Talk:First Doctor

	Archives: #1, #2, #3

How detailed should things be

Hi, it has come to my attention that there is some disagreement regarding the extent to which the latest episode should be covered on this page. First of all, as always, I invite you to explain the thinking behind your edits here on the talk page. It is quite common that different edits are based on different ideologies and learning about the modi operandi of other editors was always very illuminating for me. Amorkuz ☎ 23:33, January 4, 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, let me leave my two cents. My firm belief is that all relevant information should be on the wiki but it should be curated according to the focus of each particular page to maximise usefulness for the readers. Detailed plots on story page is something that is sorely missing all too often. (Even so, plot does not equate to a transcript and should be shorter, more digested, if only for copyright reasons.) Care should be taken to treat all stories equally. Most recent stories should not be given more prevalence than older ones. Indeed, every most recent story soon ceases to be one. Things that seem important because they are fresh and emotionally raw for us now may well become mere footnotes in one-two years. All articles should be written from the point of view of a historian looking back (from the end of the universe for in-universe pages or from some unspecified future for BTS portions). Less blogging on the spur of the moment; more recording for posterity. A good mental exercise is to imagine reading this article right after the (imaginary potential) regeneration of the Thirteenth Doctor to see whether a particular detail still seems important then.

Apart from this global posture, there is a peculiarity of this particular character. Personally, I settle on different level of details for blink-and-you-miss-them characters, guest characters, companions and Doctor's incarnations. How compact the information should be naturally depends on the total amount of information available. If one struggles to fill the height of the infobox with the available info on the character, there is no problem writing everything in excruciating detail (such as is known). On the contrary, the page of a Doctor incarnation is almost without exception extremely long. There are dozens of stories, from all media. Making sense of his/her life is hard enough when each story is represented by a short paragraph. Putting even a short plot of every story would, IMHO, make the page rather unusable for anyone. Thus, I generally am for brevity on pages such as this. Only the most basic of information. Veni-vedi-vici, followed by a link to a more detailed description on the stories page. Amorkuz ☎ 23:56, January 4, 2018 (UTC)

This one's actually pretty easy, since it's stated elsewhere on this wiki (and as usual, I don't remember where, but if I find it I will post it) that character pages should really only have no more than three sentences per story. We want to differentiate our character pages from our story/plot pages. There are several reasons for requiring this brevity (some of which are included in User:Amorkuz' statements above):

• The longer a page is, the longer it takes to load, the harder it is to find specific information, and the harder it is to find a particular error to fix. A Doctor usually accumulates dozens of stories during his tenure, and he can accumulate far more than that after his actor has quit the job.
• Tardis:Neutral point of view specifically tells us to treat all stories equally. That means we do not say that the TV stories should get more text per story while the other media are just fine with a couple of sentences per story.
• This is a wiki, and I think that some people aren't aware of what a wiki's purpose really is. The goal of a wiki is to get readers clicking on as many links as possible (that's why we link so often on pages and why orphaned pages are bad). If someone is reading a Doctor's page, and wants more detail on one of his particular adventures, they can click on the story link. If someone wants just an overview of that Doctor, they don't have to wade through detailed descriptions of adventures they might not be interested in.

Unfortunately, this guideline is not found at Tardis:Guide to writing Individuals articles, but it probably should be. The closest I can find to a definitive statement is located at User talk:Shambala108/Archive 1#Zaroff, but I will keep looking. Shambala108 ☎ 01:17, January 5, 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've always gone by the three paragraph mindset when recapping episode entries, with exception to "wham episodes" that go on longer. Still, 4 pages on word is a bit much for a single episode, especially when its only one hour long, and the First Doctor had serials that went on longer than that that are barely covered by one paragraph as it is.BananaClownMan ☎ 09:43, January 5, 2018 (UTC)

Just for personal clarification, if we are really only meant to have three sentences per story for character articles, that means a lot of pages (particularly NewWho ones) need a major overhaul. The Eleventh Doctor alone has paragraphs on paragraphs for just single stories - The Eleventh Hour (TV story) alone has seven paragraphs dedicated to it. So is it necessary we shorten those pages to fit this three sentence rule? Snivystorm ☎ 15:13, January 5, 2018 (UTC)

Well, going by what Shambala108 is saying, it seems more like a guidline than a rule; something to encourage recaps from getting out of hand and dwarfing the rest of the page. Like how looking when crossing the road is not strictly legal, but people are taught to treat it as such.BananaClownMan ☎ 17:02, January 5, 2018 (UTC)

We kinda have to draw a line though, otherwise debates like this will keep cropping up: "is it only three sentences for episode stories, but three paragraphs for finales then four pages worth for special episodes?". We have to settle what length is acceptable and what isn't otherwise there will always be a clash between editors, like now and at some point down the road, disputing what is long enough and what is not. I personally have no problem dedicating a few paragraphs for each story, but this will (given not every editor will value each story as equal) create unbalance between stories. Also, as Amorkuz mentioned, even a single paragraph given to every single story would make the length practically unbearable, particularly on the ever growing mobile users. Snivystorm ☎ 17:13, January 5, 2018 (UTC)

"Three sentences per story" might be a good guideline but would be a horrible policy. Novels might well require more space than short stories. An audio short trip Rise and Fall may not merit more than one sentence as opposed to The Daleks' Master Plan that saw introduction of one companions and death of two companions. It was never my intention to put anyone into a straitjacket. It would just be good to try and mention every story, but only mention the highlights. Amorkuz ☎ 21:09, January 5, 2018 (UTC)

So it all just depends? Snivystorm ☎ 21:58, January 5, 2018 (UTC)

I think what BananaClownMan described as a "three-sentence mindset" is a good approach, as long as one is not overzealous about it. I myself would try to fit the story description into three sentences. That is the benchmark given on the wiki. If I succeed, great. If not, then I ask myself why. What is this information that does not fit? Why is it important? Is it really significant when viewed as part of the whole life of the First Doctor? If yes, then I allow myself to add it.

One of the reasons I don't want to treat it as an absolute maximum is that, having worked as an editor, I can see very well how to cheat it if need be. If it's only three sentences, I could make very elaborate long sentences. German philosophers, for instance, are famous for writing sentences that can be longer than a page. It is a bit harder to do in English, but still possible. This would satisfy the strict bound but violate its spirit. And vice versa, it would not make sense to artificially combine five rather short sentences into three longer ones at the expense of readability.

Incidentally, I do believe that TUaT can easily be summarised in three sentences as far as the First Doctor is concerned. He didn't really do much. There is not a single action of his (action unique to this story) that would merit to be part of his biography. Perhaps, it would clarify things if I walked my way through mock-writing it. So I would put it something like this (I'm not checking details, so this cannot be used on the page):

1. When and where the story is set and what was the problem: e.g., after meeting the Twelfth Doctor on the way to his TARDIS mid-regeneration, the two of them experienced time freezing and encountered a Captain from WWI.
2. Statement that the problem was resolved, e.g., he helped the Twelfth Doctor figure out that the Captain was taken from time by glass people for archiving purposes and save his life.
3. Explanation what happened next, e.g., he then overcame his reluctance to change his persona, and returned to the South Pole to regenerate.

(This is obviously rubbish and used just as a benchmark.)

Is there something missing?

• Rusty? Definitely not. First Doctor has no idea who that is.
• Lethbridge-Stewart? Dunno, see above. Maybe. But I wouldn't. When Second Doctor meets Archibald's grandson, there is no indication that Archibald is in any way remembered.
• Bill? Well, it's not really her. So again dubious. Did it really affect his life in any profound way?
• Bonding with Twelve on the topic of non-regenerating? That could be argued and could even merit a fourth sentence. (Though I'm sure there are different opinions on the topic.)
• His sexism? Should be on the page but not in the biography section. That's personality.

Hope this little analysis helps. Amorkuz ☎ 23:47, January 5, 2018 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention. It was ruled in Forum:Extended plots that editors are encouraged to write detailed plot summaries on story pages. This is where we want "extended" description of the plot, not on character pages. Shambala108 ☎ 00:28, January 6, 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I can get behind this, particularly the last point regarding placing extensive information on story pages than on character pages. When editing today (or yesterday depending on where one is in the world) I found recent story pages were comparatively bare than they were years ago, when it comes to plot at least. It would seem the root of the problem comes from editors piling all their effort into discussing the entirety of the story on character pages instead, as this incident shows. But yes, it is tough to place a precise policy on this when one can bend the rules to their limits. Maybe this matter warrants a full, wiki wide, discussion than simply us four discussing it on a talk page? Snivystorm ☎ 01:08, January 6, 2018 (UTC)

Listen

Surely the appearance of the small Doctor from Listen should be retained on this page, as The Timeless Children explicitly reveals that the First Doctor, while not being the first incarnation of the Being later known as the Doctor, was forced to regenerate and grow up as a child, forced to go back to the Academy, and become a Time Lord again — with Listen having two adult Time Lords comment on the fact that they don't think he'll ever make it to the Academy, with one commenting that he doesn't want to be a Time Lord. Even with the Timeless Child twist, I think the implication is clear that this is still intended to be the William Hartnell incarnation of the Doctor! Sabovia ^{(Message Wall) | (Contributions)} 15:00, March 8, 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. This is by all rates the First Doctor as a child. If this has been removed, it should be re-added. This IS definitely the First Doctor by all intents and purposes. The dialogue spoken to the kid by Clara about "fear makes companions of us all" is even later re-instated (from the Doctor's point of view) in An Unearthly Child to Barbara, Ian and Susan. This is not assumption, this is not speculation. That is a pure fact. Sorry admins and anyone else who potentially want to bicker and argue this, but that is how it is whether you want to admit it or not. --DCLM ☎ 15:24, March 8, 2020 (UTC)

The Timeless Child is irrelevant to this discussion. True, the child in Listen cannot be one of the Timeless Child's incarnations — but it could still be Patience's husband or any other pre-Hartnell incarnations from accounts not involving the Timeless Child, as detailed at The Doctor's early life. The Timeless Child story which would preclude the child in Listen being pre-hartnell is only one of several potential ways Hartnell could be something else than the first incarnation. For example, The Power of the Daleks refers to pre-Hartnell lives that the Second Doctor remembers quite well and keep mementos from. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 15:37, March 8, 2020 (UTC)

Eye colour

How is An Unearthly Child being used as a source for the First Doctor having "piercing blue eyes"?
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 21:38, March 11, 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Image

I think that I'm not alone in believing that the current infobox image representing William Hartnell is inadequate. It obscures half of his face! I've pulled a few options (all of them are uncropped at present but can easily be cropped should the need arise). I think any of these would be strong options.

• 

  The Current Infobox Image

• 

  Option 1

• 

  Option 2

• 

  Option 3

• 

  Option 4

• 

  Option 5

• 

  Option 6

• 

  Option 7

• 

  Option 8

NoNotTheMemes ☎ 06:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I quite like option 1. LauraBatham ☎ 06:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's quite obvious image 1 blows the rest out of the water. I think I'd generally love to have an image with a dark background, but nothing captures Hartnell's personality like that image. OS25🤙☎️ 06:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that Option 6 is the best, followed closely by Option 1. While Hartnell is often impish, the face he is pulling in that moment does not capture his likeness as effectively as Option 6. it shows less personality, but it still shows his personality. My order of preference is 6>8>3>1>2>5>4>7. I would also be open to other screen grabs, if people have other options they can think of. NoNotTheMemes ☎ 06:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I've also added another option from An Unearthly Child which may actually befit OS25's desire for capturing Hartnell's personality AND having a dark background. 06:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I like #7 and #8. BananaClownMan ☎ 08:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting this just to throw a spanner in the works - now we have "The Daleks in Colour", does anyone think we should update the infobox image to showcase the First Doctor colourised? I mean, honestly, I'm against the idea (his era was first broadcast in black and white, and 99% of it still is in black and white - except this current one off release and animations) but thought it was worth asking anyway. — Fractal Doctor • 21:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm against that for the same reason. That's not to say I wouldn't be open to the idea at all, but it would be a bit jarring to have the First Doctor in colour and the Second Doctor in B&W. BlueSupergiant ☎ 23:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Other actors

To avoid an edit war, I'm bringing this matter to this talk page: simply put, "doubles", whether they by stunt or body doubles, should not be allowed in infoboxes. Currently, stunt doubles are sensibly excluded, as they don't perform as the character in a capacity other than to fill in for the main actor during difficult scenes... but apparently body doubles are a-okay? Doubles which perform stunts are excluded but doubles who stand in for actors if they're ill or for long shots and stuff are included? Where's the sense in that?

Not only is this a double standard, it completely clogs infoboxes as you expect an actor listed in "other actors" to actually have performed a character in a significant capacity other than being a hand double while William Hartnell was off sick. Someone like Michael Jones who played the young First Doctor in Listen should be included while Brian Proudfoot who stood in for Hartnell in long-distance shots in The Reign of Terror should be excluded.

The difference between double types is minimal; Wikipedia, for instance, has both types on Double (occupation).

TL;DR: there is not any substantial difference between stunt and body doubles, much less that warrants inclusion in the |other actor = field of an infobox which you'd expect to find actors who have actually played a given character in some capacity, like playing a younger version of an established character.

One last thing I want to suggest, instead, is to have List of doubles for the Doctor where we list off every stunt and body double, explain how they stood in for the main actors, which can be linked to in a new |doubles = field which can be linked to with a template similar to {{appears}}.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

23:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everything here. Including doubles in the infobox at all is just confusing. It bloats the field somewhat and the format gives little room for explanation. I like the alternative of creating a separate variable and page to list doubles, it's an elegant solution to the problem. Danochy ☎ 00:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

And what about the implications to the wider wiki, such as other stand-in performers that are listed as other actors, like Leslie Bates as Kal, Sylvester McCoy and Chris Laurens as the Sixth Doctor, or Paul McGann as the War Doctor? BananaClownMan ☎ 20:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

All of those people you either only see their shadows or they're just body doubles. They never played those characters even in a small role, as they doubled for the main actors. I maintain a separate page linked to from the infobox for doubles makes much more sense.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

21:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Eps hefe. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎ 17:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree Epsilon here. Having a separate page for stunt doubles is a good idea and actually gets the point across far better than having all these random names cluttering up the infobox and misleading people into thinking that there’s additional performances under a variety of actors. SarahJaneFan ☎ 13:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Peter Cushing

In regards to Peter Cushing playing the First Doctor, it's simple:

1. Firstly, Peter Cushing did indeed play the First Doctor. Back sixty-odd years ago, Cushing stepped into a recording booth and performed his role as the Doctor. Regardless of if the story was released, he undeniably played the Doctor on that date.
2. Secondly, back in the First Doctor's era, there weren't multiple Doctors. There was one, singular Doctor. He was the definitive article; there are many interpretations of the character, but the Doctor in the annuals is no more a different Doctor than Cushing's portrayal(s). The page for Journey into Time is misleading by saying its unclear which Doctor he played, as that displays a lack of understanding of the era from a revisionist perspective. Like, David Bradley's portrayal of the First Doctor in Twice Upon a Time is, if anything, much less faithful than any so-called aberrant take on the character from the 1960s.

If we can say David Bradley played the First Doctor, who has a different characterisation, biology, appearance, and life to the version played by William Hartnell, we can say Peter Cushing played the First Doctor in JiT.

I dunno where this may leave Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks), but I don't feel we should compromise the coverage of one unambiguous subject because of a potentially more controversial, linked subject.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

21:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting points. It's undeniable that Cushing plays the so-called "First Doctor" (a rather anachronistic term in this discussion). But he's still playing a different version of that Doctor, analogous to how Tobey Maguire and Tom Holland play different versions of Peter Parker. You could say the same of the annuals and TV comics, but they're much more ambiguous than Cushing in that regard. The Bradley argument holds no weight though: he's clearly written to be the same Doctor with the same continuity, albeit with the modern conception of lore in mind. But anyway, there were multiple Doctors, they just happened to be versions of the same Doctor.

As for your first point, do we have any precedent or policy for using unreleased stories in this manner? If not, I would argue against it, mostly for the reason that infoboxes are not meant to include controversial information. Danochy ☎ 05:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sold on the Spider-Man analogy as they're explicitly in alternative universes, which isn't the case here.

It's more like Ebenezer Scrooge being played by different actors in theatre, but it's hard to argue that each performance of the character constitutes a new, separate character. IMO.

But I don't think this would be controversial information?

Peter Cushing performed his role. He was paid for his performance. He ticked off every criterion for playing the Doctor in a licensed capacity, its just then they never released it.

For example, it'd be absurd to say that Michael Keaton didn't play Batman in Batgirl (film), even though Warner Bros executives cancelled the film despite being completely. In the hypothetical situation where this Wiki would cover Batgirl, it'd be strange not to put Keaton in Batman's infobox.

The short of it is, whether or not the project is released has no bearing on whether or not an actor played a character.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

14:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

To say there was one "Dr. Who" in the 1960s is somewhat inaccurate, as there were actually two versions; the small screen William Hartnell Dr. Who, and the big screen Peter Cushing Dr. Who. Going off the Spider-Man analogue, it's the same scenario as the Flash, as we concurrently had a TV Flash played by Grant Gustin, and the Movie Flash played by Ezra Miller, not too different from each other as Hartnell and Cushing in their roles of Dr. Who; the TV characters and their Movie counterparts are meant to represent the spirit of each other, but they differ in enough ways with backstory and supporting characters that they can't co-exist with each other. Hence, if a tie-in comic or video game features the Flash, whether it's Gustin or Miller can be determinate by the minor details, like costume, other characters or lore.

And, looking into Journey into Time, which already links Susan to the Roberta Tovey counterpart, it reads more as an amalgamation of the two Doctors in the early 60s than a representation of either version. What we have on our shoulders here is essentially a movie tie-in meant to take place in a reality similiar enough to pass off as the movie without being strictly set within the universe of the movie. The best example that comes to mind is how the events of Green Lantern: The Animated Series are meant to also take place in the universe of Young Justice: Phantoms, but the two shows don't share a universe due to minor but significant contradictions. In essence, Journey into Time is just a slight revamping of the Cushing Doctor, a sort of "this account, that account" sort of deal.

With this in mind, I believe it is appropriate to say Cushing didn't portray the First Doctor, but simply acting out a diffrent interpretation of his Dr. Who, no different than Kevin Conroy reprising his Batman role for different iterations of his character. BananaClownMan ☎ 10:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm fairly neutral as to how to cover this, but I will say that it is no more accurate to say there were "two versions" than "one". The whole issue is that in truth, if we stop viewing screen media as "primary", it becomes apparent that Doctor Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks and Dr. Who and the Daleks are playing the same game, which gives you at least three… and that's before going into things like the Sweet Cigarettes or TV Comics. (The two S.C. short stories have their own redesigns and status-quos for the Doctor, and The Klepton Parasites is as much an alternative retelling of An Unearthly Child Ep.1 as the opening scenes of the first Cushing movie: "Doctor in junkyard, mystery, kids, wandering into the police box, accidental take-off, oops".) It doesn't seem at all true that the "if a tie-in comic or video game features the Flash, whether it's Gustin or Miller can be determined by minor details" thing holds. People in the 1960s didn't give a damn about "lore" in this sense, that wasn't how people perceived stories to work. There were simply varyingly-different retellings, on a sliding scale of resemblance to one another, and a random piece of merchandise would feature "the character in general", not any specific rendition.

Journey Into Time, then, is not quite about the First Doctor of television, but nor is it about specifically the movie version… or the Target version, or a specific amalgamation of Harntell and Cushing. It's a whole new portrayal of the basic "Doctor" character, like a new staging of a play which has no "right" version. It is worth remembering that at one point Boris Karloff was meant to play this audio-Doctor, which I think would make it clear that he ought to be considered his own version. Contrariwise at one point they wanted William Hartnell to play the Doctor in the movies, which doesn't mean they would have been "in continuity" with the TV verison in the modern sense; they would probably have given him a colourful costume, and perhaps even the Cushing hairstyle. Looking at actors simply isn't the way to think about this, it's a largely anachronistic way of looking at sci-fi media. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 11:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Scrooge's points here. The difference 1960s Who has with late 20th century/early 21st century DC television series is the latter has universe hopping baked in, whilst people watching the former when it first aired would never have thought each performance of the character was "actually another version of the Doctor from a parallel universe".

So to assert that this Doctor is the Peter Cushing one based solely on the actor is misguided, and, furthermore, the Cushing Doctor's page deals with a mostly consistent version of the character spare a few details, whilst the Hartnell Doctor page deals with much more contradictory takes on the character.

For now, I've made Journey into Time (unreleased audio story) link to just The Doctor, until we figure this out.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

13:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel we should drop this misunderstanding concerning the multiverse, as that is not what is being said by anyone. Our examples aren't a case of Universe A and Universe B, but more along the lines of "this guy played the role on the telly" and "that guy played him in the movie". Think Patrick McNee and Ralph Fiennes as John Steed. The gist of it is that a Doctor connected to Cushing is more than likely set within the exclusive continuity of the movie-verse than the television show. BananaClownMan ☎ 19:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

But BCM, people in the sixties didn't think about "continuity" in that way, by and large. Dr Who was Dr Who and Spider-Man was Spider-Man. Asking if the Doctor in Target and the Doctor on TV are "the same continuity" or not would have been gibberish to David Whitaker, he wouldn't have understood what you were even asking. Target, the Cushing film, TV Comics, all were him following the brief "let's tell stories about the Dr Who character in this new medium", he didn't think to himself "this is a Reboot set in a New Bespoke Continuity". People simply didn't typically think that Watsonianly, outside of narrow proto-fannish circles. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sort of against including it in the infobox just because the story never got released, but don't dispute this is an alternate First Doctor. Is there an overview page of the contradicting First Doctor somewhere, that's sort of akin to The Doctor's ninth incarnation? I can see the "Mysteries and discrepancies" section on this page but it's not very detailed at the moment. I think just putting Peter Cushing in the infobox without changing anything else is bad UX though. There's no link to JiT on this page, nor is there any mention of Peter Cushing. Nor is there any reference to the First Doctor on Cushing's page beyond the mention he was considered as a successor. So if I want to find out where Cushing played the First Doctor, as a casual reader, I've come up empty handed. Bad experience. And even if I did figure out it was refering to JiT, I then discover I can't even listen to the thing because it never got released. Now I'm annoyed. guyus24 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all of this. I don't think Cushing should be listed as a voice actor in this infobox. I just also don't think saying "Journey Into Time features Dr. Who (Dr. Who and the Daleks) instead of the First Doctor" is a particularly accurate statement. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)