Talk:The Doctor's ninth incarnation

Alternative events?

this is a alternative version of the doctor why we not put it into alternate version catagory in the book davies said paralel events– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doctor other (talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 April 2020.

This has kinda been discussed to death at this point, but the quote about "parallel events" has to be balanced with "all stories are true, all Doctors exist" in the same source, and either way is part of a real-world-focused text which is not in itself a valid source. (Authorial intent as given out-of-universe was used to consign The Infinity Doctors and Doctor Who Unbound to parallel universe status, but always at the conclusion of lengthy special-case forum threads.)

Besides, "parallel events" can mean a lot of things, up to and including these events just unfolding in different places at the same time — "in parallel" — as The Day of the Doctor. The Time War is a weird place. It's perfectly conceivable that several pressings-of-the-Moment would happen alongside each other at its height before collapsing back into a single timeline after Gallifrey disappears, or something along those lines.

As for being an "alternative version", so long as he's not treated by a valid narrative as alternative, we on this Wiki don't make statements about which version of events is 'truer'. An oddity like Doctor Who and the Time War is no less valid than the TV series, and no valid Ninth Doctor is superior to another. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 12:41, April 30, 2020 (UTC)

Alternate versions of the Doctor is for individuals who are explicitly stated to be incarnations of the Doctor from alternate timelines, parallel universes, or aborted timelines.

alternate universe like death somebody saw hitler put a statue to a desk and then that person goes back in time take it smashed time line changed paralel universe like that a person make choice traffic light about stop is red or purple he make is it red but paralel earth separetedby the main he make it purple yeah i think this story like that this should be put in alternate versions .– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doctor other (talk • contribs) .

Category:Typography and punctuation: If people can't understand what you've posted, they certainly can't answer your questions or act on what you suggested. Shambala108 ☎ 22:24, June 14, 2020 (UTC)

Potential merge?

As this is quite clearly meant to be Eccleston, shouldn’t this page be merged with the main Ninth Doctor page, for clarity’s sake? Liria10 ☎ 22:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Mmmh… I would be more hesitant if RTD had made the comment about Grant and Atkinson himself, but given that he simply highlighted it but did not make it himself — and that he certainly had Eccleston in mind when he wrote it in 2013… I think you may have a point. The intro with which the story was released makes it clear that the story was written to lead into Rose, so when it refers to "the Ninth Doctor", that's implicitly Eccleston; the argument can fairly be made that this is equivalent to the cover or back-cover of a print novel specifying "This story features the FIFTH FACE of DR. WHO as played by PETER DAVIDSON", and suchlike.

Besides, even though the idea that Doctor Who and the Time War may instead be the origin story of "another" Ninth Doctor is something that the Wiki should cover in some capacity — but perhaps this separate page isn't the right place to do it. It could be handled quite cleanly in the "Behind the scenes" sections of Ninth Doctor and The Doctor's ninth incarnation. Even if we don't acknowledge the Ninth Doctor in …and the Time War as Eccleston, probably we could make do with simply linking to The Doctor's ninth incarnation, really, rather than using this additional dabbed page which implies that it may be a wholly unique Ninth Doctor.

So I hereby make a preliminary ruling that we will merge this page. What must now be discussed is whether we merge it with Ninth Doctor (acknowledging the authorial intent, hinted at by the mention of "ears" and highlighted by the Introduction, that this is Eccleston), or simply with The Doctor's ninth incarnation. I would favour the former solution, relegating the retrospective "ambiguity" to BTS sections; but given that this page has been separate for quite a long time now, I want to let the case for the defence speak before fully going forward. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a merging into Ninth Doctor would be the best option here. I think the ambiguity here is minimal though, amounting to RTD liking a fan suggestion and the existence of another, unrelated story which hints at two other Ninth Doctors. Danochy ☎ 02:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I, too, agree that the in-universe section of the page should be merged into Ninth Doctor, with the first bullet point of the behind-the-scenes moved to The Doctor's ninth incarnation (where Doctor Who and the Time War is already identified with Eccleston's Doctor). In my mental calendar I had this merger pencilled in for after the validity of The Curse of Fatal Death and Scream of the Shalka had been achieved, but better now than never! – n8 (☎) 01:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, well, I think enough time has elapsed. The merge has been performed. (Note that in a slightly unorthodox move, I have transferred this talk page from Talk:Ninth Doctor (Doctor Who and the Time War) to Talk:The Doctor's ninth incarnation, as although the main page needed to be merged with Eccleston's page, the discussions on this page really have more to do with the "parallel ninth incarnations" aspect.) Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 18:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Noteworthy nature of a liked Instagram comment

Taken from page, for further discussion before readdition.

"* Russell T Davies introduced Doctor Who and the Time War ^[+]Loading...["Doctor Who and the Time War (short story)"]'s position in relation to The Night of the Doctor ^[+]Loading...["The Night of the Doctor (TV story)"] as a "glimpse of parallel events" given that "all Doctors exist [and] all stories are true". Although the specific mention of "ears" as the new Doctor feels his face references Christopher Eccleston's Ninth Doctor, the story does not positively identify the Doctor into whom the Eighth Doctor regenerates. In the comments of the Instagram release of Doctor Who and the Time War, Russell T Davies liked a suggestion by a fan that

…the Ninth Doctor here could also be interpreted as the Shalka Doctor or the Rowan Atkinson Doctor for the hat trick of alternative Ninth Doctors.(source)

"

Is this suitability noteworthy and can we consider this a positive acknowledgment/agreement without further supporting evidence? JDPManjoume ☎ 01:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

On balance, I still think it would be relevant if RTD rarely liked posts by fans; under the understanding that it was unusual for him to 'like' a post expositing a theory/interpretation of his work, I don't think it was erroneous to add the note. However, a pattern has since emerged of him batch-liking all replies to his Instagram posts, which was not apparent at the time the page was put together. In light of that I would agree with removal, just clarifying that this is not precedent against considering 'liked posts' noteworthy depending on context. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 07:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

"Kindly-faced Doctor pottering in a junkyard"

This is how one of the Doctors seen in the Tomorrow Window is described, at least over on that page; I can only assume this description comes from the novel itself. Yet, confusingly, this very page outright claims that this is the First Doctor! This is a strong claim which this page just casually drops without any further elaboration, and without any real basis; who says this isn't just another "kindly-faced" Doctor who also liked Astrakhan hats and hanging out in junkyards? WaltK ☎ 02:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

(I note that I'm pretty sure that Window wasn't supposed to refer to the actual First Doctor, but to the idea of a new First Doctor - rebooting the show. But there's substantial disagreement on-wiki about how to interpret this scene.) Najawin ☎ 04:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that was definitely an allusion to the idea of a reboot and thus a reset to the First Doctor. We know this. Morris confirmed it. It theoretically could be someone else, sure, but by narrative convention the identifying signs are enough to make the connection.

(The disagreement to which Najawin refers is not a disagreement about how to interpret the Doctors, I'll record, but for what the scene means. That is, he seems to think it's purely a fourth-wall-break — the Doctor viewing the possible futures of the TV series in the real world — and should not be taken to represent possible in-universe futures at all, whereas the common view is that it's a meta thing where the Doctor's possible diegetic futures mirror possible fates for the TV series.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 11:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

At any rate, my opinion is that this Doctor should be interpreted as a separate incarnation. With a BtS giving full context, of course. WaltK ☎ 15:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I agree. At that rate, the "pale aristocrat" might well be some other pale Doctor than Shalka! I think we really can't cover this scene (or much any other Doctor Who) sensibly unless we can follow the obvious intended identifications by default, and "old man with an Astrakhan hat in a junkyard" is as clearly Hartnell-shaped as it gets. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)