Talk:Fifteenth Doctor/Archive 1

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference

the

Archive.png
 This page is an archive. Please do not make any edits here. Edit the active conversation only.


False appearances

Contents and The World Tree should absolutely not be considered as appearances by the Fifteenth Doctor. Contents was written long, long before the casting of Ncuti's incarnation and the vague description no better suits him than it does the Spy Master incarnation. As for The World Tree, Nick Slawicz (nor Big Finish for that matter!) has any right to use the Fifteenth Doctor. He was writing as a competition winner under strict rules as to what he could include, things outside Big Finish's license (which doesn't extend to the Fifteenth Doctor yet) cannot be used. So regardless of what the writer's "intention" was - in order to shoehorn his story as the first appearance of a new main series Doctor - is a bit of trivia that can be shoved on the BTS sections. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 21:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Contents and The World Tree should absolutely be considered as appearances by the Fifteenth Doctor. Danniesen ☎ 21:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Because RTD could predict five years into the future and Big Finish are able to use concepts that they have no license to? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 21:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
RTD clearly based Ncuti’s outfit off of what he wrote back then. And for the Big Finish one, it’s not explicitly pointed out so there’s no license breach. And authorial intent matters. Danniesen ☎ 21:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, there does exist such a thing as retroactive continuity! Besides, in an era where the novelisation of Rose is being drawn upon in everything from Grounded to Redacted (even so far as to contradict the original television episode!), and where the Fourteenth Doctor's debut is Liberation of the Daleks and one of Thirteen's pre-TV adventures was another poem from this very same anthology, so, such a thing is entirely within precedent.
Furthermore, not only is accusing Big Finish of breaking copyright potentially libellous and implies it fails rule two of T:VS... Big Finish have done this before! Do you not remember, @DrWHOCorrieFan, audios like The Kingmaker featuring the Ninth Doctor? 21:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I think Epsilon needs to be dealt with here, yet ANOTHER discussion being IMMEDIATELY taken off-track by false accusations of rule breaking. How many times do admins like Shamblar have to warn against such things before you and others take note? Absolutely outrageous to falsely accuse me of being libelous to stifle my argument.
No, Big Finish has not committed any copyright infringement because, despite Nick Slawicz's comments, the Fifteenth Doctor did not appear in that story. He is free to say that is who he intended to but he had absolutely no rights to include that character therefore it can be considered nothing more than an interesting factoid to add to the BTS pages (as I said in my original post!). And, as well aware as I am about retroactive continuity there is absolutely no evidence that links the Doctor from Contents to the Fifteenth Doctor. It describes the Spy Master's incarnation just as much, if not more, than Ncuti's. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 22:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Even if we put aside the concerns about libel, it is 1000% within precedent to identify the Fifteenth Doctor appearing in The World Tree considering the Wiki has had no issue saying Nine appeared in The Kingmaker for years. TK is a very fitting bit of precedent, as at the time that audio drama released, Big Finish didn't have the copyright to Nine, but he still appeared in it.
Also, the Spy Master Doctor being in Contents is silly. RTD was heavily involved with that poem, so it would make sense for him to draw upon it with Fifteen; I doubt Chris Chibnall even knew the poem exists. 22:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
RTD didn't even know Fifteen was a thing back then! You can say that it is "silly" for the story to be about the Spy Master, I say it is "silly" for it to be about Fifteen. Without concrete evidence both are speculative and neither should be viewed as correct! DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 22:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
He may not have known about Fifteen specifically, as he was yet to come up with the idea, but he still knew about a future Doctor that wore a hat and boots... so him having a future Doctor who has a hat and boots... that is what continuity is; Moffat obviously hadn't planned out his story arc about "Silence will fall" in series five and its later relavance to The Time of the Doctor, but the sources are still in continuity with each other! 22:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree that no one would argue The World Tree should be covered as a fan work — the thing to do would clearly just be to confine it to BTS notes. I'd like the tone to quiet down a little — remember Tardis:Capital letters — but Epsilon's reducio ad absurdum was a bit question-begging, yes.
As regards the facts… re: World Tree, I wonder if there's a T:HOMEWORLD sort of argument to be made here. It's tricky. But importantly characters' identities aren't platonic ideals. World Tree wasn't allowed to describe the physical features of the Fifteenth Doctor, nor to say "Fifteenth Doctor", but it was allowed to depict "a near-future Doctor relative to the Eleventh" and then say it was meant to be that one. Isn't this like being able to refer to "the planet Grandfather Paradox came from" even if you aren't allowed to call it Gallifrey? Maybe. The argument against is that it's too vague in the text to pin it down to any future Doctor in particular (we'd have a very different situation if the clues more specifically pointed to "Thirteen's full-time successor, whoever he is") but… it seems silly to imagine sticking indefinitely with The Doctor (The World Tree) even though in four years 1) BF will be able to tell Fifteenth Doctor stories and 2) no one would ever dispute that it was Fifteen in The World Tree.
Regarding Contents, it could not possibly be the Spy Master, who was not, in fact, an incarnation of the Doctor; nor did he wear a hat. Ambiguous future Doctor or closest-feasible-successor-to-Thirteen is the essence of the debate (which a quote from the writer about intent would clinch, as per Talk:Totem (short story)). Tying it to the Power of the Doctor bodyswap is entirely absurd: we can reasonably assert that it's meant to be a version of the Doctor, some time after Thirteen. The question is whether we can reasonably infer that RTD thought back to the Contents Doctor when designing the Fifteenth Doctor's outfit. Maybe that's a stretch. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I expected nothing less from someone who included Epsilon as a character in their story to challenge me on my reaction rather than swiftly punish them for their outrageous and unacceptable accusation. Cute. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 22:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I’d watch how I talk to admins if I were you. Danniesen ☎ 22:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
@Scrooge MacDuck, what did I say that constituted reducio ad absurdum? I merely compared this story to others, so show there is precedent for its coverage as such. 22:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
@DrWHOCorrieFan: what "outrageous and unacceptable accusation"? Suggesting that some hitherto-covered story might fail T:VS is not outside policy, and certainly not a punishable offense, even when it's actually inaccurate (which I did acknowledge, chiding Epsilon for his tone). Nor is it off-topic for a discussion about whether or not the allegedly-unlicensed character appeared in the story under discussion! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
@User:Danniesen Nice threat. I'd watch how you talk to average users if I were you, on Wikia admins are no different to the average user despite their ability to moderate. They are absolutely open to be called out when someone sees fit, as I have.
@Scrooge I was accused of accusing Big Finish of copyright. Don't play coy. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 22:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately only an admin who is far more willing to encourage thread derailing is present, so I will ignore the pettiness and continue with the discussion at hand.

@Scrooge The Spy Master identifies himself as the Doctor. That is a fact. We do not know who the narrator of Contents is, but from The Power of the Doctor we know that many people in the universe believe the Spy Master to be an incarnation of the Doctor (which he is). The narrator could be one of these people and therefore we cannot rule out the Spy Master as (in your opinion) he isn't technically the Doctor. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 22:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The accusation-of-accusing-BF was the "question-begging reducio ad absurdum" for which I chided Epsilon. But I wouldn't describe it as "outrageous and unacceptable", just a misunderstanding of your point — because as I said, it wouldn't be outside policy for you to actually suggest that a BF story failed T:VS if that was what you actually believed!
More to the point, however, this talk of "don't play coy" and "pettiness" is stepping over the line. You need to assume good faith here. Accusing other people in a conversation of "playing coy" is, like, literally the opposite of assuming good faith. Please apologise and do better in the future. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Another derail. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 22:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
No it's not.
Also, even if Big Finish did break copyright...? So what, exactly? I once again bring up the precedent set by sources from The Kingmaker (we stick the presumably copyright breaking instance on the relevant page anyway) to the Talk:Legacies (short story) (where we allow minor copyright breaking concepts to be covered regardless). I see nothing in this case, if it is true that Big Finish broke copyright, that sets it apart from other similar instances. 23:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
As the admin present has an established friendship with Epsilon I do not feel comfortable continuing with any discussion other than the topic at hand. Shamblar has advised against these dreailings. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 23:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
@DrWHOCorrieFan, please, please listen when people tell you that you are being needlessly confrontational and assuming bad faith when none exists, and change your behaviour. I am actually begging you here. The truth is that your apparent, wholly-unfounded belief that I have some kind of bias against you (and in favour of Epsilon) has made it very difficult for me to handle disciplinary matters where you're concerned, because I just second-guess myself and worry that I'm feeding into your own narrative that I am some sort of bully with a personal grudge against you. I am really, really not. I think your contributions to the Wiki, including on this talk page, are very valuable, and I would love nothing more than to be able to engage in civil, positive discussion with you about honest disagreement. But we cannot do that if you keep accusing people of "playing coy" and "derailing". This is why the "assuming good faith" policy exists in the first place (and why we're working on reinforcing it). If you cannot wrap your head around that and change your behaviour accordingly, I will regretfully be forced to block you for repeatedly breaking policy even after being warned about it. I do not want to do that; I hope this desperate last-chance appeal makes it clear how much I do not want to do that; if you don't believe it now, I fear you never will. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"Contents and The World Tree should absolutely be considered as appearances by the Fifteenth Doctor." - Danniesen. Just here to say I agree. — Fractal Doctor @ 23:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, as regards the Spy Master thing — unless I missed something, Contents just has a third-person-omniscient narrator, not an in-universe narrator. Thus a statement that the character was the Doctor should be taken at face value; we shouldn't entertain the idea that it was secretly someone claiming to be the Doctor.
Again, I'm not convinced that it's Fifteen, necessarily. I just don't think the possibility that it might be the Master has any likelihood on the Wiki even as a tangential possibility. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I also agree that Contents has nothing to do with The Spy Master, or vice versa. — Fractal Doctor @ 23:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
@Scrooge Even this comment here is extremely inappropriate from an admin. You should be messaging this to me personally on my talkpage rather than continuing to derail the thread despite my numerous attempts to restore order (which is supposed to be your job).
I start a discussion with valid points and correct facts regarding licensing and another user jumps in and immediately tries to silence me by accusing me of being libelous to a big corporation. Not only does that go against good faith but it is also against Shamblar's recent warning against accusing people of rulebreaks in threads. It deserved far more than a small childing, even I got a bigger warning for my reaction to it. You have an established friendship with Epsilon, to the extent that you even included them in your story, so for you to overlook such a major lapse in the rules (how many notes is Shamblar going to have to make?) and instead focus more on my reaction... what am I supposed to think? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 23:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
You talk about us derailing the conversation yet you yourself do so just as much, if not more; I see my point about the precedents set by The Kingmaker (audio story) and Talk:Legacies (short story) have gone completely unaddressed! 23:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
@DrWHOCorrieFan: I considered going onto your talk page, but I feared you'd take that badly, on grounds of my leaving the public conversation to threaten you personally (as I feared you'd see it). Perhaps I was wrong to assume that, but it's getting to feel rather damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't…
For the record, Epsilon (Out of the Box) is not an in-universe counterpart of User:Epsilon the Eternal, but rather, a guest appearance the fictional character after whom the user named himself. The user is not actually my friend, any more than Stuart Hardy or Jonathan Morris, two other people whose creations I referenced in Out of the Box with their permission.
As for the present conversation, again, it would not be rule-breaking for you to say Big Finish had broken copyright. Therefore it is not "an accusation of rule-breaking" for Epsilon to incorrectly believe that you had done so! Epsilon's reading of your message was not inappropriate or a derailment, and it was certainly not an attempt to silence you. It was just sort of wrong.
@Epsilon_the_Eternal: Don't you start. No accusing people of derailing. None of you! Stop it! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Accusing someone of libel is literally against the rules on most public forums, but different strokes for different folks I guess.
@Epsilon perhaps that is because you refer to things like everyone should know what you're talking about. You say the Ninth Doctor appeared in The Kingmaker, I look at that page and see nothing to suggest that. How am I supposed to respond? DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 23:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Libel would be a deliberate falsehood. Discussing earnest beliefs that some DWU works fail Rule 2 is something we have to be able to do on the Wiki, otherwise we couldn't properly conduct any inclusion debates. I don't believe Epsilon accused you of knowingly lying about BF breaking copyright; rather, he thought you earnestly believed it. Did you take him to accuse you of lying? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
@Scrooge MacDuck: sure, I'll remain more on topic.
@DrWHOCorrieFan: from Ninth Doctor: 23:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
"The Doctor delivered letters from his fifth incarnation to Clarrie and his former companions Peri Brown and Erimem at the Kingmaker inn in 1483, (AUDIO: The Kingmaker)"Ninth Doctor
And from The Kingmaker: 23:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
"A "northern bloke with big ears" leaves a letter in 1481 for Peri and Erimem to read after the Fifth Doctor writes a letter in 1485 to remind himself to do so."The Kingmaker
@Scrooge He literally accused me of saying something "potentially libelous".
@Epislon None the wiser as to what your point is with that quote. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 23:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
...I.... that's the thing you asked for clarification about... you missed it on the page and I highlighted it... what part of that don't you understand...? 23:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
@DrWHOCorrieFan: …Ah. So he did. Do forgive me: I confess I'd missed that (this talk page has been moving very quickly, and perhaps might go a little better if people would psend more time to craft longer, more considered replies). Yeah, I'm going to request that Epsilon apologise for that, too. That is indeed just as surely a breach of T:FAITH.
But please apologise as well. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Once again I have been applied to by a user who feels that a discussion has gotten out of hand. For those that didn't see my message on Talk:Walking in Eternity, these accusations of Tardis:No personal attacks must be taken to an admin talk page. To continue on these talk pages is a violation of Tardis:Discussion policy.

As an outside observer, I have to mention something I have seen over the last few months. There are few users on this site who seem to be friends. There is nothing wrong with that. However, when one of this group appears to be the recipient of a personal attack, some of the others jump to their defense (and this does include at least one admin). This makes it look like the supposed offender is being bullied. Is that the impression we want to give users? I'll answer that one myself: NO. I've seen a few new users get driven away from the wiki by this apparent bullying.

These are the guidelines for dealing with what you might think is a personal attack: if it happens to you, take it to an admin. If it happens to someone else, let them take it to an admin; if they fail to do so, and the attacks continue, then you can take it to an admin.

Hopefully you all can act more civilly towards each other so I won't have to take further steps. Shambala108 ☎ 23:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

In light of the above, and the (entirely reasonable) temporary locking of this talk page to allow this discussion to cool down, the editors who were invited to present their apologies for breaches of Help:Assume good faith/T:FAITH should do so on the talk pages of the affected users. This means that User:DrWHOCorrieFan should apologise at User talk:Epsilon the Eternal and User talk:Scrooge MacDuck, and User:Epsilon the Eternal should apologise at User talk:DrWHOCorrieFan. Thank you for your cooperation. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Now, I don't want to start anything up again, but I just wanted to chime in and say that I think we should cover the World Tree [+]Loading...["the World Tree (audio story)"] on this page, as we have explicit authorial intent that that was the Doctor, but not the Doctor from Contents for now, as I'd rather wait and see if RTD drops any further hints that the two doctors are the same. Aquanafrahudy 📢 06:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

This was in the rules for the competition in 2022: "Submissions can be set in the universe of Doctor Who in the  Classic Series and the New Series i.e., at any time in the lives of the Doctor from his first incarnation in An Unearthly Child up to and including his twelfth in Twice Upon a Time. The only exception to this is the War Doctor. Due to licensing agreements, we cannot include the War Doctor in stories submitted for this opportunity, so please don’t use this character."
The story explicitly wasn't allowed to use the Fifteenth. The fact the writer intended it to be the Fifteenth is nothing more than a bit of trivia. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 08:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. — Fractal Doctor @ 08:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Me too, and also, the precedents I highlighted earlier cover us here. 10:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Are you disagreeing with DrWHOCorrieFan or me?
Also, it doesn't explicitly disallow the Fifteenth, it explicitly disallows the War Doctor. And even if it did, then it wouldn't be copyright infringement because it's not explicitly the Fifteenth. But that was the intention. Aquanafrahudy 📢 14:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I was disagreeing with @DrWHOCorrieFan. But again, even if it is true that Fifteen's appearance was breaking copyright, that does not matter! This is the exact same situation as the Ninth Doctor appearing as a "bloke with big ears in a leather jacket" in The Kingmaker, and so T:BOUND applies. We've allowed these technically-outside-of-copyright appearances of Doctors in audio dramas and other parts of the EU for years. There are no new developments here. 14:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
It isn’t breaking any copyright. It isn’t explicitly stated in the story itself, and authorial intent itself does not break copyright, so this Doctor being the Fifteenth does not in fact break copyright, no matter who wants to keep up the fantasy that it does. Danniesen ☎ 14:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. So not only does it not break copyright, even if it did it still wouldn't be an issue here. There is a valid argument in Contents featuring the Fifteenth Doctor being too vague, but there exists no issue with The World Tree. 14:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't say there's no issue, as T:HOMEWORLD exists. Aquanafrahudy 📢 15:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Danniesen please make sure you keep Tardis:No personal attacks in mind.

And I haven't added to this discussion prior to now, but it has always been the policy of this wiki that we don't rely on assumptions, especially when it comes to material that hasn't been released yet. When we have done so in the past, we have had to go back and clean up existing pages after learning that either a story title was changed before broadcast or a character name was changed before broadcast. It hurts nothing to wait for confirmation, while jumping the gun can lead to later, confusing clean-up work. Forum:Why we sometimes protect article creation: the curious case of Dorium Maldavar is interesting reading for the origins and explanation of this policy. Shambala108 ☎ 15:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Be that as it may, few assumptions are being made. No assumptions are being made with The World Tree, and while Contents is more ambiguous, there is a decent amount of evidence to support the conclusion. 15:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Shambala that I don't think fighting over this now makes a lot of sense. How on earth can we argue about how well 15 matches the characters in question, when we haven't even seen him on-screen yet! Personally, I expect Contents to be a slam dunk – both characters were even created by RTD, and it wouldn't be the first or only time that he lampshaded a real future incarnation in that collection. I'm less sure about The World Tree. What makes us say the future Doctor is 15 rather than, say, 16? or 12? – n8 (☎) 16:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
There isn’t any need to fight, no. And I do agree that Contents could, in fact, wait until said outfit actually appears on screen (for which we know from promo and filming that that is literally outfit described). As for The World Tree there is nothing to fight over. There isn’t any license or copyright break done here due to the lack of definitive description in said story, however that is where authorial intent does in fact matter, as I said above, and to that I must stress that there is no breach of Tardis:No personal attacks involved when saying that stating blatant fallacies as truth is fantasy. To be completely honest that is the nicest way of saying it and perfectly in line with not attacking anyone personally, not least because it attacks the point and not the person. It cannot and never will be either 16 or 12 (or anyone else other than 15) entirely because the author outright said that this is the Fifteenth Doctor. That is authorial intent and therefore that is the fact. Danniesen ☎ 17:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment of your own words as not personal attacks. People often think what they believe is the "facts" when things are open to other interpretations. Using the words "fantasy" and "fallacies" to describe other users' words is, in my opinion, a personal attack. So this is me, an admin, telling you to stop using words like this to describe other users' contributions. It could be interpreted as bullying or gaslighting. It's an admin job to prevent these kinds of confrontations. Shambala108 ☎ 17:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
(Just gonna bookmark this argument about everyone agreeing on me on the primacy of authorial intent in interpretation btw. :P)
Corrie, just to bring this back around, have you actually read through Talk:Legacies (short story)/Archive 1? I started a write up but it stalled. I'm honestly not entirely sure that there was ever 100% a clear conclusion reached, but ever since that discussion it's sorta kinda been operating procedure on this wiki that very minor inclusions of copyrighted material can skate by as it's not really copyright violating. See how An Ordinary Man (novel) uses the term "Cyberman".
As for the idea that calling other arguments fantasy/fallacy is a personal attack, well, Shambala is, of course, entitled to change her own view, but I'd like to point out her comments at Thread:278505 in User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon IV, which is about an earlier thread where I did explicitly accuse someone of begging the question and she explicitly states that no personal attacks took place. So as for arguments being fallacious I don't think that's a personal attack. Them being fantastical, maybe. Najawin ☎ 17:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a stray observation: you guys really need to implement stronger mechanisms to curb excessive argumentation and mud-slinging. It’s great that there’s an active userbase contributing to this wiki’s talk pages; it’s less great that these discussions almost always become characterised by this needless combativeness. TheGreatGabester ☎ 17:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

T:FAITH, T:NPA and Tardis:Discussion policy do exist, just nobody's very good at following them. I think it's something about Doctor Who fans; we just like arguing.
Najawin, people can change their minds, you know. And I don't think many people have read through Talk: Legacies; it's incredibly long and goes round in circles a bit.
Also, does Talk:Legacies apply, do you think? It's not exactly a minor appearance from the Fifteenth Doctor, I don't think. I think this is a separate issue. Aquanafrahudy 📢 17:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I absolutely acknowledge that Shambala can change her view! I said as much! I just brought it up because I remembered it and it was topical. (Danniesen and I aren't even friends. I just remembered the "attack the point not the person" ruling.)
As for Legacies, dunno if it strictly applies - part of my view on the discussion is that there isn't clear standards on where this "policy" is employed. But Corrie's been around as long as I have, and we've referenced it to him a few times. Fair chance he's read it. Definitely had the opportunity to. Najawin ☎ 18:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Back on topic please. Shambala108 ☎ 18:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Which bit was off topic? Aquanafrahudy 📢 18:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
My thoughts on this are that it makes sense to include these stories on the page, but not in the way it's currently done. We should not assert as fact that Contents or The World Tree depict the Fifteenth Doctor, but describe that they had "a future incarnation of the Doctor" or something similar and explain the inferences being made. This is another case where I will advocate for {{note}} because I really do think it could improve the wiki in many places. This is a prime example of it— sticking to this wiki's traditional in-universe perspective while including these appearances causes jumps in logic, but footnotes can explain it without blatantly ruining the flow.
The assumption made with Contents is made with in-universe info anyways (and I didn't think of it until I looked at that story's page), being that the new Doctor has possessions from 1-13 and 14 didn't choose new clothes as they regenerated with him. You could probably explain it without a footnote, but I think it'd be neater. I think this belongs on the page but should not be intertwined with info (e.g. First Day of the Doctor) that definitively depicts Fifteen. If/when Gatwa puts on sturdy boots and a nice new hat, that can be changed.
The World Tree appearance is based entirely on real-world info, on the other hand. I think it could be fair to include this in what will probably be the "Undated events" section with a footnote about the reasoning. However, I believe that The Kingmaker, which is being used for comparison in this discussion, references the Ninth Doctor within the story as a "northern chap with big ears" or something like that. Similarly the case is Eccleston's Doctor himself pre-appearing in The Tomorrow Windows as well as other Ninth Doctors based on clues. Does The World Tree include any indication that the future incarnation is the Fifteenth Doctor as portrayed by Ncuti Gatwa, or is the link solely outside the story from the word of the author? Because in the latter case, this feels more like The Woman (The End of Time), who RTD said is the Doctor's mother, but in-universe that link isn't made. So I think that otherwise that should be relegated to BTS and maybe NCMaterial coverage. Chubby Potato ☎ 07:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The Woman in The End of Time I’d say is a different matter for the reason that, while yes, RTD did say he intended her to be the Doctor's mother, also did say that he ended up making it ambiguous on purpose, hence why her being the Doctor's mother can only be a note, whereas Nick Slawicz fully intended for the future Doctor in The World Tree to be the Fifteenth Doctor and didn’t make it ambiguous on purpose. It was simply a lack of proper clothing knowledge. Danniesen ☎ 10:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Which is no different from The Death List and The Liar, the Glitch and the War Zone featuring Thirteen before her costume reveal. 13:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Here is a perspective I ended up putting into words while attempting to explain this discussion to somebody else:
Suppose that there was no such thing as a licensed Fifteenth Doctor. Maybe Ncuti Gatwa's Doctor is a fanfilm character, or maybe Slawicz made him up altogether. In this scenario, then I think we would be uncontroversially able to cover "the unnamed future Doctor from The World Tree" as Fifteenth Doctor using a {{conjecture}} tag, as a production/BTS name for an otherwise-unnamed character.
(To head off a possible counterargument, licensing concerns prevent us from doing the same thing with Old man (Beige Planet Mars), because Beige Planet Mars was not licensed to use the Doctor at all. If it were a BBC release, I think we would {{conjecture}} the Old Man to Forty-Second Doctor.)
This only becomes confusing when we find ourselves needing the "Fifteenth Doctor" namespace for appearances of a character explicitly called such. This makes the situation isomorphic to the old T:NO RW controversies. First we have an unnamed thing A which we can {{conjecture}} up a name for using real-world context; then later, we have a thing B that explicitly uses that name, but has no explicit in-story ties to A; can we, in this scenario, keep covering both A and B on the same page? Generally I say yes. It is officially policy that the answer is "yes" when dealing with crossover characters; but offhand, I don't think we have a solid policy yet on how to deal with such situations where real-world, or DWU-adjacent, concepts are concerned. Perhaps Najawin knows more. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 15:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

A day to come

I feel I must voice my disagreement about the removal of information from Whotopia: The Ultimate Guide to the Whoniverse [+]Loading...["Whotopia: The Ultimate Guide to the Whoniverse (reference book)"] from the "A day to come section" on this article. To me, it is very clear that it's a reference to Fifteen, as in the same breath Fourteen mentions Ten. The gist of the line is "I should be somebody new, not somebody old", and it feels inconsistent to assert that the latter half is a reference to a Doctor but the former half isn't. Especially as on the very same page, the Fifteenth Doctor's section is printed. It feels unambiguous that it is a reference to Fifteen, in my opinion.

02:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

As I have explained before, it isn't so much that he is thinking about the next incarnation along when he comments on his body having been used previously; he's commenting on the body he has now. For example, as the best example that comes to mind, the Eleventh Doctor thinking he's regenerated into a female during The End of Time isn't him thinking he's regenerated into the Thirteenth Doctor's body, he thinks he's a girl at that moment. Bad example, I know, but it's the best I could thinking of. To better emphasise what I'm saying, if 14 had said something along the lines of, "I wonder if the next me will have chinny's face again?", it would be more relevant because he brings up his successor (15, to be specific), but all he is saying is, "Tennant again, eh? We haven't done a reprisal around here before.", as he is just thinking about the current incarnation (14, to be specific) having the same face as a past incarnation (10, to be specific). BananaClownMan ☎ 09:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Not sure I agree. It's textual Fourteen knows that his regeneration wasn't normal and should be a new incarnation, and it's not impossible he has some slight foreknowledge. There is some information coming in the currently unreleased that will more than likely be relevant to this... 14:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I am with Epsilon on this. I think we need to have a forum about these "Day to come" sections. It's not that they have problems occasionally, it's that occasionally they don't have problems. Usually if one of these sections has been included, it has many many questionable inclusions. OS25🤙☎️ 18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I honestly think BCM is right in this instance: "I should be someone new" means "it's weird that I, the Fourteenth Doctor, have an old face instead of some new one", it's not, "I should be the Fifteenth Doctor already". And indeed, recent releases have shown once and for all that the Fourteenth Doctor is not an anomaly at the regenerational level — the Doctor turned into an old face for subconscious reasons, but it was in all biological senses a proper incarnation, there's no cosmic sense in which he "should" have been Gatwa already.
That aside, I think the "day to come" sections do have a lot of systemic issues, but this is not the place to discuss them. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I will cede on my side, considering the revelations of The Giggle [+]Loading...["The Giggle (TV story)"] and the points you detailed. Thank you for your input in furthering the discussion. 22:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fifteenth_Doctor/Archive_1&oldid=3672085"