Talk:Fugitive Doctor

Ruth Clayton

Currently, Ruth Clayton redirects to this page. However, shouldn't Ruth have her own page; a precedent has been set in the cases of similar Time Lords who have undergone biological change via a Chameleon Arch, including John Smith (Tenth Doctor), John Smith (Seventh Doctor) and Yana. 66 Seconds ☎ 23:55, January 27, 2020 (UTC)

Just today, one of our administrators, User:SOTO, recommended that we have just such a talk-page discussion, to determine whether we can write about the Fugitive Doctor, and about Ruth Clayton-the-human, as two separate characters, without risking essentially having the same information on both pages. I'd say yes, personally. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:02, January 28, 2020 (UTC)

But didn't we have exactly that dilemma with Yana and the Master too. I mean, originally Yana didn't have enough information to warrant a separate page from the Master as at that time, all we had was 2 minutes of Jacobi as the Master. Wouldn't that be the same for Ruth and her version of the Doctor, meaning right now we don't have enough separate information to split them into two pages. --DCLM ☎ 08:26, January 30, 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, we don't even know where in the Doctor's timeline she fits in. We have to wait for more information to be given. --DCLM ☎ 08:37, January 30, 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem with the timeline is, but at any rate, I would say the reason this differs from Yana is that the War Master in Utopia was Yana for basically the whole story. He opens the watch, kills one (1) person, and then immediately dies and regenerates. Whereas here, the Ruth Doctor does plenty of things not related to her Chameleon Arch identity. It would be perfectly possible to separate her personality and biography from Ruth Clayton's.

Furthermore, unlike the War Master in Utopia, the Ruth Doctor lives to travel another day, leaving no serious doubt on whether we'll see her again. I've got two words for you people, as I often do: "future-proofing." --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:04, January 30, 2020 (UTC)

I'd say let's do that after her potential next appearance on the show. --DCLM ☎ 18:20, February 1, 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Scrooge MacDuck. Looking at this Doctor's biography as is, we have enough information on Ruth Clayton as an identity, and on this incarnation of the Doctor to warrant two separate pages. It doesn't matter that we don't know the number of this incarnation, or even the possibilty that she could be lying when she says she is the Doctor; that would only ever affect this page, and would have no bearing on the page for Ruth Clayton. 66 Seconds ☎ 00:11, February 2, 2020 (UTC)

Add her to the "More ambiguous" section of the Incarnations of the Doctor template

For now, she fits as an ambiguous incarnation, and I think it would be easier to get to her page if she is there in the template.DenisLuiz ☎ 00:11, January 30, 2020 (UTC)

Right now with the information at hand, I think there needs to be some serious consideration as to if she might belong under "Widely Accepted". Looking at the other characters under "More Ambiguous" (Dream Lord, The Curator, The Valeyard, Meta-Crisis, The Watcher) and it's clear the Jo Martin Doctor is much more definitive than they are. She is presented as a normal, genuine incarnation of the Doctor. The only snag is that we don't know where she belongs in the overall order. It's implied she is pre-Hartnell, but nothing is definitive. But I would argue that if the War Doctor belongs under "Widely Accepted" then so does the Jo Martin Doctor. I can't see the logic in having them be separate, seeing as how similar they are within the context of the show. --TheOneTrueJack ☎ 18:02, March 4, 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The "Fugitive" Doctor is certainly more certain than the rest of the "More Ambiguous" list. Only her placement in the list of regenerations is currently unknown.- UtherSRG ☎ 22:58, March 4, 2020 (UTC)

This is not an in-universe view on things, but maybe this can help, maybe it can't: https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2020-03-05/doctor-who-jo-martin-peter-capaldi/amp/?__twitter_impression=true --DCLM ☎ 11:13, March 6, 2020 (UTC)

I've prepared a mockup on the Timeless Children forum thread of how Template:Doctors might be updated. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:33, March 15, 2020 (UTC)

"The Doctor" from the Rose novelisation

Is it worth mentioning the Tall Black Woman Doctor mencione in the novelisation of Rose, even thought it’s from 2018, the coincidence may be of note– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.23.249.253 (talk).

Who knows if it's a coincidence? But let's wait a tick. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 17:50, February 25, 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be the same. This version of the Doctor was bald and had a flaming sword. None of which (currently, at least) applies to Martin's Doctor. --DCLM ☎ 11:15, March 6, 2020 (UTC)

Fugitive Doctor

I know this is an unofficial name and stuff, but might I suggest the name 'Fugitive Doctor' for this incarnation? At least in lieu of a proper name, and as a way to sound more... formal, I suppose. I know there's probably a rule against this or something, but figured I might as well throw it out there.Meganerd18 ☎ 11:06, March 29, 2020 (UTC)

This is sort of already what we're using in the text of the page — the "Fugitive" Doctor, is the way we spell it. But I think the page is best kept where it is for now, if it's a rename you're proposing. People are less likely to type in any specific fan-generated nickname (it might as well be "the Ruth Doctor" or "the Ruthless Doctor", two popular picks) than they are "The Doctor (Fugitigive of the Judoon)" itself. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 12:41, March 29, 2020 (UTC)

Just curious, when was it decided that the War Doctor was called that? Xx-connor-xX ☎ 13:54, April 27, 2020 (UTC)

He was first credited as such in The Night of the Doctor and our own page was moved to that title soon after the broadcast of Day. --Borisashton ☎ 13:56, April 27, 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Xx-connor-xX ☎ 14:00, April 27, 2020 (UTC)

Rename to "Fugitive Doctor"

The official Twitter just posted this where they use "Fugitive Doctor" to talk about her. Is it enough to rename the page or not? Lady Junky 21:03, September 28, 2020 (UTC)

It is not, sadly. She has to be called that in an actual valid story, or, at least, in the credits of a valid story. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:07, September 28, 2020 (UTC)

But it is "Behind the scenes" worthy, at least.BananaClownMan ☎ 21:14, September 28, 2020 (UTC)

But none of the other known numbers of Doctors (First through Thirteenth, except War Doctor) are actually known as this, so why is that different here? —-DCLM ☎ 23:36, October 29, 2020 (UTC)

For one, it parallels "War Doctor". Two, all of the incarnations that we know of have some way we commonly refer to them, in some fashion or another. The incarnations starting with Hartnell, with the exception of War, are named with numbers, but those are still names. - UtherSRG ☎ 00:01, October 30, 2020 (UTC)

Just a note, User:Danniesen is incorrect. As established at this thread from nearly ten years ago, we made sure to find evidence of "the First Doctor", "the Second Doctor" and so on being used in valid in-universe sources. "War Doctor" bends that rule slightly, but does not quite break it, because he has been called that in the credits of valid stories, which can be used as valid sources for character names when all else fails.

Once a valid story refers to Jo Martin's Doctor as "Fugitive Doctor" anywhere (including in the credits), then we can rename the page to Fugitive Doctor. (But not "Fugitive" Doctor, please, if only because that'd be hell for the search bar.) Not before.

That being said, for searchability, I think a redirect can be created at Fugitive Doctor now that the term has been used in BBC merchandising. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:51, October 30, 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting the rename decision

I know this is unusual, but I think an exception-of-the rule can be made for Fugitive Doctor to be the main name of this page. Upon researching a bit, I found out that the ruling of Romana's naming convention was, from the start, done not out of story credits, but rather the "common naming that everyone in the fandom had for her". Within one month or two of Fugitive of the Judoon's airing, there were articles refering the Jo Martin's Doctor as the "Fugitive Doctor" (such as 1, 2 and 3). And rightly so. Not only did her Doctor debut in this story, she also was the Fugitive in question. By now, we're one of the only places not to call her that.

Since then, the name gained notoriety enough not only be used by the official BBC/Doctor Who social media, but now also by official merchandise, right alongside our usual First Doctor-Twelfth Doctor and War Doctor naming. Now, I am by no means saying this is in-universe, and neither am I saying that merchandising is (or that they should be valid sources). What I am saying is that, to facilitate our writing and reading of articles, we refer to her as "Fugitive Doctor". (after all, all her stories so far are multi-Doctor stories. It's hell on Earth to write articles for these using only "the Doctor"). Who do you think? OncomingStorm12th ☎ 21:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what has been said in regards to renaming her the "Fugitive Doctor". BananaClownMan 23:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and, in any case, another official merchandise that uses "Fugitive Doctor" in its marketing. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 01:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a gift that keeps giving, truly: two recent Instagram posts from Time Fracture (here and here), as well as DWMSE 56 refer to her as...... surprise: "Fugitve Doctor". Again, not credits, but clear intent even from BBC/BBC-approved content that she's known as this. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 02:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The wiki was (rightfully) ridiculed for its hesitance regarding The Doctor (The Name of the Doctor), and given User:CzechOut's expressed interest in searchability, it seems proper that we adopt the name the rest of the not we overwhelmingly uses. – n8 (☎) 14:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Forgotten Lives

The Fugitive Doctor may not appear in the charity anthology Forgotten Lives, but I think that it is still important to note in the BTS section as to where the writers / artists of Forgotten Lives believe that this incarnation fits in the Doctor's timeline. RadMatter ☎ 22:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Have the writers and artists actually said that they believe Gallaccio regenerates into Martin, or are you assuming that based on the promo image? The Day of the Doctor ends with a shot of William Hartnell standing between John Hurt and David Tennant, but we don't draw any narrative conclusions from that. If they have indeed said so, you should probably specify that in the article, because the section right now reads like a non-sequitur to me. A more general "Placement in the Doctor's timeline" section, relating several perspectives, might feel less random than one hinged entirely on this particular piece of fan art. (More broadly, I'm not sure why the lore assumptions of this particular anthology are uniquely notable - Unbound: Adventures in Time and Space, for example, was also pretty popular, and featured numerous writers and artists who have articles on this wiki, and we don't cover its lore implications anywhere; and it also seems like a pretty big assumption when you say that Forgotten Lives is certain to become a definitive and influential text on the Morbius Doctors.) Gowlbag ☎ 22:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Where have I said which order these individuals believe the Fugitive Doctor places? In the article I simply stated; "[Paul Hanley] posted a promotional picture of all the Morbius Doctors - this promotional picture featured Jo Martin's incarnation".

I think that any published media is acceptable to be placed on the BTS sections if it is noteworthy. If the Unbound: Adventures in Time and Space doesn't feature on this Wiki are you sure that this is because we don't cover it, or that someone has simply not added it? I do believe that Forgotten Lives will become an influential text, but regardless as I have said any published media is acceptable in the BTS sections if it is noteworthy. RadMatter ☎ 22:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin hat on, I would agree that short summaries of noteworthy information from Forgotten Lives, or any other charity books published by recognisable DWU authors or publishing houses, can and should be included in relevant BTS section. However, I also agree with Gowlbag that we are not to speculate, on the basis of a promotional illustration, about placement in timelines. It's technically already speculative (if understandable) to read Hanley's picture as saying "Jo Martin is pre-Hartnell", let alone anything more specific.

I would also caution against conflating a piece released personally by Hanley which happens to be based on his Forgotten Lives cover, and the contents of the actual book. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Nothing in this comment; "[Paul Hanley] posted a promotional picture of all the Morbius Doctors - this promotional picture featured Jo Martin's incarnation" speculates anything. It literally states what occurred. Nowhere does it stated that "Jo Martin is pre-Hartnell". RadMatter ☎ 23:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, apologies then; I took Gowlbag's assertion at faith value and probably shouldn't have. But in that case, the purported BTS fact is "this character once appeared on one illustration tangentially connected to one charity book that doesn't actually feature the character". I'm not sure this is really noteworthy enough to be worth including in the BTS section, although in theory it could belong there. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a fair point. I would personally argue that this is noteworthy as it is a version of the cover-art by the same artist which has been shared by Obverse Books and the official Forgotten Lives Twitter page. RadMatter ☎ 23:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)