Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

72.186.156.103

If the doctor has a daughter ! would his daughter be a time lord ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.156.103 (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

See The Doctor's Daughter drewmunn talk 14:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Reader Feedback

This article has Reader Feedback enabled; has someone enabled this for a purpose? If no-one is reviewing, perhaps it should be turned off.

Anyway, I have just reviewed a batch of them, and my very unscientific analysis gives common responses such as:

• More Pictures — Sorry, photos need to be suitably licensed.
• Where's the episode list/list of travellers/about Douglas Adams/Midnight ... How can we help direct people to the correct article?

Other suggestions contradict — for example one person saying to many words and another needs more history. One suggestion was Budget and profit table? — and I'm guessing that is a question about the show's budget. Is this information available? Edgepedia (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea it was enabled, I'll endeavour to review it when I have the chance in the future. Let's have a crack at this, shall we:

• The pictures thing always comes up with this sort of article, there's little to be done on this front, really.
• There is a portal, and the template, both of which provide easier access to the "Where is..." sort of stuff, but nobody visiting Wikipedia ever finds it easy to see these sorts of things. I think it's possible a site-wide overhaul would improve this issue, as I'm sure it's a problem all over the place; in fact, I've been having a discussion about exactly the same thing in another area today.
• Well, in my opinion, there's too much stuff on this page. I agree there's so much more not covered, but I think much of it is in sub-pages. There is also quite a bit that is replicated in other articles, and I doubt needs to be here. I recently helped cut the companions section down a lot, and the same could probably happen for nearly every section in the article. If we put more "Main Article" links in sections, and fleshed out the target articles, we could probably satisfy the "too long" people at the same time as filling in the gaps.
• Much of the budget information isn't publicised. I know, for instance, that an episode of series 4 would cost around £1m, but I have no idea, nor been able to find anything, to compare this against in other series or the classic era.

I think that's all that done... drewmunn talk 17:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

John Hurt

John Hurt needs to be added as the next (possibly last) doctor ..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.114.60 (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that says he's the next (possibly last) Doctor? DonQuixote (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Article protected for three days There's too many changes and reversions on this point. Please can editors discuss the issue here, not have everyone revert one another. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

How about indicating that his position is not yet determined ('twelfth or perhaps earlier') and note that if earlier, the numbering system for the remainder may be off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.4.172 (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it important enough for some reliable source to mention it? If so, please cite a source. DonQuixote (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in trying to assign a number; we don't have enough information to do so, and it would be pure speculation. Rather, we should confine what's in the article to the (very) little we know. --Drmargi (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't speculate, period. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• He is an unknown incarnation of The Doctor, and was credited as such. We cannot speculate which regeneration he is; we know for instance that thre can be mid-regeneration incarnations in the Valeyard. A number therefore cannot be assigned, but he should be listed as one of the actors to portray The Doctor in canon.  drewmunn  talk  08:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

3-day protection of this article in its current form is too long. I've seen people on twitter and forums citing Wikipedia as saying it's the 12th Doctor. Wikipedia is, therefore, promoting misinformation when people are hunting this information the most. Change it to a neutral statement and then maintain some protection. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The article shouldn't be protected at all. There was very little reason for it. But since it is fully protected, admins should not be making changes at all. It distorts the integrity of WP:FULL.--JOJ ^Hutton 11:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

From WP:FULL: "...administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies..." The preserved version violated policy by including unsourced, unsupported opinion. People all over the world were citing that incorrect version to back up their own opinions. Changing it to a neutral sentence that expressed no opinion whatsoever was necessary for the integrity of the article. Regardless of which, I reverted my edit immediately after receiving your request. I'm glad to see that another admin weighed in and went back to the neutral version that does not violate policy. I shouldn't have reverted, frankly. I should have stuck to the neutral version. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 00:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You violated WP:FULL. You should be stripped of your tools,--JOJ ^Hutton 01:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Requested

Can a mention of Eleventh and Hurt Doctors meeting each other in the time stream be added to the Meetings of past and present incarnations section please? Also, I'm opening an RfC below to discuss the incarnation issue, as this really needs to be resolved fairly quickly. Thanks!  drewmunn  talk  09:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sorry, but the way things are going at WT:PROTECT, it's got to be cast-iron uncontroversial, which means a top-grade source. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Would this do for cast iron?  drewmunn  talk  12:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it would fail WP:NOR - we need third-party sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't really class it as OR (after all, where do sources get their information from other than BBC's credits?), but I get the point. Here's Radio Times, Digital Spy, The Sun, and the Telegraph.  drewmunn  talk  14:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, considering WP:RS let's ignore Digital Spy and The Sun and go with Radio Times and the Daily Telegraph. So, the next thing to do is craft up the desired additional text. Then, once others have had a chance to comment and/or amend, we can look at putting it in. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, here we go:

In The Name of The Doctor, the Eleventh Doctor meets an unknown incarnation of himself, who he refers to as "his secret"

How's that?  drewmunn  talk  15:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

Firstly: why is this article fully protected? As a non-Admin but with plenty of editing experience, this seems to be against Wiki ethos. Anyway, a suggestion: "John Hurt is suggested to be an incarnation of the Doctor after his appearance at the end of The Name of the Doctor. His name was credited as being "The Doctor" in the credits" should probably be better written as "At the end of "The Name of the Doctor", John Hurt is credited via the caption 'Introducing the Doctor', suggesting a previously unseen incarnation." Both better English and completely true! Stephenb (Talk) 08:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

See the above discussion where this is noted. However, when I submitted the end of The Name of The Doctor as a citation for this, it was declined as OR.  drewmunn  talk  08:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the first two parts of the sentence describes what can be seen, however I would suggest that 'with' is a better word than 'via'. The complete caption used is "Introducing John Hurt as The Doctor", but we can paraphrase (without quotes). The final part is analysing what has happened, but as reliable sources such as the Radio Times have come to the same conclusion we can cite them. Therefore my suggestion is

John Hurt appears at the end of "The Name of the Doctor" credited as the Doctor, suggesting a previous unseen incarnation.<ref>Radio Times</ref>

Edgepedia (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The relevant reference for that can be taken from my above discussion if you want. Also, do you mind chipping into the RfC so we can get things moving on a project-wide level regarding the numbering of the Hurt Doctor. Thanks!  drewmunn  talk  09:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

", suggesting a previous unseen incarnation" There is no reason to say that. In fact, there are ways (however unlikely) that this could be a previously seen incarnation in a different state. Just let the facts speak for themselves without telling readers what they "suggest." Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "suggesting a previous unseen incarnation" is speculation, and that's not our job. Just describe what happened. HiLo48 (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To respond to the first question: the full protection expired earlier today - I became aware of that when this edit popped up on my watchlist. A bug in the MediaWiki software means that when a prot expires, it doesn't revert to the previous prot level but becomes unprotected. Given that until it was set fully-prot on 19 May, the article had been semi-prot for 3 months commencing 22 March, I have restored that semi-prot with the same expiry. Here's the prot log. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

References to canonicity

Several Dr Who-related articles make reference to "canonicity". There's currently a dispute on Bernice Summerfield, for example, around the line, "The canonicity of the Virgin novels, like other Doctor Who spin-off media, is open to interpretation." I've just removed that line.

I would argue that, more or less, all such references should be expunged from Wikipedia. They do not satisfy basic Wikipedia policy. They constitute original research. They generally do not come with reliable source citations. They represent an inappropriate in-universe perspective. We used to have Template:DWspinoff repeating a similar line about the canonicity of spin-offs, but that was deleted for similar reasons: see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_8#Template:DWspinoffDr Who canon. Whoniverse#Inclusion and continuity concludes, based on reliable sources, that there is no Dr Who canon.

However, that's what I think. I thought I'd garner other opinions and open a discussion here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, I don't like the word 'canonicity', but some distinction does need to be made. If not, we build an inaccurate picture of the Whoniverse to the uninitiated. As the initiated, we need to provide this distinction somehow.  drewmunn  talk  13:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that line on many articles, so included it when I built up the Yeti article and split certain elements off to help feed the Great Intelligence article. I did however try to find a source for it and I found a blog post by Paul Cornell discussing the issue of canon with regards to Doctor Who (including his own comments that, at the time of writing the Virgin novels, he'd said something along the lines of 'there is no canon' and a paraphrase of RTD to the effect of 'only what's televised matters'). Post can be found here. Just mentioning this because if it counts as a reliable source (Cornell is a writer involved with both the Virgin novels AND the revived series, at least during the RTD era) perhaps this could be used as a kind of 'yeah, the status of non-televised stories is uncertain'. Comics (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Posts on Gallifrey Base, admittedly not a source in themselves, have noted that apparantly there was once a "BBC" statement on canonocity in the mid 1980s - and it was about the inclusion of the video games of the era! And they're probably extremely low on people's list of things to include for all manner of reasons relating to the age and format. If people since then were unaware of that statement then has it since been overruled in ignorance by "there is no recognised canon" statements?

But on the general point I think there's a bit too much of "what fans think" in many of the articles. Yes a lot of fans have written published articles & books but I think these statements are needless and fanon. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

But what about all the BCC licenced stuff like the novels, comics, and Adventure Games?  drewmunn  talk  16:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What about them? They are what they are. A Dr Who novel is a Dr Who novel, a Dr Who adventure game is a Dr Who adventure game. What else does Wikipedia need to say about them? There is no official canon (according to Moffat and RTD, pace this claim about a mid-1980s statement). What fans (the initiated?) think is irrelevant to an encyclopaedia article... At least, without RS citations, it is. Bondegezou (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what side are you taking here? What I'm asking is in regards all the new material since the mid 80s cite. Having one from Cornell would be good, from RTD or Moffat even better. By 'initiated', I mean the people who know the novels etc aren't canon, or their part in canon is disputed at least.  drewmunn  talk  17:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm completely disagreeing with your characterisation of the situation. Your claim that the novels (or anything else) are not canon or of disputed canonicity may be your view, but Wikipedia's view must be determined by reliable source citations and reliable source citations say there is no such thing as a Dr Who canon. I dispute the idea that an encyclopaedia needs to tell readers about fan ideas. Bondegezou (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you refer me to such a source? If everything ever shown to be about Who is equally as much part of canon as every other thing shown, then major restructuring is necessary. Every actor to ever play The Doctor would need equal footing, including Atkinson through Lumley in CotFD. The companion list would go wild, chronology would be impossible to establish, and retcon would be liberally applied to everything we've ever known. At least 2 stories will have happened twice, one to two different Doctors, and we'd have to announce to the world that The Doctor is a lesbian. There is established canon, and things that have taken place in the Whoniverse don't necessarily take place inside that canon. It's a simple issue of sourcing something that we can cite that calls the credence of extended universe publications into question.  drewmunn  talk  21:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoniverse#Inclusion and continuity gives RS sources saying there is no Dr Who canon. Your conclusions as to what happens if there is no canon are mistaken, I suggest. Canon is an in-universe perspective and Wikipedia prefers an out-of-universe perspective. So, to take your first point, that, "Every actor to ever play The Doctor would need equal footing, including Atkinson through Lumley in CotFD." No, it wouldn't, because reliable source coverage clearly recognises the main actors to play the Doctor (Hartnell -> Smith) and describes them differently to, say, Lumley in CotFD. Problem solved; no reference to canon needed. Bondegezou (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Canon isn't really in-universe, though. As you've said above, there are reliable sources recognising the Hartnell to Smith as main, which makes them part of a canon. The existence of real-world confirmation that two things are linked produces canon, not anything in-universe. In the words of the The Doctor/Cyber-Planner, a list of things not considered canon "could be reconstructed by the hole" in what is accepted as part of the show. We don't want to go that far, as it's OR, but we shouldn't completely gloss over the fact that things, whilst licensed, may not fit into a single Whoniverse. I think the biggest tell at this point is the opening sentence of this article: "Doctor Who is a British science fiction television programme". Even if we stick with the more elusive term 'continuity', we shouldn't stop mentioning that some things don't fit into the TV programme. There's a difference between production staff saying there's no canon, and there not actually being canon. At very least, I think expanded universe statements should be backed up by something saying "the validity of these facts as part of the wider Doctor Who universe is not established". Some things from the books (that are otherwise not canon) have been explicitly mentioned in the TV programme, whilst others have been explicitly contradicted or retold in a radically different manner. Torchwood, part of the Whoniverse, calls the existence of the Ponds into question, along with what they did with the time they didn't see The Doctor, because they should have, according the the timeline of Torchwood, been watching their friends and loved ones getting incinerated. However, we cannot say that Torchwood exists separate from canon, because a few series earlier, the two ran so closely in sync that scenes from both could be cut together perfectly. There may not be overall canon, but there is within each constituent element.  drewmunn  talk  10:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that all looks like WP:SYNTH to me. You say, "There's a difference between production staff saying there's no canon, and there not actually being canon." Well, no, under any regular meaning of the word "canon", if the production staff say there's no canon, then there's no canon. There may be a "fanon": it may be appropriate to describe that (what do reliable sources say?). I don't see it's appropriate to stick references to "canonicity" or "continuity" on vast numbers of different Dr Who-related articles. Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

How can it by synth when the evidence can be produced? There is no one central 'production staff' in charge of overlooking the entire Whoniverse, so we're only able to cite the ones overlooking the TV programme. The spin-offs, books, comics, and games all have their own people working on them. The TV programme has internal canon, and links to other things, but it doesn't stop with their decisions. I can cite the evidence that there are canon issues between the programme and books, for instance, and I can cite instances where they rely on each other. The fact that there are citations that show the official recognition of certain actors as having played The Doctor shows there is canon ("a descriptor of specific incidents, relationships, or story arcs that take place within the overall canon"), as do references to previous stories or incidents. No one element can deny its existence, rather bend, or selectively retcon, elements of the canon to suit their stories. See, for instance, Temporal Grace, which was later referred to as a lie told to try and protect the TARDIS and its occupants, but was treated very seriously as a true fact earlier. That's a case of retcon that, at the same time as quashing an earlier statement, also acknowledges we're in the same canon.  drewmunn  talk  11:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

But that's all WP:SYNTH from an in-universe perspective. You are not producing reliable source citations saying that "there are canon issues between the programme and books, for instance, and I can cite instances where they rely on each other." Rather, you are synthesising a conclusion based on primary sources. "The fact that there are citations that show the official recognition of certain actors as having played The Doctor" does not demonstrate a canon: it shows that certain actors are recognised as having played the part in a key context. Saying that demonstrates a canon is WP:OR. Bondegezou (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What would you call them (the recognised Doctors) then, if not canon? Official? All of the licensed uses of the name The Doctor (including Cushing and all from CotFD) are technically official. As I've said earlier, even if we scrap 'canon' (and I see your points regarding the lack of citable canon-ness) I feel there should be something that shows this. Even if it's expansion and increased prominence of the section you linked to earlier.  drewmunn  talk  13:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

My perspective is, if you're enough of a fan to need to understand the entire continuity of Who, and if you care enough about fitting events into an ongoing story to have ideas of what counts and what doesn't: you don't need telling to take spin of media with a pinch of salt. If you're not a fan, you don't care about building an overall picture of Who continuity in your head without contradictions, and you don't need warning about the relationship between spin-offs and the TV show in every article about a book or audio play. The "uninitiated" don't need to know about canon, those that know about it, but don't need it don't need to know about canon, and the people who are bothered about things fitting enough to have a "personal canon" don't need informing about it either Rankersbo (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

On spin-offs that are deliberately different- say Seven Keys, and The Unbound series, I think these articles make a good job of explaining these Doctors are unofficial without resorting to talking about how some fans count some sorts of media and not others. You don't need a disclaimer on every entry about a book or audio play or element thereof to do this.Rankersbo (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Matt Smith leaving.

Matt Smith is leaving on the Christmas episode(s). Hence 2010-present and 2010-2013 are both correct. Matt Smith will also regenerate according to the BBC blog [1] however we don't know whether he will regenerate into the next incarnation whether the BBC are planing something fancy wrt. John Hurt. So please stop the speculation and edit war.Martin451 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Which is why we shouldn't be listing another incarnation of the doctor at all. We have no idea what will be played out which is exactly how it should be. We are not a crystal ball so no listing of twelfth doctor is needed. Blethering Scot 23:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the "Moffat letter" that circulated recently? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Link? Bondegezou (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe the correct etiquette here Martin would have been try an gather consensus on the conclusion you have reached, and opened a forum for the edit warriors to have their say, rather than straight out announcing them to be completely wrong. Anyway, in my opinion, we should say that Smith will have a run of 2010-present, until his final episode is shown, and note his plans to depart in the text.  drewmunn  talk  10:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

We have RS citations saying his last story is in 2013, don't we? So I don't see a problem with giving that date. Bondegezou (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit like not including future series in the infobox count, I don't think we should 'sign him off' until he's done. After all, it's 2013 now, so an argument could be made that writing "2010-2013" could denote he's done his time already, whereas he actually has time left.  drewmunn  talk  19:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

We could include reference in the article to speculation that the next Doctor Who will be a a woman - both Joanna Lumley and Helen Mirren have been suggested as potential torch-bearers. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who's face has appeared on or near a television camera at some point in the last decade has been suggested by someone, it happens every time. The woman thing comes up with every regeneration, along with super-famous actors and previous Doctors. Anyway, Lumley's already been the Doctor...  drewmunn  talk  17:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Just because the last episode that Matt Smith will be the doctor is the 'Christmas Special' it doesn't mean that the last episode he is in will be broadcast in 2013. They have split the Christmas Special into two episodes in the past and David Tennant's last episode was the 2009 Christmas Special but his last appearance was on 1 January 2010. I don't know how many episodes will make up the christmas special this year. Has it even been filed yet? -- Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't a Christmas Special, it was episodes 4 & 5 of "The Specials", one of which was the Christmas Special, one the New Year's Day Special.  drewmunn  talk  10:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)