Talk:War Doctor/Archive 2
 |
Archives: |
|---|
November 2013 rename discussion
When the article name is changed it'll need to be noted that he is not referred to as the War Doctor on screen, just in the closing credits, at least in the minisode (that may change, of course). Also, media are already beginning to refer to him as the Ninth Doctor, so a redirect of some sort will need to be added to Ninth Doctor. I will take the liberty if it isn't locked and no one else has done it already. 68.146.70.124talk to me 14:19, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
- I think a hatnote on "Ninth Doctor" is better than a redirect. Furthermore, he isn't actually the "Ninth Doctor" because he isn't a "Doctor" due to breaking the "promise" and using a different name. Also, it had been made incredibly clear that Matt Smith is the Eleventh Doctor anyway. --SnorlaxMonster 14:28, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest we wait until after the 23rd to make a decision on this. Silent Hunter UK ☎ 19:21, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
- Oh no. Please, we can't keep this name. That was good when he only appeared in "The Name of the Doctor". Now, he is in two different stories so... The Renegade or the War Doctor, I think. If they put "The War Doctor" in the credits, it is not an coincidence :) Lady Junky 19:31, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
- Hopefully we'll get a better name for him next Saturday, but until then "The War Doctor" does seem the most appropriate. "The War Doctor" might not be an in-universe name, but neither is "The Doctor", and in my opinion just calling him "The Doctor" even with a parenthetical is even worse from an in-universe perspective since one of the few things we do seem to know about him is that he did not go by that name. Burzolog ☎ 20:28, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
- Lady Junky, it's site policy to use the name of the character's debut episode when disambiguation is needed. But I agree that this article should be called The War Doctor, as that's what he's called in Night of the Doctor's credits. Digifiend Talk PR/SS KR MH Toku JD Garo TH CG UM Logos CLG DW 21:09,14/11/2013
- Hopefully we'll get a better name for him next Saturday, but until then "The War Doctor" does seem the most appropriate. "The War Doctor" might not be an in-universe name, but neither is "The Doctor", and in my opinion just calling him "The Doctor" even with a parenthetical is even worse from an in-universe perspective since one of the few things we do seem to know about him is that he did not go by that name. Burzolog ☎ 20:28, November 14, 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys :) As Silent Hunter UK has indicated, the wisest course of action is to simply wait until 23 November. We want to make sure we've got the right name and that we understand who this character really is. It would be a bad use of time to change the name of this article to "the War Doctor" only to find out next eek that it's not "the War Doctor" at all.
I've reverted the article to a point before The Night of the Doctor had been released. As with all prequels/preludes/teasers, its point was to stimulate the salivary glands, not to reveal any truths. It's important to remember that Moffat would be a poor showman indeed if he'd just given us the answers about Hurt's character. What, then, would be the need of the full episode?
So let's just put this whole renaming thing on hold for a mere 8 days and write from a position of knowledge rather than speculation. Remember: we didn't even actually see McGann turn into Hurt in this webcast, so we can't assert too much at this point. Patience now will lead to better editing later.
This figure is likely to be important to the whole mythos of the show, so let's make sure we get a good, solid, narratively-introduced name, rather than going from one credit-based name to another.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 00:38: Fri 15 Nov 2013
- I can understand the rationale behind waiting to move the article, but surely it's stretching things a bit to say that we didn't see McGann turn into Hurt? We saw McGann regenerating, we cut away, then we saw a figure in the same clothes with the face of the young Hurt (in reflection). Just because there wasn't an on-screen morph doesn't mean that we can deny the clear implication. —Josiah Rowe ☎ 05:14, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, it's pretty clearly a regeneration story, we just didn't see a full morph because the minisode had a limited budget. And from Moffat's comments it's clear that the intent was for this to be a regeneration story. JagoAndLitefoot ☎ 08:56, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Moffat's comments are out-of-universe and therefore not valid sources for in-universe stories. Shambala108 ☎ 15:11, November 15, 2013 (UTC)
