased Time Lord intervention, alongside Mortimus (the Meddling Monk), Ushas (the Rani), Koschei (the Master), Magnus (the War Chief), Drax, a spy named Vansell, Millennia, Rallon and Jelpax. With this group, he learns about the Celestial Toymaker and travels to his realm in a type 18 TARDIS with Deca members Rallon and Millennia, who are killed. This leads to the Doctor's expulsion from the academy, condemned to five hundred years in Records and Traffic Control. - from the Doctor Wikipedia page Blob02 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Literally a bare-bones summary of the works with no original interpretations. That is, plot summaries should be the blandest of blands (MOS:PLOT). Themes and analysis should be in its own section with the citation of appropriate secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, @Blob02, you have been told multiple times, across numerous talk pages and within edit summaries, exactly how and why this is an issue. Multiple attempts by myself and others at communication and rectification have been attempted, most recently to my knowledge at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who § Disruptive editing on The Doctor and The Fugitive Doctor. Your persistent refusal to heed guidelines and to engage with constructive feedback and your insistence to create yet more Talk Page sections is nothing but disruptive. I will not be again explaining the issues with the content and how to remediate it; you can refer to my previous comments and resources regarding the matter. Irltoad (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

My last edit is the supernatural section, if it's not referenced properly, someone else can do it (which it is) because it is a team effort. I'm not going to waste my time learning how use Wikipedia properly when I'm not going to do another edit after this one. I think that's fair and reasonable. regardless of citation it is atleast 90% done. I cannot see how it is written differently to anything else on this article. The episodes mentioned are real and the events described are correct. This is my last comment unless invited to otherwise or if my edit is removed. Blob02 (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

And undone yet again. User warned for edit warring. Meters (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

And yet again. This material has been removed by at least five different editors now, (me, user:DonQuixote, user:U-Mos, user:DoctorWhoFan91, and user:Irltoad). Meters (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

how is it unsourced original research? None of it is my opinion. Someone please explain. But I suspect there is malice towards me and not actual editing. Why would meters just turn up? Blob02 (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

You have been reported to the edit warring board by another editor. And please read WP:NPA. Meters (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

OP indef'ed Meters (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)