Talk:The Doctor: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary
 
(102 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpage tabs}}
{{ArchCat}}
{{ArchCat}}
== Erasing ALL knowledge of The Doctor? I don't think so ==
== Infobox Image Update ==
Hello. Is there any possibility of updating the images used for both the [[Twelfth Doctor]] and the [[Thirteenth Doctor]]'s for ones that are more appropriate? I guess I get the "eyebrows" thing so that image isn't *too* bad I suppose (still think better could be done), but surely the [[Thirteenth Doctor]] deserves an image of herself in her actual clothing rather than the image currently in use which is from her opening story ''[[The Woman Who Fell to Earth (TV story)|The Woman Who Fell to Earth]]'' and displays her still wearing the ragged and battered remains of her previous incarnation's clothing? I hope you'll take these suggestions under advisement. Thank you for reading. --[[User:Alan-WK|Alan-WK]] [[User talk:Alan-WK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:19, January 13, 2020 (UTC)


According to this entry, The Doctor "erased knowledge of him on 21st century Earth...and later did so himself throughout all of time and space."  
== The Timeless Child ==
So, obviously there will have to be some changes. For starters, the Jo Martin Doctor added to More Ambiguous section of the Doctor's incarnations. Other than that, how big a rewrite are we looking at and how much should be kept to other pages like[[Timeless Child]]?--[[User:TheOneTrueJack|TheOneTrueJack]] [[User talk:TheOneTrueJack|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:00, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


Clara Oswin Oswald erased all knowledge of the Doctor from the Dalek database in [[Asylum of the Daleks (TV story)]] but I don't recall at any point that The Doctor  in [[The Angels Take Manhattan (TV story)]] erased all knowledge of himself EVERYWHERE. If that was true then every single one of his companions (including River Song) would have no memory of him which seems, from a simple storyline perspective, highly  unlikely. Look at [[The Snowmen (TV story)]], he had allies there who knew all about The Doctor. [[Special:Contributions/63.143.217.227|63.143.217.227]]<sup>[[User talk:63.143.217.227#top|talk to me]]</sup> 21:12, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
:Well, as far as ''I'' can put it together, it's the 8 Timeless Child regenerations, at least 5 more, the 8 Morbius regenerations, Ruth, 4 more, Hartnell - Matt, Capaldi - Present. We know that the Timeless Child regenerations and the Morbius ones can't be the same cycle as the Doctor was kidified after each 13, so it seems. So Jodie is not, ''at least'' the 27th Doctor now.--[[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] [[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:16, March 1, 2020 (UTC)
: River Song said he's been erasing himself from every database in existence, actually. And every database is not everyone's memory, dude.  
:I'll bet he didn't bother to hit up the UNIT databases - we see that they still know of him in ''The Power of Three'', plus, plenty of personal knowledge about him in that group.--[[User:ComicBookGoddess|ComicBookGoddess]] [[User talk:ComicBookGoddess|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:30, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
::I think 63's issue is not what River said or didn't say, but rather what the '''article''' says, that is, "The Doctor had ordered Mickey Smith to erase knowledge of him on 21st century Earth, and later did so himself throughout all of time and space." The article doesn't use the word "database", it uses "knowledge", and that's what 63 is trying to point out. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:44, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
:::That's certainly a reasonable distinction.--[[User:ComicBookGoddess|ComicBookGoddess]] [[User talk:ComicBookGoddess|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 06:13, April 15, 2013 (UTC)


::If we take it that The Timeless Child was at the start of Time Lord society and for whatever reason was never cryogenically frozen or forced into the future. Then it stands to reason that he/she is as old as Time Lord society. In The Ultimate Foe who we used to call The Sixth Doctor says that they've been around for 10 Million years. Now if we take The Eleventh Doctors life of 1100 years as a measure for a standard regenerations life span as this was the longest and seemed to die of natural causes. Then at MINIMUM The Doctor has had 9,091 lives which are not including any that were cut short by falling off any cliffs or mother figures experimenting on them. --[[User:Thebobbrom|Thebobbrom]] [[User talk:Thebobbrom|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:53, March 2, 2020 (UTC)


== Amount of incarnations ==
::It seems like the Thirteen lives rule was put in place much later on. So that wouldn't apply to the Timeless Child incarnations --[[User:TheOneTrueJack|TheOneTrueJack]] [[User talk:TheOneTrueJack|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:24, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


So, I'm confused. does the doctor get 13 regenerations,and therefore 14 lives, or 12 regenerations, and therefore 13 lives?
:::Except we can't call any of those before Hartnell any variant of the [number] Doctor. Cause if we do that we'll have to re-route, in no exaggeration, the "''ENTIRE''" Wikia from scratch. --[[User:Danniesen|DCLM]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:29, March 1, 2020 (UTC)
:  (Added headline to avoid confusion). He can regenerate twelve times and can therefore have thirteen lives (although Moffat will probably come up with some clever trick). --[[User:CGW|CGW]] [[User talk:CGW|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:10, May 19, 2013 (UTC)


Dialogue on screen has always made it clear, he gets 13 "incarnations" not 13 regenerations, therefore he can only regenerate 12 times (under normal conditions).  This was confirmed in several episodes but off the top of my head "Deadly Assassin" (it was confirmed the Master had failed to rejuvenate into his final form) "The Ultimate Foe" (it is confirmed the Valeyard is an extension of the Doctor's penultimate rejuvenation being created as an off shoot of his 12th).
::::Well obviously we can't do that. The Morbius Doctors can be referred to as such, and the Timeless Child incarnations can be included in the [[Timeless Child]] page. But should they both (as two sperate groups) be put in the More Ambiguous section of the Doctor's incarnations? And how much should the main Doctor page talk about them? {{Unsigned|TheOneTrueJack}}


The question "how many regenerations does the Doctor have left?" however is much less straight forward for many reasons:  
Well, that's the thing. I don't believe the Doctor ''is'' bound to the 13 lives. The Timelords just sort of "kid-i-fied" the Doctor again when he reached the end of his 13 "lives"; that's what the whole Brendan stuff was. The Doctor believed he was bound to the 13 "lives" because he didn't remember anything before hand. But, in actuality, he wasn't bound to it at all. So it could literally be the 8 on the table plus 5 more - then kid-i-fied  and made to forget - then the 8 morbius, Ruth and 4 more - then Kid-i-fied and made to forget - then Hartnell onwards and the Timelords only gave the "new" cycle to the Doctor to hide their lie.--[[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] [[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:46, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


1. We do not know how many incarnations existed between the on screen 8th and 9th, while Eccleston is officially the 9th actor, it isn't clear whether he actually is the 9th doctor. However the prophecy quoted by the Silence seems to confirm Smith is the 11th Doctor.  
:That would make sense if the Time Lords didn't have to restore the Doctor's regeneration ability in ''[[The Time of the Doctor (TV story)|The Time of the Doctor]]''. Though if they restored the Doctor's original ability, it ''would'' explain the ambiguity of how many regenerations the Doctor has now.--[[User:WarGrowlmon18|WarGrowlmon18]] [[User talk:WarGrowlmon18|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:55, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


2. We do not know what effect River sacrificing her rejuvenations had on the Doctor. We know from Trial of a Time Lord and Doctor Who, that regenerations are transferable, and from the Five Doctors they are renewable as the Time Lords promised The Master a new Regeneration Cycle.  
::The Brendan stuff was a cover-story to hide the truth about the Time Lords' beginning. Brendan, his parents, the Sergeant etc. never existed. They were images layered on top of the real truth. --[[User:Danniesen|DCLM]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:00, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


3. It has long been stated The Master had used up all his regenerations prior to the Time War, yet he was seen (upon his return) regenerating twice. It is conceivable therefore that other Time Lords conscripted to fight in the Time War were given new regenerations too, including The Doctor.  
::: The Timeless Child could regenerate indefinitely. But THE DOCTOR was limited to 13 lives. That's not really a matter of perspective. It was seen that the Doctor could only regenerate 12 times. This means that the limitation of 12 regenerations was also bestowed on the Doctor, or maybe perhaps after they "stopped" being the Timeless Child. --[[User:Danniesen|DCLM]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:02, March 1, 2020 (UTC)
--[[User:Pittstop|Pittstop]] [[User talk:Pittstop|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 09:06, August 6, 2013 (UTC)


== John Hurt's Doctor ==
::::That's my point. ''Did'' they restore it? I believe the Doctor was bound to the 13 body limits because he ''believed'' he was. He actually ''wasn't'' - he just thought he was because he believed he was a Timelord, when he isn't - he's something different. The Timelords gave him a "new" cycle to hide the truth of what he was - constantly and continually able to regenerate.--[[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] [[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:04, March 1, 2020 (UTC)
Where should Hurt's Doctor be added on this page? [[Special:Contributions/75.141.237.237|75.141.237.237]]<sup>[[User talk:75.141.237.237#top|talk to me]]</sup> 20:55, May 19, 2013 (UTC)


Shouldn't the War Doctor have his photo added to the main rotating profile image. He might not use the title, but he is still the character depicted in the profile page. [[Special:Contributions/92.232.180.244|92.232.180.244]]<sup>[[User talk:92.232.180.244#top|talk to me]]</sup> 11:39, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
:::::The Doctor IS a Time Lord. You can't get around that. However as the Seventh Doctor said "I'm far more than just another Time Lord". And he WAS limited down. That's what they did, as other media stories have explained was done at some point to the Time Lord race. --[[User:Danniesen|DCLM]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:09, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


: Agreed on this, but there might be a deliberate wait on the update because of the Twelfth Doctor's concurrent introduction- his debut in costume in August will no doubt insinuate a change to the slideshow. Two birds with one stone, I suppose, but just in case this is going unchecked, I've raised the issue directly on the talk page of [http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Template_talk:Docpic/doc Docpic]. --[[User:Thunderush|Thunderush]] [[User talk:Thunderush|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:41, March 18, 2014 (UTC)
::::::: No, wrong. We know now that the Doctor is ''not'' a Timelord. The Doctor is an entirely different species who was studied by the ''original'' Timelord/Shebogan to create regeneration. The Doctor only ''believed'' she/he was a Timelord. --[[User:HarryPotterRules1|HarryPotterRules1]] [[User talk:HarryPotterRules1|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:18, March 1, 2020 (UTC)


== Longest serving Doctor: most television stories? ==
:::::::: I'm up with Harry. The Doctor is not a Timelord anymore, but the "ancestor" species of the Time Lords: a Timeless Child (not official name but just to make it clear). --[[User:Con Carne|Con Carne]] ([[User Talk:Con Carne|''Di la verdad, o cobras...'']]) 10:09, March 2, 2020 (UTC)


While I know the Fourth Doctor has had the most individual episodes, I don't believe he has had the most individual television ''stories'', at least, not anymore. I'm pretty sure the Tenth and Eleventh Doctors have had more individual stories than Baker's Doctor has. But my question is, should I count prequels and other mini episodes when totalling them? And should two parters be considered a single story? [[User:Memnarc|Memnarc]] [[User talk:Memnarc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:35, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::No. The Doctor was MADE into a Time Lord. Also whoever changed the page, please don't just change it without a conclusion to this. Con Carne, don't just make a change this major. It needs proper discussion. You and Harry agreeing, doesn't alone make it so. We need proper consultation that admins also join in on before we can just decide something this major. --[[User:Danniesen|DCLM]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 10:19, March 2, 2020 (UTC)


Can someone please explain why at 7 years on screen Tom Baker is no longer mentioned in the longest serving section. Ignoring Time Crash, no other actor has played the Doctor on screen that long, therefore Tom Baker IS the longest serving Doctor in terms of time spent in the role, on screen on the main show (excluding wider media).
This is a discussion for the Board of Discussions. I'll make a thread. --[[User:Danniesen|DCLM]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 10:21, March 2, 2020 (UTC)


From bookended rejuvenation episodes, not even Sylvester Mccoy beats seven years.
:Just one thing, it wasn't me, I haven't changed anything in the article. :( --[[User:Con Carne|Con Carne]] ([[User Talk:Con Carne|''Di la verdad, o cobras...'']]) 11:49, March 2, 2020 (UTC)


--[[User:Pittstop|Pittstop]] [[User talk:Pittstop|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 08:19, August 6, 2013 (UTC)
::I know, that was my bad. I didn't looks properly. Sorry about that. I DID change my statement to say "whoever changed the page". Sorry for the mistunderstanding. --[[User:Danniesen|DCLM]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:53, March 2, 2020 (UTC)


: From bookended rejuvenation? You mean from ''Rani'' part one through the television movie? Because I'm pretty sure that's slightly under nine years, rather than the 6 years, 9 months from ''Spiders'' part 6 through ''Logopolis'' part 4...
== How did you make the docpic slideshow? ==


: Whether mini-episodes count as television all depends on the mini-episode. Anything "A Prequel" in their name or are "watch the prequel now" sort of deals, aren't television; they're either web or iTunes.
How did you make the slideshow feature/template entitled "docpic" inside the infobox? I'd like to achieve something similar for a wiki I'm working on. [[User:JustWilhelm|JustWilhelm]] [[User talk:JustWilhelm|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 10:10, July 27, 2020 (UTC)


: For me personally, I'd count two-parters as a single story. I believe that per ''Planet of the Dead'' being celebrated as number 200, that means that ''Utopia'', ''The Sound of Drums'' and ''Last of the Time Lords'' are technically officially one whole story. I personally count them as such, as well as ''A Good Man Goes to War'' and ''Let's Kill Hitler'', while ''Turn Left'', ''The Stolen Earth'' and ''Journey's End'' are a one-parter (not "standalone" per se, but one part) and a two-parter respectively. Episodes ARE counted in a different way to the older show's serials, especially considering series 7's lack of multi-parters (though obviously absolutely no-one's counting, say, ''The Rebel Flesh'' / ''The Almost People'' / ''A Good Man Goes to War'' / ''Let's Kill Hitler'', or the first half of Martha's season as a long single parter). -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 08:43, August 6, 2013 (UTC)
== "The Doctor's Species" ==


I see, however, I still think it is worth noting that Tom Baker held the record for the longest serving Doctor first--[[User:Pittstop|Pittstop]] [[User talk:Pittstop|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 09:07, August 6, 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we should keep the "the doctor's species" under their species but why isn't there also "Time Lord" as well. Although the Doctor started life as whatever species they were when Tecteun found them, since Hartnell -> Whittaker, they have been bound to the thirteen incarnation cycles with two hearts and should unequivocably be called a time lord since being changed into one by the time lords using the chameleon arch (as hinted at by those Brendan scenes). {{unsigned|Cptjackhotness}}
:Hi! If [[The Doctor's species]] were the page about the species of the Timeless Child, you would be correct, but it's not. That's "[[Timeless Child's species]]". The page [[The Doctor's species]] is an overview detailing all the conflicting accounts of whether the Doctor is a Time Lord, a human, half-human, a member of the Timeless Child's species, etc.


Well, I totalled them all up and, at least at this point, ''not'' including minisodes, prequels or animations, the Tenth Doctor has appeared in 36 television stories (if you count Turn Left as separate from Stolen Earth and Journey's End, which the site does). Interestingly, the Eleventh Doctor has appeared in either 37 stories (if you consider A Good Man Goes to War and Let's Kill Hitler as being separate stories) or 36 (if you don't). The totals ''with'' minisodes (not prequels, since they didn't air on TV) are 39 for Ten (or 41 if you include the animated episodes) and 41/40 for Eleven. These totals will probably be subject to change by year's end though. [[User:Memnarc|Memnarc]] [[User talk:Memnarc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:40, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
:Also, it's not evident that the Brendan scene corresponds to a [[chameleon arch]] specifically. It could just as easily have ''just'' been a deaging/mindwiping process. According to ''[[The Timeless Children (TV story)|The Timeless Children]]'' the [[Shobogan (species)|Shobogan]]s became the [[Time Lord]]s when [[Tecteun]] spliced DNA of the Timeless Child into them, so it's a perfectly valid interpretation that the Timeless Child was the original two-hearted binary-vascular-systemed species, and it's the Shobogans who were altered to resemble the Doctor, not the other way around. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


== "Favoured Incarnations" ==
== Usage of "Dr. Who" ==
In the section on which incarnations liked or disliked previous versions, there is no mention of the meetings between the first, second and third, in which it is fairly obvious the first dislikes both since he refers to them as "a dandy and a clown".  The second and third bicker constantly in their 2 televised meetings, suggesting they tolerate but dislike one another.  Nor is there any mention of how the first, second and third seemed to all approve of the fifth during their meeting in "the Five Doctors".  Nor is there any mention of the sixth and second's meeting in "the Two Doctors", dialogue in that episode implied the two appreciated each other. --[[User:Pittstop|Pittstop]] [[User talk:Pittstop|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:30, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, seeing as my edits on ''[[TV Comic]]'' stories have been questioned, I shall explain why I am using the name "Dr. Who" and how policy backs me up on this.


==What's up with the infoboxes==
As a bit of context, the names "First Doctor" and "Second Doctor" were never used in the characters' original televised runs. The only times they are used are in stories such as [[PROSE]]: ''[[The Eight Doctors (novel)|The Eight Doctors]]'' and other works by [[Terrance Dicks]]. (see more about Dicks' naming conventions over at [[Forum:Is using "First Doctor", "Second Doctor" etc in-universe?]], however, me linking this does not mean I agree with the conclusion.)<br>These names have been retroactively applied to these characters, despite evidence from the television stories directly contradicting this, perhaps most notably in [[TV]]: ''[[The Power of the Daleks (TV story)|The Power of the Daleks]]'' when the "Patrick Troughton" Doctor mentioned that the "[[regeneration]]" he undertook was a restorative feature of [[The Doctor's TARDIS|his TARDIS]] and that he had ''used it before'', meaing that Troughton was not playing the "Second Doctor". (This also means there have been "Pre-Hartnell Doctors" from pretty early on folks!). A precedent notably seen over on [[Talk:Tzim-Sha#Rename]] and the various talk pages of [[Amy Pond]], is that the name that the characters actually use to refer to themselves as takes precendent. So, in the case of the Doctor, this policy applies. We, as the rule abiding users, should use [[The Doctor (title)|the name, the ''title'' that the Doctor chose for himself]], which is in most stories, "the Doctor". In the case of ''[[TV Comic]]'', "the Doctor" is short for "Dr. Who", so this indicates to me that "the Doctor" should be the name that is most widely used, and "Dr. Who" for his name in place of the regular usage of "[insert number here] Doctor", in sources that actually state that "Dr. Who" is the Doctor's full name of course. This also would be mean that "[insert number here] Doctor" would be acceptable if substantiated by the respective source.


Why are they like that? Something's messed up.[[Special:Contributions/174.116.106.68|174.116.106.68]]<sup>[[User talk:174.116.106.68#top|talk to me]]</sup> 17:38, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
Now, the argument has been made that "Dr. Who" is not as clear cut as "the [insert number here] Doctor", however, the aforementioned precedent I cited comes into play here. (Additionally, adjectives can be used to adequately describe which "Dr. Who" the source is talking about.) Due to the ruling by admin @[[USer:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]]...
:It's not the infoboxes. It's the entire site, but it just affects the infoboxes more than other items. It's either  something that's being worked on or a bug that needs to be fixed. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:06, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
{{quote|Where you are correct is that '''with all the conflicting accounts of what this fellow calls himself, we should probably strive to use the names given by each individual sources in individually-sourced statement'''. Information from [[COMIC]]: ''[[4-Dimensional Vistas (comic story)|4-Dimensional Vistas]]'' does belong on this page, sorry. But a paragraph sourced to that story should refer to him as "the Time Meddler", not "the Monk". And so on.|@[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]]}}
...as stated at [[Talk:The Monk/Archive 1#Article made from whole cloth]], accompanied by the polcies given by [[Tardis:Valid sources]], we should use the name of the character as given within the story, regardless of whether or not another story uses a different name. The Doctor refers to himself as "Dr. Who"? That is the name we use. An example of this, as aforementioned admin @[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] gave at [[User talk:Danochy]], is [[COMIC]]: ''[[4-Dimensional Vistas (comic story)|4-Dimensional Vistas]]'', which uses the name "[[The Monk|The Time-Meddler]]" to refer to [[the Monk]] as "The Time-Meddler" was the name given in the source; this name is perfectly acceptable for use so long as it is cited by its respective story, despite "the Monk" being a more well-known name. There is an exception to this, which is that the character's best known name should be used in infoboxes, for clarity. I, admittedly, did not know this, however as soon as it was brought up, I immediately backtracked and switched "Dr. Who" for "First Doctor" becuase I wanted to follow the policies exactly


== Paragraph on regeneration ==
Furthermore, I am also backed up by [[Tardis:Neutral point of view]], which states quite clearly at the top of the page...
{{quote|Media doesn't matter. One of the most important aspects of this wiki is that '''all media have equal weight here.''' Television is not the most important source of information on this wiki. That which is said in a short story in [[Doctor Who Annual 1967|the 1967 ''Doctor Who Annual'']], or a ''[[Faction Paradox (series)|Faction Paradox]]'' audio drama, is just as valid as the latest episode of [[BBC Wales]] ''[[Doctor Who]]''.|[[T:NPOV]]}}
...therefore, the names retroactively applied to the Hartnell and Troughton Doctors ''do not'' supersede "Dr. Who".


: The exact circumstances surrounding the Doctor's regenerations were known with the exception of his eighth. ([[TV]]: ''[[The Tenth Planet (TV story)|The Tenth Planet]]'', et. al.) Although vague at times as to how many incarnations he had in his lifetime, an incident during the Doctor's fifth incarnation clarified the point. When asked by the First Doctor what regeneration he was up to, the Fifth Doctor answered, "Fourth," leading his first incarnation to exclaim, "Good heavens, so there are five of me now!" ([[TV]]: ''[[The Five Doctors (TV story)|The Five Doctors]]'') Similarly, while he was [[Craig Owens]]' lodger in [[Aickman Road]], the Eleventh Doctor explicitly called himself the eleventh. ([[TV]]: ''[[The Lodger (TV story)|The Lodger]]'') Clara also directly identified this incarnation of the Doctor as the eleventh. ([[TV]]: ''[[The Name of the Doctor (TV story)|The Name of the Doctor]]'')
Despite this, I am ''not'' advocating for the name "Dr. Who" to be intergrated into the pages of sources that do not use it. Even so, this change being implemented into the pages of television and other notable sources will obviously require a Forum thread, owing to the controversial nature of this proposed name change. Additionally, a name change towards certain incarnations of the Doctor may be beneficial, seeing as [[The Timeless Children (TV story)|certain major plot threads]] state that William Hartnell's Doctor was not the first. Another note against the current naming of the Doctors is that their names are barely even substantiated by any [[Tardis:Valid sources|valid sources]], so perhaps a new naming style like with the Monk may actually be the best course of action. [[The Doctor (An Unearthly Child)]], [[The Doctor (Planet of the Spiders)]], etc will likely be better for compliance with [[T:NPOV]]. I am rambling though, and this is really its own separate discussion that of course should be brought to the Forums when @[[User:CzechOut|CzechOut]] works out the problems, so I'll stop talking about this and focus on this little facet of the problem that ''can'' be resolved without much effort or discussion.


I understand over on [[Talk:The Doctor (The Name of the Doctor)]] there's contention over whether what we see in ''Night of the Doctor'' is a reveal of what the eighth regeneration is, or deliberate sleight-of-hand from Moffat, who has been proven to lie when promoting episodes (on top, the in-narrative evidence of regeneration being ''just'' off screen). That said, while I still think it's accurate to say Nine is Nine, Ten is Ten and Eleven is Eleven no matter whether Eighth is followed by Nine or "War Doctor", (the "War Doctor" guy doesn't actually go by "Doctor", so Nine is still the ninth incarnation known as "Doctor"), from what we supposedly see in ''Night'', Nine is not the eighth regeneration and Eleven is not the tenth regeneration. Supposedly. I feel that the easiest solution for this paragraph specifically is to leave it out, and THEN amend it once the full feature-length special clarifies things. -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 17:22, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
I will mention however, as my actions are well within policy, and I only changing the names in stories published by ''[[TV Comic]]'', which again, unambiguously uses the name "Dr. Who". I suspect that my actions will continue to be correct despite certain objections held by editors, but do remember, [[Tardis:You are bound by current policy]] and [[Tardis:Canon policy]] apply, in case if anybody is thinking that them simply objecting to this on a talk page will be enough to overturn policy or that if ''[[TV Comic]]'' is non-canonical. <div style="background-color:#0E234E; border: solid 0.5px gold; display: inline; white-space: nowrap;">[[doctorwho:user:Epsilon the Eternal|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white"><code>'''Epsilon'''</code></span>]][[doctorwho:user talk:Epsilon the Eternal|📯]] [[doctorwho:special:Contributions/Epsilon the Eternal|📂]]</div> 14:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


So now that the 50th is over, the way I understand the doctor count. Someone please correct me If im wrong:
:I largely agree with the direction of these edits, but don't forget about [[T:DOCTORS]]. On the page for a TV Comic story, I agree that we should use the name for the Doctor used in that story, with the exact incarnation number specified in the lede or the notes section; but on other pages, it's important for comprehensability's sake that each Doctor be identified by incarnation, [[T:NPOV]] be damned. I'm partial to "the first Dr. Who", myself. [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|]]) 20:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
1st Doctor=1st Incarnation=William Hartnell
2nd Doctor=2nd Incarnation=Patrick Troughton
3rd Doctor=3rd Incarnation=Jon Pertwee
4th Doctor=4th Incarnation=Tom Baker
5th Doctor=5th Incarnation=Peter Davison
6th Doctor=6th Incarnation=Colin Baker
7th Doctor=7th Incarnation=Sylvester McCoy
8th Doctor=8th Incarnation=Paul McGann
War Doctor=9th Incarnation=John Hurt
9th Doctor=10th Incarnation=Christopher Eccleston
10th Doctor=11th Incarnation=David Tennet
11th Doctor=12th Incarnation=Matt Smith
12th Doctor=13th Incarnation=Peter Capaldi
If this is correct, then I think we can assume 2 things: One, when Matt Smith regenerates into Peter Capaldi the Valeyard, according to lore, will be created. Two, that unless the writers get clever, Peter Capaldi will play the final incarnation of the doctor. [[Special:Contributions/71.60.37.160|71.60.37.160]]<sup>[[User talk:71.60.37.160#top|talk to me]]</sup> 08:01, November 25, 2013 (UTC)


==[[War Doctor|The War Doctor]]==
:: Yep, I'm in 100% agreement with N8 here. Specify "First Doctor" or "First Dr. Who" where necessary for the sake of clarity, specify "Dr. Who" or "The Doctor" (as appropriate to the text) following the initial numerical identifier.


I notice that The war Doctor, as portrayed by John Hurt, has not been added to the slide-show-scroller of the Doctor's incarnations in the infobox. Is there any particular reason for this? - [[User:MrSiriusBlack|MrSiriusBlack]] [[User talk:MrSiriusBlack|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 10:19, December 19, 2013 (UTC)
:: Also, is the quote where 2 mentions having regenerated before really in the TV serial? I'm certain it originated in the [[1993]] [[The Power of the Daleks (novelisation)|novelisation]]. I.e. it's a reference to [[The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius)]]. In fact, Epsilon, your argument against numbering falls apart when you consider ''[[The Brain of Morbius (TV story)|The Brain of Morbius]]'', as the same logic would suggest we can't even refer to [[Tom Baker]]'s Doctor from that era as the [[Fourth Doctor]]! [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] [[User talk:Danochy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
:::That bit in the novelization was based on a deleted scene from the original script. But even then, for a long time it was thought that Ian coined the title "the Doctor" and passed it along to other companions via word-of-mouth. (For instance, the First Doctor on TV never really referred to himself as "the Doctor".) So even if there were any number of incarnations before Hartnell, he still would have been the "First Doctor". – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 20:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


:::: No, no, I am pretty sure it was mentioned in the television serial. And actually, the Fourth Doctor shouldn't be used on Baker's Doctor, as up until ''[[The Deadly Assassin (TV story)|The Deadly Assassin]]'', he wasn't the Fourth Doctor, especially as ''[[The Brain of Morbius (TV story)|The Brain of Morbius]]'' literally showed that he had multiple incarnations ''before'' Hartnell. So "Fourth Doctor" is really not a good name. As for the "Dr. Who" bit, if an incarnation is to be used, it should be styled as "first Dr. Who", in accordance with [[Tardis:Doctors]], though I would still prefer ditching the numbering system in accounts where it is blatantly untrue. As for what the Doctor calls himself, there is a f deal of evidence to show that he refers to himself as "the Doctor" and "Dr. Who". <div style="background-color:#0E234E; border: solid 0.5px gold; display: inline; white-space: nowrap;">[[doctorwho:user:Epsilon the Eternal|<span style="background:#0E234E; color:white"><code>'''Epsilon'''</code></span>]][[doctorwho:user talk:Epsilon the Eternal|📯]] [[doctorwho:special:Contributions/Epsilon the Eternal|📂]]</div> 21:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


== New regenerations ==
:::::It's nice that you're "pretty sure" it was mentioned, but I am absolutely certain that [http://www.chakoteya.net/DoctorWho/4-3.htm it wasn't.]


*The Time Of The Doctor '''SPOILER ALERT'''
:::::I've said this to you before: the ''single purpose'' of every wiki is to be legible and usable, and all the other rules are in service of that goal. So if a rule makes a wiki less legible or usable, it bends. (Check out [[Talk:Interference - Book Two (novel)|Interference - Book Two]] if you want to see this in action.) What would it look like if we got rid of [[T:DOCTORS]] and the numbering system? What did it look like on ''[[The Power of the Daleks (TV story)|The Power of the Daleks]]'' after [[Special:Diff/3110042|your edits to it]]? Every user would have to hover over every instance of "the Doctor" or "Dr. Who" to see what dab term was pipe switched away. And that would be neither legible nor usable.


According to what the Doctor said, he has been granted new regeneration cycle. I believe the cycle defines whole set of 12 regenerations. This was great way, since the Master was given additional regenerations from Time Lords before, proving it is not directly biological limit, rather than that, it is in control of Time Lords.
:::::Whether "Fourth Doctor" is a good name has nothing to do with what he called himself or how it fits with [[T:NPOV]], and it has ''everything'' to do with the fact that "Fourth Doctor" is his ''[https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=fourth+doctor universally recognized]'' name. If [[T:DOCTORS]] breaks [[T:NPOV]], [[T:DOCTORS]] wins ''every single time''. You're doing nothing but hurting your case and wasting your time by complaining about numbering rather than focusing on more limited compromises that might be actually achievable. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 12:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


Since War Doctor and Tenth's midlife "meta-crysis" regeneration now canonically count, 11th Doctor marks the end of previous cycle and this new cycle might get us up to 23rd Doctor, hopefully for another few decades. --[[User:TakeruDavis|TakeruDavis]] [[User talk:TakeruDavis|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:30, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
:::::: I am once again in agreement with Nate. Changing the name to "Dr. Who" in the comic plot summaries is all well and good, but changing it on actors pages is pretty pedantic (and the redirect just plain pointless). Yes in the 60s, William Hartnell was not known as the "First Doctor", but this wiki is not being read in the 60s, it is being read in the 21st century and the people of the 21st century know him as the First Doctor (and have done for decades). And changing all accounts of "the x Doctor" to "Dr Who" or "the Doctor" (such as The Power of the Daleks edit) is massively confusing and unhelpful.


== Story count inaccuracy ==
:::::: P.S. Apologies, Epsilon for not replying to your message on my talk page. When I saw that you had created this thread, I figured this would be a more appropriate place to put my thoughts. [[User:LauraBatham|LauraBatham]] [[User talk:LauraBatham|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 12:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


"Despite having played the Doctor for less time and in fewer episodes than Tom Baker, Matt Smith holds the record for the most appearances in live-action television stories, with a total of 38, narrowly beating out David Tennant. If minisodes are counted, this total increases to 42."
:::::: I’m no expert on wiki policy, but I would agree that there’s a need for the wiki to be easily legible and usable by readers. Referring to the Doctor as Dr Who specifically in the context of TV Comic stories seems reasonable, but renaming all the Doctors as variants of [[The Doctor (An Unearthly Child)]] would be potentially difficult for readers to navigate and put this wiki out of touch with 99% of discussion around Doctor Who where the Doctors are referred to by those familiar numbers. I don’t think the [[The Timeless Children (TV story)|recent developments]] changes this at all, as a [[War Doctor|previous revelation]] also altered the numbering of the Doctors’ incarnations but the norm of referring to Eccleston’s Doctor as the Ninth Doctor, Tennant’s as Tenth, Smith’s as Eleventh etc has remained the same. [[User:SherlockTheII|SherlockTheII]] [[User talk:SherlockTheII|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
This isn't very true , is it? Tom Baker appeared in 41 stories (not including Shada), and Matt Smith appeared in 39. That's two more to Baker. He also doesn't narrowly beat David Tennant, who only appeared in 36 "stories". This implies Tennant is a lot higher than he actually is - he is five places below Baker. This whole "record" Smith supposedly holds isn't true in the slightest. [[Special:Contributions/86.139.19.168|86.139.19.168]]<sup>[[User talk:86.139.19.168#top|talk to me]]</sup> 00:34, January 26, 2014 (UTC)


== Duration of Seven and Eight's lifespans ==
: Yeah, I'm sorry, Epsilon, but dabbed page names for [[First Doctor]] onwards are simply never going to happen. And infoboxes should use a name that is specific to the page we are linking. If we had some other in-universe moniker specific to the Troughton Doctor, then perhaps it would be worth weighing that option… but we ''cannot'' start putting just "Dr Who", or indeed "The Doctor", in the |doctor= field of infoboxes. This helps no one whatsoever.


* Matt Smith's [[Eleventh Doctor|Doctor]] is also the longest-lived Doctor onscreen, spending at least 1500 years of his life in this incarnation (600 during his regular run and 900 during [[Siege of Trenzalore|his exile]] on [[Trenzalore]]). The [[Seventh Doctor|Seventh]] and [[Eighth Doctor|Eighth Doctors]] spent even larger periods of time in spin-off media ([[AUDIO]]: [[Frozen Time|<nowiki/>]][[Frozen Time (audio story)|''Frozen Time'']], ''[[Orbis (audio story)|Orbis]]'')
: Using "Dr. Who", and refraining from using "First" or "Second", makes sense for ''plot summaries'', as well as for the writing of paragraphs cited to these stories. Yes, plot description of, say, ''[[The Highlanders (TV story)|The Highlanders]]'' should not mention "the Second Doctor", just "the Doctor" or "Dr Who". But that doesn't mean that the legibility essentially real-world constructs such as infoboxes (whether it be the story's infobox or the actors') should be compromised — nor that it is ''false'' to refer to the man in ''The Highlanders'' as the Second Doctor in an in-universe sense. He ''is'' in fact "the Second Doctor" — albeit "according to some accounts". Thus, while we must not give the impression that the story uses this name, "the Second Doctor lived through these events" is a valid statement within the wider the DWU.


Corrected the seemingly erroneous "1500" bit already, but both of the figures for Seven and Eight seem wrong. For one, Seven was in some sort of cryogenic coma as I recall, while Eight (at least according to the page of [[Orbis]]) only spent 600 years on the planet Orbis. -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 21:46, February 8, 2014 (UTC)
: The thing about [[T:NPOV]] is that it mostly applies to what statements we make about the DWU, not how pages are named. Because pages cannot truly have several names at once, we ''necessarily'' have to "prioritise" one version over another when a character has several valid names. T:NPOV still has its place in terms of making sure that, for example, it is not "TV by default" that wins this assessment, rather than the name that actually makes the most sense and best reflects DWU sources in ''aggregate''. But it is not inherently a T:NPOV breach to say Troughton was the Second Doctor just because ''some'' stories number the Doctors differently. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
:: I am endorsing what Scrooge MacDuck, LauraBatham and NateBumber have said, above. Standardisation is necessary on a wiki (and universe) of this size, especially where characters as central as ''the Doctor'' are concerned.


==Uh...something's wrong with the 'Docpic'==
:: Also of note, as to why [[T:DOCTORS]] trumps any [[T:NPOV]] arguments: even with the last decade of ''Doctor Who'' on ''television'' firmly renumbering the Doctor's incarnations, in one way or another, "Twelfth Doctor" is a title, not always an accurate description.


The infobox slideshow (or 'Docpic') seems to have completely messed itself up. It mashes all Doctors and shows Twelve's eyes at every transition. Is this deliberate, or is it just me, or...? [[User:OfficialBBC|OfficialBBC]] [[User talk:OfficialBBC|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:03, May 11, 2014 (UTC)
:: This is where capitalising Twelfth, by convention, happens to also give the right idea: he is not necessarily the Doctor's twelfth incarnation, but he is, by most sources and common understanding, the "Twelfth Doctor". We decided in 2013 to stick with this and not confuse things, and we are not going back on that. The wiki would unfortunately be quite illegible.{{User:SOTO/sig}} 08:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
:I'm having a slightly different issue (only seeing Twelve's eyes and all of One) but I know this template is being worked on, so give it a couple of days and if it's still acting wonky, we can bring it to the attention of the admin who's working on it. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:06, May 11, 2014 (UTC)


== How many Doctors will there be ==
== Fugitive Doctor Placement (Infobox) ==


I was watching the special video right before the film premiere of the Day of the Doctor, the one where the Doctor tells you about how 3D works but there was something very interesting that I heard.  
After [[Once, Upon Time (TV story)|Once, Upon Time]], should the [[Fugitive Doctor|Fugitve Doctor]] be moved from "Others/Unplaced Incarnations" to "Widley Accpeted"? That story does confirm her to be a pre-Hartnell incarnation that worked for [[The Division]]. Or should we wait until this era is done, on the off chance they show an actual regeneration/transition. Perhpas even from her to the [[First Doctor|The First Doctor]], somehow.


The Eleventh Doctor (Matt Smith) said that he travelled in time to watch the 100 year special for the show and he said there were 57 Doctors, a total of 44 for from what year I am from.
[[User:TheOneTrueJack|TheOneTrueJack]] [[User talk:TheOneTrueJack|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
:: "Widely accepted" is really for the "main line-up", as it were, not just for characters who are "definitely the Doctor" in their portrayal. No one is denying [[The Doctor (Contents)]] counts, but they don't belong.  I suppose, if there were a direct regeneration into Harntell, the question could be raised of slotting Martin in that row, but so long as she remains, as it were, "free-floating" without a number or explicit precise placement, she doesn't belong there. <span style="color: #baa3d6;font-family:Comic Sans;">[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']]</span> <span style="color: #baa3d6;">[[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]]</span> 22:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


This video is highly non-canon but it is still there, it is on Youtube actually.What do you guys think? Will there be more Doctors?{{Unsigned-anon| 111.68.38.102}}
== Defaulting to the most recent incarnation with the tabbed infobox images ==
{{User:Bongolium500/Sandbox 7}}At almost exactly the same time as [[User:Scrooge MacDuck]] closed [[Tardis:Temporary forums/Archive/Replacing docpic]], I finalised a mock-up of a potential solution to allow us to keep the chronilogical ordering of tabs while having the [[Fourteenth Doctor|most recent incarnation]] selected by default, shown to the right (and on [[User:Bongolium500/Sandbox 7]]). Pretty much, the image listed earliest in the gallery is always the one that is selected by default. CSS can then be used to move this tab to the end of the row when the page is viewed. Therefore, the image for the most recent incarnation can be listed first and is then simply moved to the end by CSS. Currently, and temporarily, this is done by wrapping the infobox in a <tt><nowiki><div></nowiki></tt>, but a new infobox field could easily be added to allow this to be enabled on any infobox. The only issue I can think of is with mobile: CSS doesn't work there so the images will be displayed in the order they're listed, regardless of any changes made to their order with CSS. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


:Since we don't '''know''' the answer to that question, and can only guess or speculate, this topic does not belong on this page, per [[Tardis:Discussion policy]]. If you'd like to speculate about this, you can take this topic to [[Howling:The Howling]]. Thanks. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:45, July 2, 2014 (UTC)
: If the mobile issue is deemed to large, I have another potential solution which would avoid it using JavaScript. However, this would cause the first tab to initially be selected before jumping to the last tab during page load which may also be undesirable. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
== Question ==
Each of the Doctor's incarnation's has their special article. Shouldn't the cancelled 12th incarnation of the doctor have it's own article too?


(The incarnation that 10th doctor was supposed to regenerate into, but he sent the regeneration energy into his Spare Hand, thus cancelling process and creating his human Meta-Crisis)
:I'm fully in support of this. [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|Cousin Ettolrahc]] [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


[[User:Wario64|Wario64]] [[User talk:Wario64|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:44, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
== I still don't understand why… ==


:It does have its own article, at [[Meta-Crisis Doctor]]. [[User:Shambala108|Shambala108]] [[User talk:Shambala108|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:49, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
…the infobox images for each Doctor are completely different from those used on the individual pages? [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


I didn't mean Meta-Crisis. That was created from Doctor's Spare Hand by energy from regeneration. I meant the incarnation 10th Doctor will regenerate into at the end of The Stolen Earth and beggining of Journey's End, was it not for regeneration energy being transfered into Spare Hand. The meta-crisis is a side product of that regeneration.


"to prevent his full transformation into another form."
== Fourteenth Doctor tab pic ==
We'll definitely find better images as the specials progress, but for right now I'd like to propose we make the Fourteenth Doctor tab's pic on this page be [[:File:14 never here.png|14 never here.png]]. Just a better aspect ratio and look at the character than what we have right now. -- [[User:MattTheNerd42|MattTheNerd42]] [[User talk:MattTheNerd42|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


I mean the "another form"
: I don't think this suggested image is suitable at all. The subject of an image needs to be clearly visible when it's a thumbnail and most of the image is the TARDIS exterior. [[User:Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon|Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon]] [[User talk:Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
[[User:Wario64|Wario64]] [[User talk:Wario64|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:33, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
 
== Article picture aspect ratios ==
 
The aspect ratios for the pictures of Doctors 1 - 13 are the same, but 14 and 15 have different sizes. If someone knows how to make them equal to the others, I suggest they do so. [[User:Wozza123|Wozza123]] [[User talk:Wozza123|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 
: NGL I think we should seize this opportunity to overhaul most, if not all, of the images. They all have that annoying "crop out the forehead" crop that is not necessary now (or even ever, technically, people just misunderstood what counted as part of a person's face) and the overall resolution of a lot of these images are also low. {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 21:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 
== Matching individual article pages ==
 
:: Shouldn't the images be the same as on the individual incarnation pages? {{User:Aquanafrahudy/Sig}} 22:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 
::: I think Aquanafrahudy has a good point. Would be nice to update them all to match their respective pages. [[User:FractalDoctor|FractalDoctor]] [[User talk:FractalDoctor|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 
:::: As I did on the other version of the Wiki, I've gone ahead and updated the infobox gallery so that each Docpic matches their respective Docpic on their page. When we make a decision on 14 and 15's final images, we can then update this one to match. Surely this just makes sense. We could maybe crop them all in due course so they're all the same aspect ratio too? — [[User:FractalDoctor|Fractal Doctor]] [[User talk:FractalDoctor|<span title="Talk">•</span>]] 21:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 
::::: This has now been undone, so I guess I'll instead second Aquanafrahudy's suggestion above. Personally, I'm not even sure ''why'' the images here would be different to the ones on each individual page. At the very least, these images really could do with updated versions because most are very poor quality and haven't been updated with higher quality ones since 2014. I notice not only have myself and Aquanafrahudy mentioned it, but WaltK also raised the question back in November 2023 too. — [[User:FractalDoctor|Fractal Doctor]] [[User talk:FractalDoctor|<span title="Talk">•</span>]] 18:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 
:::::: Just to add: on the page for [[The Master]], each image used in the infobox correlates / is the same as the one used on each individual incarnation's respective page. Not sure why the Doctor is different then in this respect. — [[User:FractalDoctor|Fractal Doctor]] [[User talk:FractalDoctor|<span title="Talk">•</span>]] 19:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 
Bringing this back because I feel it's a valid discussion to have. Not sure why the images on this page wouldn't mirror those on each respective Doctor's page... especially since several are very low-quality, 6 is a promo photo (I think), 8 is a different aspect ratio, War is weirdly framed/cropped, some images are different sizes, 12 is just outright unflattering, 14 is quite dark, etc. <font face="Maven Pro" color="#000000">— [[User:Fractal|Fractal]] [[User talk:Fractal|<span title="Talk">•</span>]]</font> 20:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
 
: I agree but I think [[User:SOTO]] is opposed. It would be good to hear why. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|☎]] 20:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:54, 10 September 2024

Archive.png
Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

Infobox Image Update[[edit source]]

Hello. Is there any possibility of updating the images used for both the Twelfth Doctor and the Thirteenth Doctor's for ones that are more appropriate? I guess I get the "eyebrows" thing so that image isn't *too* bad I suppose (still think better could be done), but surely the Thirteenth Doctor deserves an image of herself in her actual clothing rather than the image currently in use which is from her opening story The Woman Who Fell to Earth and displays her still wearing the ragged and battered remains of her previous incarnation's clothing? I hope you'll take these suggestions under advisement. Thank you for reading. --Alan-WK 02:19, January 13, 2020 (UTC)

The Timeless Child[[edit source]]

So, obviously there will have to be some changes. For starters, the Jo Martin Doctor added to More Ambiguous section of the Doctor's incarnations. Other than that, how big a rewrite are we looking at and how much should be kept to other pages likeTimeless Child?--TheOneTrueJack 21:00, March 1, 2020 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can put it together, it's the 8 Timeless Child regenerations, at least 5 more, the 8 Morbius regenerations, Ruth, 4 more, Hartnell - Matt, Capaldi - Present. We know that the Timeless Child regenerations and the Morbius ones can't be the same cycle as the Doctor was kidified after each 13, so it seems. So Jodie is not, at least the 27th Doctor now.--HarryPotterRules1 21:16, March 1, 2020 (UTC)
If we take it that The Timeless Child was at the start of Time Lord society and for whatever reason was never cryogenically frozen or forced into the future. Then it stands to reason that he/she is as old as Time Lord society. In The Ultimate Foe who we used to call The Sixth Doctor says that they've been around for 10 Million years. Now if we take The Eleventh Doctors life of 1100 years as a measure for a standard regenerations life span as this was the longest and seemed to die of natural causes. Then at MINIMUM The Doctor has had 9,091 lives which are not including any that were cut short by falling off any cliffs or mother figures experimenting on them. --Thebobbrom 23:53, March 2, 2020 (UTC)
It seems like the Thirteen lives rule was put in place much later on. So that wouldn't apply to the Timeless Child incarnations --TheOneTrueJack 21:24, March 1, 2020 (UTC)
Except we can't call any of those before Hartnell any variant of the [number] Doctor. Cause if we do that we'll have to re-route, in no exaggeration, the "ENTIRE" Wikia from scratch. --DCLM 21:29, March 1, 2020 (UTC)
Well obviously we can't do that. The Morbius Doctors can be referred to as such, and the Timeless Child incarnations can be included in the Timeless Child page. But should they both (as two sperate groups) be put in the More Ambiguous section of the Doctor's incarnations? And how much should the main Doctor page talk about them? The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheOneTrueJack (talk • contribs) .

Well, that's the thing. I don't believe the Doctor is bound to the 13 lives. The Timelords just sort of "kid-i-fied" the Doctor again when he reached the end of his 13 "lives"; that's what the whole Brendan stuff was. The Doctor believed he was bound to the 13 "lives" because he didn't remember anything before hand. But, in actuality, he wasn't bound to it at all. So it could literally be the 8 on the table plus 5 more - then kid-i-fied and made to forget - then the 8 morbius, Ruth and 4 more - then Kid-i-fied and made to forget - then Hartnell onwards and the Timelords only gave the "new" cycle to the Doctor to hide their lie.--HarryPotterRules1 21:46, March 1, 2020 (UTC)

That would make sense if the Time Lords didn't have to restore the Doctor's regeneration ability in The Time of the Doctor. Though if they restored the Doctor's original ability, it would explain the ambiguity of how many regenerations the Doctor has now.--WarGrowlmon18 21:55, March 1, 2020 (UTC)
The Brendan stuff was a cover-story to hide the truth about the Time Lords' beginning. Brendan, his parents, the Sergeant etc. never existed. They were images layered on top of the real truth. --DCLM 22:00, March 1, 2020 (UTC)
The Timeless Child could regenerate indefinitely. But THE DOCTOR was limited to 13 lives. That's not really a matter of perspective. It was seen that the Doctor could only regenerate 12 times. This means that the limitation of 12 regenerations was also bestowed on the Doctor, or maybe perhaps after they "stopped" being the Timeless Child. --DCLM 22:02, March 1, 2020 (UTC)
That's my point. Did they restore it? I believe the Doctor was bound to the 13 body limits because he believed he was. He actually wasn't - he just thought he was because he believed he was a Timelord, when he isn't - he's something different. The Timelords gave him a "new" cycle to hide the truth of what he was - constantly and continually able to regenerate.--HarryPotterRules1 22:04, March 1, 2020 (UTC)
The Doctor IS a Time Lord. You can't get around that. However as the Seventh Doctor said "I'm far more than just another Time Lord". And he WAS limited down. That's what they did, as other media stories have explained was done at some point to the Time Lord race. --DCLM 22:09, March 1, 2020 (UTC)
No, wrong. We know now that the Doctor is not a Timelord. The Doctor is an entirely different species who was studied by the original Timelord/Shebogan to create regeneration. The Doctor only believed she/he was a Timelord. --HarryPotterRules1 22:18, March 1, 2020 (UTC)
I'm up with Harry. The Doctor is not a Timelord anymore, but the "ancestor" species of the Time Lords: a Timeless Child (not official name but just to make it clear). --Con Carne (Di la verdad, o cobras...) 10:09, March 2, 2020 (UTC)
No. The Doctor was MADE into a Time Lord. Also whoever changed the page, please don't just change it without a conclusion to this. Con Carne, don't just make a change this major. It needs proper discussion. You and Harry agreeing, doesn't alone make it so. We need proper consultation that admins also join in on before we can just decide something this major. --DCLM 10:19, March 2, 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the Board of Discussions. I'll make a thread. --DCLM 10:21, March 2, 2020 (UTC)

Just one thing, it wasn't me, I haven't changed anything in the article. :( --Con Carne (Di la verdad, o cobras...) 11:49, March 2, 2020 (UTC)
I know, that was my bad. I didn't looks properly. Sorry about that. I DID change my statement to say "whoever changed the page". Sorry for the mistunderstanding. --DCLM 11:53, March 2, 2020 (UTC)

How did you make the docpic slideshow?[[edit source]]

How did you make the slideshow feature/template entitled "docpic" inside the infobox? I'd like to achieve something similar for a wiki I'm working on. JustWilhelm 10:10, July 27, 2020 (UTC)

"The Doctor's Species"[[edit source]]

I agree that we should keep the "the doctor's species" under their species but why isn't there also "Time Lord" as well. Although the Doctor started life as whatever species they were when Tecteun found them, since Hartnell -> Whittaker, they have been bound to the thirteen incarnation cycles with two hearts and should unequivocably be called a time lord since being changed into one by the time lords using the chameleon arch (as hinted at by those Brendan scenes). The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cptjackhotness (talk • contribs) .

Hi! If The Doctor's species were the page about the species of the Timeless Child, you would be correct, but it's not. That's "Timeless Child's species". The page The Doctor's species is an overview detailing all the conflicting accounts of whether the Doctor is a Time Lord, a human, half-human, a member of the Timeless Child's species, etc.
Also, it's not evident that the Brendan scene corresponds to a chameleon arch specifically. It could just as easily have just been a deaging/mindwiping process. According to The Timeless Children the Shobogans became the Time Lords when Tecteun spliced DNA of the Timeless Child into them, so it's a perfectly valid interpretation that the Timeless Child was the original two-hearted binary-vascular-systemed species, and it's the Shobogans who were altered to resemble the Doctor, not the other way around. Scrooge MacDuck 13:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Usage of "Dr. Who"[[edit source]]

Okay, seeing as my edits on TV Comic stories have been questioned, I shall explain why I am using the name "Dr. Who" and how policy backs me up on this.

As a bit of context, the names "First Doctor" and "Second Doctor" were never used in the characters' original televised runs. The only times they are used are in stories such as PROSE: The Eight Doctors and other works by Terrance Dicks. (see more about Dicks' naming conventions over at Forum:Is using "First Doctor", "Second Doctor" etc in-universe?, however, me linking this does not mean I agree with the conclusion.)
These names have been retroactively applied to these characters, despite evidence from the television stories directly contradicting this, perhaps most notably in TV: The Power of the Daleks when the "Patrick Troughton" Doctor mentioned that the "regeneration" he undertook was a restorative feature of his TARDIS and that he had used it before, meaing that Troughton was not playing the "Second Doctor". (This also means there have been "Pre-Hartnell Doctors" from pretty early on folks!). A precedent notably seen over on Talk:Tzim-Sha#Rename and the various talk pages of Amy Pond, is that the name that the characters actually use to refer to themselves as takes precendent. So, in the case of the Doctor, this policy applies. We, as the rule abiding users, should use the name, the title that the Doctor chose for himself, which is in most stories, "the Doctor". In the case of TV Comic, "the Doctor" is short for "Dr. Who", so this indicates to me that "the Doctor" should be the name that is most widely used, and "Dr. Who" for his name in place of the regular usage of "[insert number here] Doctor", in sources that actually state that "Dr. Who" is the Doctor's full name of course. This also would be mean that "[insert number here] Doctor" would be acceptable if substantiated by the respective source.

Now, the argument has been made that "Dr. Who" is not as clear cut as "the [insert number here] Doctor", however, the aforementioned precedent I cited comes into play here. (Additionally, adjectives can be used to adequately describe which "Dr. Who" the source is talking about.) Due to the ruling by admin @Scrooge MacDuck...

Where you are correct is that with all the conflicting accounts of what this fellow calls himself, we should probably strive to use the names given by each individual sources in individually-sourced statement. Information from COMIC: 4-Dimensional Vistas does belong on this page, sorry. But a paragraph sourced to that story should refer to him as "the Time Meddler", not "the Monk". And so on.@Scrooge MacDuck

...as stated at Talk:The Monk/Archive 1#Article made from whole cloth, accompanied by the polcies given by Tardis:Valid sources, we should use the name of the character as given within the story, regardless of whether or not another story uses a different name. The Doctor refers to himself as "Dr. Who"? That is the name we use. An example of this, as aforementioned admin @Scrooge MacDuck gave at User talk:Danochy, is COMIC: 4-Dimensional Vistas, which uses the name "The Time-Meddler" to refer to the Monk as "The Time-Meddler" was the name given in the source; this name is perfectly acceptable for use so long as it is cited by its respective story, despite "the Monk" being a more well-known name. There is an exception to this, which is that the character's best known name should be used in infoboxes, for clarity. I, admittedly, did not know this, however as soon as it was brought up, I immediately backtracked and switched "Dr. Who" for "First Doctor" becuase I wanted to follow the policies exactly

Furthermore, I am also backed up by Tardis:Neutral point of view, which states quite clearly at the top of the page...

Media doesn't matter. One of the most important aspects of this wiki is that all media have equal weight here. Television is not the most important source of information on this wiki. That which is said in a short story in the 1967 Doctor Who Annual, or a Faction Paradox audio drama, is just as valid as the latest episode of BBC Wales Doctor Who.T:NPOV

...therefore, the names retroactively applied to the Hartnell and Troughton Doctors do not supersede "Dr. Who".

Despite this, I am not advocating for the name "Dr. Who" to be intergrated into the pages of sources that do not use it. Even so, this change being implemented into the pages of television and other notable sources will obviously require a Forum thread, owing to the controversial nature of this proposed name change. Additionally, a name change towards certain incarnations of the Doctor may be beneficial, seeing as certain major plot threads state that William Hartnell's Doctor was not the first. Another note against the current naming of the Doctors is that their names are barely even substantiated by any valid sources, so perhaps a new naming style like with the Monk may actually be the best course of action. The Doctor (An Unearthly Child), The Doctor (Planet of the Spiders), etc will likely be better for compliance with T:NPOV. I am rambling though, and this is really its own separate discussion that of course should be brought to the Forums when @CzechOut works out the problems, so I'll stop talking about this and focus on this little facet of the problem that can be resolved without much effort or discussion.

I will mention however, as my actions are well within policy, and I only changing the names in stories published by TV Comic, which again, unambiguously uses the name "Dr. Who". I suspect that my actions will continue to be correct despite certain objections held by editors, but do remember, Tardis:You are bound by current policy and Tardis:Canon policy apply, in case if anybody is thinking that them simply objecting to this on a talk page will be enough to overturn policy or that if TV Comic is non-canonical.

14:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I largely agree with the direction of these edits, but don't forget about T:DOCTORS. On the page for a TV Comic story, I agree that we should use the name for the Doctor used in that story, with the exact incarnation number specified in the lede or the notes section; but on other pages, it's important for comprehensability's sake that each Doctor be identified by incarnation, T:NPOV be damned. I'm partial to "the first Dr. Who", myself. – n8 () 20:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Yep, I'm in 100% agreement with N8 here. Specify "First Doctor" or "First Dr. Who" where necessary for the sake of clarity, specify "Dr. Who" or "The Doctor" (as appropriate to the text) following the initial numerical identifier.
Also, is the quote where 2 mentions having regenerated before really in the TV serial? I'm certain it originated in the 1993 novelisation. I.e. it's a reference to The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius). In fact, Epsilon, your argument against numbering falls apart when you consider The Brain of Morbius, as the same logic would suggest we can't even refer to Tom Baker's Doctor from that era as the Fourth Doctor! Danochy 20:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
That bit in the novelization was based on a deleted scene from the original script. But even then, for a long time it was thought that Ian coined the title "the Doctor" and passed it along to other companions via word-of-mouth. (For instance, the First Doctor on TV never really referred to himself as "the Doctor".) So even if there were any number of incarnations before Hartnell, he still would have been the "First Doctor". – n8 () 20:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
No, no, I am pretty sure it was mentioned in the television serial. And actually, the Fourth Doctor shouldn't be used on Baker's Doctor, as up until The Deadly Assassin, he wasn't the Fourth Doctor, especially as The Brain of Morbius literally showed that he had multiple incarnations before Hartnell. So "Fourth Doctor" is really not a good name. As for the "Dr. Who" bit, if an incarnation is to be used, it should be styled as "first Dr. Who", in accordance with Tardis:Doctors, though I would still prefer ditching the numbering system in accounts where it is blatantly untrue. As for what the Doctor calls himself, there is a f deal of evidence to show that he refers to himself as "the Doctor" and "Dr. Who". 21:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
It's nice that you're "pretty sure" it was mentioned, but I am absolutely certain that it wasn't.
I've said this to you before: the single purpose of every wiki is to be legible and usable, and all the other rules are in service of that goal. So if a rule makes a wiki less legible or usable, it bends. (Check out Interference - Book Two if you want to see this in action.) What would it look like if we got rid of T:DOCTORS and the numbering system? What did it look like on The Power of the Daleks after your edits to it? Every user would have to hover over every instance of "the Doctor" or "Dr. Who" to see what dab term was pipe switched away. And that would be neither legible nor usable.
Whether "Fourth Doctor" is a good name has nothing to do with what he called himself or how it fits with T:NPOV, and it has everything to do with the fact that "Fourth Doctor" is his universally recognized name. If T:DOCTORS breaks T:NPOV, T:DOCTORS wins every single time. You're doing nothing but hurting your case and wasting your time by complaining about numbering rather than focusing on more limited compromises that might be actually achievable. – n8 () 12:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I am once again in agreement with Nate. Changing the name to "Dr. Who" in the comic plot summaries is all well and good, but changing it on actors pages is pretty pedantic (and the redirect just plain pointless). Yes in the 60s, William Hartnell was not known as the "First Doctor", but this wiki is not being read in the 60s, it is being read in the 21st century and the people of the 21st century know him as the First Doctor (and have done for decades). And changing all accounts of "the x Doctor" to "Dr Who" or "the Doctor" (such as The Power of the Daleks edit) is massively confusing and unhelpful.
P.S. Apologies, Epsilon for not replying to your message on my talk page. When I saw that you had created this thread, I figured this would be a more appropriate place to put my thoughts. LauraBatham 12:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I’m no expert on wiki policy, but I would agree that there’s a need for the wiki to be easily legible and usable by readers. Referring to the Doctor as Dr Who specifically in the context of TV Comic stories seems reasonable, but renaming all the Doctors as variants of The Doctor (An Unearthly Child) would be potentially difficult for readers to navigate and put this wiki out of touch with 99% of discussion around Doctor Who where the Doctors are referred to by those familiar numbers. I don’t think the recent developments changes this at all, as a previous revelation also altered the numbering of the Doctors’ incarnations but the norm of referring to Eccleston’s Doctor as the Ninth Doctor, Tennant’s as Tenth, Smith’s as Eleventh etc has remained the same. SherlockTheII 16:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sorry, Epsilon, but dabbed page names for First Doctor onwards are simply never going to happen. And infoboxes should use a name that is specific to the page we are linking. If we had some other in-universe moniker specific to the Troughton Doctor, then perhaps it would be worth weighing that option… but we cannot start putting just "Dr Who", or indeed "The Doctor", in the |doctor= field of infoboxes. This helps no one whatsoever.
Using "Dr. Who", and refraining from using "First" or "Second", makes sense for plot summaries, as well as for the writing of paragraphs cited to these stories. Yes, plot description of, say, The Highlanders should not mention "the Second Doctor", just "the Doctor" or "Dr Who". But that doesn't mean that the legibility essentially real-world constructs such as infoboxes (whether it be the story's infobox or the actors') should be compromised — nor that it is false to refer to the man in The Highlanders as the Second Doctor in an in-universe sense. He is in fact "the Second Doctor" — albeit "according to some accounts". Thus, while we must not give the impression that the story uses this name, "the Second Doctor lived through these events" is a valid statement within the wider the DWU.
The thing about T:NPOV is that it mostly applies to what statements we make about the DWU, not how pages are named. Because pages cannot truly have several names at once, we necessarily have to "prioritise" one version over another when a character has several valid names. T:NPOV still has its place in terms of making sure that, for example, it is not "TV by default" that wins this assessment, rather than the name that actually makes the most sense and best reflects DWU sources in aggregate. But it is not inherently a T:NPOV breach to say Troughton was the Second Doctor just because some stories number the Doctors differently. Scrooge MacDuck 17:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I am endorsing what Scrooge MacDuck, LauraBatham and NateBumber have said, above. Standardisation is necessary on a wiki (and universe) of this size, especially where characters as central as the Doctor are concerned.
Also of note, as to why T:DOCTORS trumps any T:NPOV arguments: even with the last decade of Doctor Who on television firmly renumbering the Doctor's incarnations, in one way or another, "Twelfth Doctor" is a title, not always an accurate description.
This is where capitalising Twelfth, by convention, happens to also give the right idea: he is not necessarily the Doctor's twelfth incarnation, but he is, by most sources and common understanding, the "Twelfth Doctor". We decided in 2013 to stick with this and not confuse things, and we are not going back on that. The wiki would unfortunately be quite illegible.
× SOTO (💬/✏️/) 10:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC) 08:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Fugitive Doctor Placement (Infobox)[[edit source]]

After Once, Upon Time, should the Fugitve Doctor be moved from "Others/Unplaced Incarnations" to "Widley Accpeted"? That story does confirm her to be a pre-Hartnell incarnation that worked for The Division. Or should we wait until this era is done, on the off chance they show an actual regeneration/transition. Perhpas even from her to the The First Doctor, somehow.

TheOneTrueJack 21:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"Widely accepted" is really for the "main line-up", as it were, not just for characters who are "definitely the Doctor" in their portrayal. No one is denying The Doctor (Contents) counts, but they don't belong. I suppose, if there were a direct regeneration into Harntell, the question could be raised of slotting Martin in that row, but so long as she remains, as it were, "free-floating" without a number or explicit precise placement, she doesn't belong there. Scrooge MacDuck 22:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Defaulting to the most recent incarnation with the tabbed infobox images[[edit source]]

At almost exactly the same time as User:Scrooge MacDuck closed Tardis:Temporary forums/Archive/Replacing docpic, I finalised a mock-up of a potential solution to allow us to keep the chronilogical ordering of tabs while having the most recent incarnation selected by default, shown to the right (and on User:Bongolium500/Sandbox 7). Pretty much, the image listed earliest in the gallery is always the one that is selected by default. CSS can then be used to move this tab to the end of the row when the page is viewed. Therefore, the image for the most recent incarnation can be listed first and is then simply moved to the end by CSS. Currently, and temporarily, this is done by wrapping the infobox in a <div>, but a new infobox field could easily be added to allow this to be enabled on any infobox. The only issue I can think of is with mobile: CSS doesn't work there so the images will be displayed in the order they're listed, regardless of any changes made to their order with CSS. Bongo50 22:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

If the mobile issue is deemed to large, I have another potential solution which would avoid it using JavaScript. However, this would cause the first tab to initially be selected before jumping to the last tab during page load which may also be undesirable. Bongo50 22:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm fully in support of this. Cousin Ettolrahc 22:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I still don't understand why…[[edit source]]

…the infobox images for each Doctor are completely different from those used on the individual pages? WaltK 20:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


Fourteenth Doctor tab pic[[edit source]]

We'll definitely find better images as the specials progress, but for right now I'd like to propose we make the Fourteenth Doctor tab's pic on this page be 14 never here.png. Just a better aspect ratio and look at the character than what we have right now. -- MattTheNerd42 17:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this suggested image is suitable at all. The subject of an image needs to be clearly visible when it's a thumbnail and most of the image is the TARDIS exterior. Jack "BtR" Saxon 17:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Article picture aspect ratios[[edit source]]

The aspect ratios for the pictures of Doctors 1 - 13 are the same, but 14 and 15 have different sizes. If someone knows how to make them equal to the others, I suggest they do so. Wozza123 18:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

NGL I think we should seize this opportunity to overhaul most, if not all, of the images. They all have that annoying "crop out the forehead" crop that is not necessary now (or even ever, technically, people just misunderstood what counted as part of a person's face) and the overall resolution of a lot of these images are also low. 21:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Matching individual article pages[[edit source]]

Shouldn't the images be the same as on the individual incarnation pages? Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 22:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I think Aquanafrahudy has a good point. Would be nice to update them all to match their respective pages. FractalDoctor 01:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
As I did on the other version of the Wiki, I've gone ahead and updated the infobox gallery so that each Docpic matches their respective Docpic on their page. When we make a decision on 14 and 15's final images, we can then update this one to match. Surely this just makes sense. We could maybe crop them all in due course so they're all the same aspect ratio too? — Fractal Doctor 21:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This has now been undone, so I guess I'll instead second Aquanafrahudy's suggestion above. Personally, I'm not even sure why the images here would be different to the ones on each individual page. At the very least, these images really could do with updated versions because most are very poor quality and haven't been updated with higher quality ones since 2014. I notice not only have myself and Aquanafrahudy mentioned it, but WaltK also raised the question back in November 2023 too. — Fractal Doctor 18:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Just to add: on the page for The Master, each image used in the infobox correlates / is the same as the one used on each individual incarnation's respective page. Not sure why the Doctor is different then in this respect. — Fractal Doctor 19:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Bringing this back because I feel it's a valid discussion to have. Not sure why the images on this page wouldn't mirror those on each respective Doctor's page... especially since several are very low-quality, 6 is a promo photo (I think), 8 is a different aspect ratio, War is weirdly framed/cropped, some images are different sizes, 12 is just outright unflattering, 14 is quite dark, etc. Fractal 20:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree but I think User:SOTO is opposed. It would be good to hear why. Bongo50 20:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)