Talk:Eighth Doctor

	Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5

Infobox pic

After a careful review of the picture which has been in the infobox over a year, file:Eighth Doctor.jpg, I determined it was necessary to delete it. In my view, it was obviously improperly colour-balanced versus the most recent DVD release. It was so red-shifted that it exaggerated the fact that McGann was wearing a wig, but, more disturbingly, it gave him roseacea. The scene from which the picture came, his farewell to Grace at the end, is backlit, which always makes the subject appear dark at 250px. I tried playing around with the image to get it to look okay at 250px, but any lightening made the problem recur. It's just one of those scenes that looks fine on a TV, but when you bring it down to 250px,you run into problems.

I've put up another image. If people don't like it and want to change it, fine. Whatever we might think of the plot, it's a beautifully shot film and there are tons of great images of the Eighth Doctor. But please don't try to use anything from that farewell scene at the end of the film.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 09:36:23 Tue 14 Jun 2011 

For the purposes of future clarification, please note that a user has put a new picture at file:Eighth Doctor.jpg. The current picture at that page is not the one referred to in my earlier post. The current Eighth Doctor.jpg is perfectly acceptable.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 17:05:48 Tue 14 Jun 2011 

Changed to File:Eight.jpg. Previous image looked disproportioned, and may well be. This one is face on. Consulted Revan as to this change. Other opinions?----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:14, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have an opinion. The image you added isn't that great, it's too stretched. Although the Doctor's face in my image however looks just fine. Though this may not be a good enough reason, until this matter is resolved, that image you added is only temporary. Cortion 17:34, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? The image I added was a direct screenshot straight from the standard sized image. It isn't stretched. Your image is stretched if anything. The image I uploaded is a larger file and so it is of a higher quality. It is face on, rather than to the side. I have consulted Revan as to this change so it isn't just personal opinion. This image is often used in media to advertise the Eighth Doctor (but the screenshot is my own). These are my reasons. Lets look at yours: "I prefer this image." Hmm...sorry to sound harsh, but I already intended to change this image and waited to see what others thought. Of course I'm not saying that we should consult on every edit, but as a main page I think It deserves some discussion rather that just personal preference. If anyone can find an image better than this, I'd very much like to see it and if you still differ in opinion please state why. Thanks----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:43, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll weigh in on this, since I kinda started things by deleting the old pic. I like both Skittles' and Cortion's pics. I think they're both fine improvements on what was there before. But if I'm honest, I do have a slight preference for Cortion's. It's one of my very favorite shots of McGann. As someone who's combed that movie for images on many occasions, I think I can pretty much guarantee Cortion hasn't unnaturally warped it. Rather, Geoffrey Sax did. It's taken during the scene where things are very confused for the newly-regenerated Doctor, so there are some in-camera lens effects going on. I think the fact that he's looking left is ideal for an infobox that's placed on the right of a page. Given a choice between an image that's left-facing versus one where the person's eyes are skyward, I would naturally choose the left-facing one every time. It's an old bit of design theory; you tend to want your subjects looking in the direction of the body of text. It's one of the reasons that my offering to the page was right-facing. People will tend to reject images that face away from the text, and I wanted people actively looking for a better shot for the infobox. Like I said, though, both are way better than what was there before.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 18:17:06 Fri 17 Jun 2011 

I prefer the image I submitted because (like you said) it isn't warped and it's closer up. I'm not really sure why you like the other image. Because it's a full body shot? I think a face on image is much better than one where he's facing the text, simply because you want to see the character's face.----Skittles the hog--Talk 18:24, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to explain my preference any better. I've described it pretty thoroughly, above. I will say, though, that you're mischaracterising your shot, and therefore the differences between it and Cortion's.

• You can totally see Eight's face in both shots. Neither your image's nor Cortion's are better than the other's at giving a clear representation of what the character looks like.

• Your picture isn't head-on. It's taken from an unnaturally close up angle with the subject turned towards the camera, eyes up. Because of the innovative nature of Sax's framing, there are few examples of terribly static, head-on shot composition in the movie. Thus, the actual choice is between two stylised pics — one with the eyes looking up and one with the eyes looking left. Both pics have some degree of focus-pulling tricks going on — yours loses focus around the edges because it's so tight on McGann's nose; Cortion's because Sax is actively trying to suggest the loss of equilibrium. I never said that yours wasn't warped. It is, because Sax is a dynamic director, and he had a great DOP working for him.

Now, I'm not saying there's an obvious "winner" between the two. I'm just saying they're both very similar, but the one that's eyes-left pulls the reader towards the copy, whereas yours points the reader towards the wikia header.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 17:40:39 Sun 19 Jun 2011 

Why not use the promotional photos, then? How about this one? Mugen Kagemaru 05:09, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

All right, I've uploaded a cropped version of the above image. If you want to use it, go ahead. Mugen Kagemaru 22:57, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

"Casting"

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that the "Casting" section has absolutely no sources? That information, if true (and the way it's written suggest to me that it... may not be), should have come from somewhere and we should make a point of ensuring that it's accurate. I just don't really know nor do I have access to sources that might illuminate such matters (with one exception that does not actually include much of the information present in the secion as-is, so...). Does anyone have any thoughts or sources, etc? If not, I plan on removing it because it's been bothering me. --SB | T 19:32, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Dark Eyes audio drama - new look Doctor

The cover for the new Big Finish audio drama Dark Eyes reveals that the Eighth Doctor has a new costume and new short haircut (Paul stopped using the wig). As a result, I'd say an updated image of him is needed on this page. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=478229038872950&set=a.215895871772936.75031.215891121773411&type=1&theater Digifiend 22:10, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

We can't include an image of the Doctor in his new look until the story has been released as it offends our "spoiler policy". --Revan\Talk 22:18, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

Even when the story is released, we can't use cover images of people already on television, per T:ICC. -- Tybort (talk page) 00:01, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it had to be on the infobox. There are already comic and novel images on the page, as well as an image from AUDIO: Other Lives, and I take it those also fall under T:ICC. As far as I'm aware, there are no other pictures of the Eighth Doctor's new look, as Dark Eyes is it's debut. Fair enough about the spoiler policy, but Tybort, your logic is flawed. If, once it's released, the Dark Eyes cover image still cannot be used, then the Other Lives image should be removed as well, as it's from the same type of source. Digifiend 00:58, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

Then it probably should be removed. Comic images are fine, and the novel image comes from a in-story web illustration rather than a cover. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I thought then I thought that rule meant the overall subject, rather than a look which wasn't seen in DWM or the TV movie, can't use covers. -- Tybort (talk page) 01:21, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the rule was meant to mean "if a character was ever on TV, no cover images can appear of this character ever." I think it just means "if another appropriate image exists (as would be the case in most TV stories), don't use the cover image." In this case, it's from an audio story where no other appropriate image exists, so it would be fine to use the cover art. -- Rowan Earthwood ^{talk to me} 01:44, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

The Big Finish CD's often include illustration within the CD booklet of the boxset. Since I've pre-ordered the boxset, I will add any such image to the article where appropriate. --Revan\Talk 09:41, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

...you still seemed to have added a promotional image from a cover, Revan to illustrate Dark Shadows. Or am I missing something because it's a boxset? -- Tybort (talk page) 22:38, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

I had a look through the forums and found no objection to a cover being used as long as it represented a scene which takes place within the story. Forum:Character infobox image standards? was the reference I used, unless I'm missing something vital. --Revan\Talk 22:41, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

Behind the scenes

The "continuity contradictions" section of Behind the scenes claims that the DWM stories slot during the three year break from Sam. Yet here and on Forum:Timeline - Eighth Doctor, the DWM stuff post-dates the EDAs. Someone more familiar with wiki discussion over Eight's chronology clarify? -- Tybort (talk page) 10:48, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

The section was a bit of a mess, it's trying to explain all the continuity problems and be a timeline section.

I've re-written and re-structured it a little bit and added a link to the Timeline project. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:56, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

I made another editing pass today on this section and I removed that timeline link. Timeline stuff is just a forum thread. It's not "the belief of the community" or however it was phrased. Forum:Timey-wimey detector is well linked from the main navbar; there's no need to link it from individual articles. Such linkage falsely implies it's on par with information in our articles.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  13:39: Mon 12 Nov 2012

Canon debate

When I encountered it, article had this dubiously helpful information:

Due to the nature of the 1996 movie, and certain continuity-bending issues raised by it, the place of the eighth incarnation within canon remained a matter of sometimes heated fan debate for more than a decade, until the revival of Doctor Who in 2005 directly addressed the issue.

In the 2007 episode TV: Human Nature, a drawing of the eighth incarnation, as played by McGann, was briefly glimpsed on one of the pages of John Smith's "A Journal of Impossible Things", alongside drawings of other established incarnations. Later, the 2008 Christmas special, TV: The Next Doctor, put the issue to rest fully by including brief footage of Paul McGann from the TV movie in a recap of the Doctor's first nine incarnations. A similar on-screen appearance, again using footage from the movie, occurred in the 2010 episode TV: The Eleventh Hour in another "roll call" of past Doctors. An image of the eighth incarnation appeared yet again during a sequence in the later Series 5 episode, TV: The Lodger, which also included a line of dialogue explicitly identifying the incarnation played by Matt Smith as the eleventh, and therefore accounting for the incarnation portrayed by McGann.

This seems to have survived from the Dark Times on this wiki, but it's not particularly relevant now. It's been a long damn time since anyone in fandom seriously posited the notion of Eight being "unofficial" in any sense. We've known since Rose that Eccleston was the Ninth Doctor. RTD made that very clear when he stepped in and declared Shalka invalid. The BBC website has always referred to Eccleston as Nine from day one. Yes, there was long the narrative possibility that he wasn't, but, realistically, it's always been production intent that he be viewed as Nine.

Point is, this passage seems to unnecessarily drag us into a "canon debate", and there's really no point to it. What the article could use, instead, is a well-annotated explanation of how the specific issues of "half-human-ness" and kissing were controversial. But "canon" shouldn't be the main focus of it. It's hard to say fans ever had an argument for him being non-canonical when they saw McCoy regenerate into him. The issue is just that (some) fans didn't like these two aspects of his character.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  13:39: Mon 12 Nov 2012