Forum:Is using "First Doctor", "Second Doctor" etc in-universe?

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Is using "First Doctor", "Second Doctor" etc in-universe?

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Original discussion

Are the terms "First Doctor", "Second Doctor" etc not out of universe? I've noticed on many pages that these types of names are used. Since these pages are supposed to be in-universe and these terms are out-of-universe, they shouldn't be used should they? The terms "first incarnation" etc should be used, shouldn't they? The Thirteenth Doctor 18:25, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

• Can I please get a reply about this? The Thirteenth Doctor 13:42, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Not really, though I'm sure if you looked (I think some of Terrance Dicks' novels do use the term, I think it's used in The Eight Doctors) there's probably more out there.

First Doctor, like Romana II is a term of convenience and brevity.

First incarnation is preferable, though 'First Doctor' is sometimes a useful though its in-universe credentials are somewhat questionable. --Tangerineduel 13:59, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think the Timelords did refer to the Doctors as First Doctor, Second Doctor, and Third Doctor in The Three Doctors. Doesn't that make it in-universe.--Icecreamdif 22:14, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

The terms themselves might be considered marginally in-universe (most recently, the Eleventh Doctor pointed to himself and said "Eleventh,") but in common descriptions the terms are just not stylistically used. Someone in-universe, under normal circumstances, would just be calling him "the Doctor," just as someone referring to you today would probably just say "Icecreamdif" rather than "(your current age)-year-old Icecreamdif." In-universe, the Doctor is the Doctor is the Doctor, etc. The rule tends to be bent only where absolutely necessary. Rob T Firefly 22:42, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Even in the Five Doctors, didn't they simply ask each other which regeneration they were on, not which Doctor? And the eleventh's saying eleventh could have also referred to eleventh face, eleventh incarnation, eleventh body... etc, and not necessary eleventh Doctor. --The Thirteenth Doctor 11:55, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

They did use the term "First Doctor" etc. in The Three Doctors. It would be similar to describing Amelia in The Eleventh Hour or The Big Bang as the seven year old Amy Pond.Icecreamdif 22:15, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Revisited

To answer the original question quite belatedly, yes, it is absolutely, firmly, clearly canonical to use the terms first Doctor, second Doctor, etc. Terrance Dicks made it so by thoroughly using the naming convention throughout PROSE: The Eight Doctors. All eight of the Doctors are repeatedly called by their number, there. And that's all that's necessary for our site to view it as in-universe. There's nothing "marginal" about that, despite what Rob T Firefly intimates, above. Are we really going to argue with the most prolific Doctor Who writer in history?

There's a separate, stylistic issue as to whether we want to go with first Doctor or First Doctor. The Eight Doctors goes with the latter, but many reference books —for instance everything I've ever seen written by David J. Howe — goes with the former. We probably do need to pick one of the two and specify it in the manual of style. But there's absolutely no question of it being in-universe. I think it's even canon just using televised stories, when you combine The Lodger with Death of the Doctor. People remember he said "eleventh" in The Lodger, but this thread seems to have gone cold before the broadcast of Death of the Doctor, where he urges Jo and Sarah to remember "every Doctor, every me". This indicates he thinks of himself as different Doctors, and, when combined with his earlier mention of "eleventh", it's not unreasonable to believe that even televised Doctor Who views "eleventh Doctor" (or "Eleventh Doctor") as a valid term.

As a practical matter, we absolutely should be using the terms "first Doctor", "second Doctor" etc. Rob says above to use it "only when necessary", as in the plot section to The Five Doctors. But this whole wiki is one massive Five Doctors. That is, each page tries to find as much information about a topic, and frequently lists several instances in which various incarnations of the Doctor have interacted with that topic. I can't tell you how many pages I've found where it's point after point that begins with just "The Doctor". It's so confusing, especially to readers who don't know that much about Doctor Who to face a wall of sentences that begin with "the Doctor". That doesn't specify anything. For the benefit of our readers, we absolutely should be using constructions like:

The fifth Doctor and Nyssa visited the planet in 2256. Later, in 2290, the tenth Doctor and Martha stayed there for some ten weeks, whilst investigating a Rutan threat. In 5345, the third Doctor and Jo made an unexpected stop here on their way home from Peladon.

not

The Doctor and Nyssa visited the planet in 2256. Later, in 2290, the Doctor and Martha stayed there for some ten weeks, whilst investigating a Rutan threat. In 5345, the Doctor and Jo made an unexpected stop here on their way home from Peladon.

One is instantly understandable, and the other requires mouseovers for full comprehension. Now I'm not saying we should eliminate expressions like "first incarnation" or "second self" or "third body", "fourth lifetime" or even "fifth life". All these are good and proper terms that have at least a kind of canonicity about them, in that the Doctor has said "other selves", "all my lives", "this old body", and the like. And it's good to have word choice. But their possible use in no way invalidates the good, old, natural "<ordinal number> Doctor". Since it is "legal" to use the ordinal number + Doctor construction, I'd point out that it'd be relatively easy indeed for the bot to convert

[[first Doctor|the Doctor]]

into just

[[first Doctor]]

again. In other words, I think we should specifically outlaw the conversion of an ordinal-numbered Doctor into just "the Doctor" on the grounds that it makes the text unnecessarily less specific.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

Capitalisation definitely looks better (in my opinion). I agree we should specify as it may be confusing to read lists involving multiple Doctors where the incarnation is not specified.--Skittles the hog--Talk 18:29, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure I've understood you 100% correctly CzechOut, in "the Eight Doctors" they are called the "First Doctor", "Second Doctor" etc? I'm asking because you said they were called by their numbers, which could also be interpreted as them calling each other simply "One" or "Two" etc, which wouldn't be the same because we wouldn't know what exactly they are referring to (life/incarnation etc). So they are definitely called "First Doctor" etc?

But whilst I agree that if the above is what I believe you mean we should change it to that, I don't think that the Death of the Doctor/The Lodger provides substantial evidence for calling them "First Doctor" etc. In Death of the Doctor he's talking to other people, and he knows that other people tend to call a particular incarnation of him "their" Doctor. And in The Lodger, he could have been referring to eleventh life/incarnation or even face. In fact I'm sure he makes a circular notion to his face when he says eleventh.

Even though I don't think the Lodger and DotD are substantial evidence, I do agree with the change if the Eight Doctors definitely called them "First Doctor" and "Second Doctor" etc. --The Thirteenth Doctor 18:43, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are absolutely called <cardinal number> + Doctor. Here is a passage from a completely randomly selected page:

"For a moment, the Doctor was surprised to be recognised. Then he realized that since his meeting with the First Doctor, he was part of the Second Doctor's memories. It was all very confusing."

Literally, you can pick any page and find the construction.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

Cool. That's settled then. It's canon. Oh... and I also agree that the capitalized version looks better. --The Thirteenth Doctor 18:56, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

And just in case anyone cries foul on the above passage being that of narration, rather than direct speech by a character, here's another quote:

Volnar cleared his throat.

"Madame President, this tempograph represents the current state of the Doctor's time streams. As you can see, it has returned to normal. The Eighth Doctor has completed his visitations to his former selves, abandoned his temporal peregrinations and returned to his proper place in space and time."

So there we are. Straight from a Time Lord's mouth. Can't ask for more in-universe than that.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

Even if you just go by televisied stories, the Timelords constantly refer to the Doctors as "First Doctor," "Second Doctor," and "Third Doctor" in The Three Doctors.Icecreamdif 20:39, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

EVERY THING DOSN'T REVOLVE ROUND CANON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Am I the ONLY one who thinks about putting across the information just putting "The Doctor" can be confusing if you went on with a link from a page from a Different era and had a picture of a Dalek. NOW that would be just confusing, So you click on the link and in true TARDIS wiki Fashion it would lead you on to the actual doctor page. But after about an hour you discover who it is, but the episode hasn't aired yet and due to this stupid "Save are pages from non-existant vandals" Rule you can't change it you put it on the talk page (Honestly do i need to carry on?) Joshoedit 20:58, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Firstly... yes... this kind of thing does revolve around canon. Secondly... no, please don't carry on... please explain what the rest of that actually means. It makes no sense whatsoever. --The Thirteenth Doctor 21:08, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I think we should go with the canon text example, rather than the reference book example. So that's First Doctor, Second Doctor etc rather than the lower case option.

CzechOut is right, The Eight Doctors is really littered with passages like that War of the Daleks is almost as bad...I mean intense with its canon ramblings.

Joshedit...I'm confused. Though I think he's talking about our protection policy. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:24, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Hungry and sleepy makes me make no scence. What i'm saying is the infobox IE: Pictures in the infobox with no doctor and just having the doctor will make a HUGE confusion Joshoedit 05:11, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

What?----Skittles the hog--Talk 11:31, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Closing discussion

Slightly bad form — I guess? — to close the discussion I re-initiated, but I'm not seeing opposition of any strength. Closing in favor of the motion to prefer First Doctor, Second Doctor, etc., since there seems to be a slight preference given for caps, and it seems to be somewhat arbitrary decision. (I still like first Doctor better than First Doctor, but it's not that big a deal.) MOS has been changed to reflect what I see as the sense of this discussion. I say that we've got tons of open discussions that we need to start closing, so we might as well start with the one that seems the least controversial. See tardis:Manual of Style#Incarnations of the Doctor for full write up.

[Obviously, if other editors object to me being the one to close it, or to codify it in the MOS, they are free to open a new discussion on this topic. But this wiki has no real rules on how to close a forum discussion, so I'm just doin' the best I can here.]
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

Isn't it First Doctor instead of first Doctor also because it's a proper noun? It's the name used for an individual, therefore capitalized? --The Thirteenth Doctor 14:28, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's precisely the debate. According to a number of writers, perhaps most influentially David J. Howe, it's not the character's name, but their designation. A good many non-fiction writers have followed suit. The preface to Heart of TARDIS, for instance, has "fourth" and "second", not "Fourth" and "Second". But then you have others who do think of it as a kind of "name", like Terrance Dicks, and they therefore use caps for the adjective for the reason you suggest. Because there are reasonable cases on both sides, and no one usage appears to dominate, I just went with people who appeared to have a stronger feeling than me. I don't think it can be positively asserted, however, that it is definitely a proper name, as there are enough well-respected authors on both sides. It's better to think of it as just an arbitrary stylistic choice the wiki is making.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

Well I'd definitely go with the capitalized version. "The First Doctor" definitely looks better than "The first Doctor", but I don't think its a huge issue which individual users use. --The Thirteenth Doctor 00:03, February 22, 2011 (UTC)