Talk:The Doctor/Archive 4

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

Reopening the image discussion

As Mini-mitch pointed out, the discussion on the image sort of just stopped rather than anyone coming to any agreement.

If I put in my two cents, wouldn't putting the Tenth Doctor be more representative of the "2005-2010" era if we're dividing the five images loosely by era? Also, even if we keep Eccleston, could someone update the collage to make the various Doctors (in particular Smith and Baker) more tightly focused? -- Tybort (talk page)

Yes, let's revisit (or finish) this. I didn't participate in this discussion last fall, because I was still a newbie, but I did follow it. I just reread the comments above, and they are full of "We should include this Doctor because..." If we choose to only include some Doctors, we will always have this objection. There can be made a valid argument for each Doctor's significance. Shambala108 ^{talk to me} 14:34, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Well, basically, the ones in the image are the most important. Baker is the most famous and iconic Doctor, so he has to be there. Smith is the present Doctor, so he does too. Hartnell, of coarse, was the first, so he needs to stay. Ecclestone and McGann also were the first in their own eras, so they need to stay as well. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 22:14, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion made recently, but way, way up thread was that we could use an "animated .png", since animated .gifs are disallowed by policy. Let me just squash that notion immediately. Animated .pngs do not have wide enough browser support to be allowed. They are completely unsupported by webkit browsers, which means Safari and Chrome users couldn't even see them. Only about 20% of the "internet population" can see animated pngs. For most people, an animated png would stop on the first picture, so this page's infobox picture would be William Hartnell. So no. There is no animated solution to this issue.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 15:51: Thu 16 Aug 2012 

All 11 incarnations of The Doctor of mainstream continuity

what about this? it features all 11 doctors, and made based on the 5 doctors image suggested above. all extra images from google images, but i think they're all screencaps. Imamadmad ☎ 12:46, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of the original discussion was to decide whether or not every incarnation needed to be featured. This image is visibly swayed towards showing them all, which is exactly what the community decided against. The Doctor image only needs to make clear that he has more than one face; the page for each incarnation ensures they get fair representation.

Just because an incarnation isn't featured doesn't mean he's being sidelined. The image you have created clearly favours specific Doctors by giving them more space, so that line of inquiry is redundant. I'm not suggesting that they all need to be the same size as that's just superfluous space, to say nothing of how hideous it would be. The design of the current image seems fine to me and the incarnations featured do cover the show's history. Higher quality images are always welcome though.--Skittles the hog - talk 13:00, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

The first eleven incarnations of the Doctor

The first eleven incarnations of the Doctor (alternate)

What about something like this? It seems silly to give any one actor/iteration preferential treatment, as (barring Tom Baker and perhaps David Tennant) popularity and importance is highly subjective. The images at right that I created give Matt Smith's 11 prominence, as he is the current Doctor, and gives the first ten equal but minimal space so as not to be bulky or confusing. (Also, in general it looks much nicer and cleaner than the current image.) d ●•· 14:51, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

(I know the images are huge in filesize right now, I can make a lesser version later, this is just for demonstration.) d ●•· 15:06, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's hideous. That's nothing against you, just the idea of trying to cram 11 images into a collage. All that image succeeds in doing is giving you a face-full of Matt Smith and requiring you to pull out a magnifying glass even to see Pertwee's nose. Everyone knows there are 11 Doctors; there is absolutely no need to give people the spotters guide in a single place.--Skittles the hog - talk 15:05, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, it was done in a rush so as to at least suggest it for the discussion. The "widescreen" does definitely make it much harder to see the first ten, but considering Five and Ten are even smaller in the previously suggested image, I feel like we can do better. Let me try again with a more squared-up image, it will be much clearer and more easily seen. To your point, however, if we don't include all eleven, then there is no reason to include anyone besides Matt Smith. Picking and choosing which Doctors are "important" is completely subjective, and counter to the purpose of the page. d ●•· 15:17, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Hartnell and Troughton images appear to be promotionals. The only colour sources we can use of these Doctors are The Three Doctors, The Five Doctors and The Two Doctors screenshots, and naturally a more suitable image would probably be from the 1963-69 era. -- Tybort (talk page) 15:13, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

No, we can't just feature Matt Smith, as my point, and that of everyone else, has always been that we need to show that the Doctor has more than one face. Picking and choosing does not mean that one has preferential treatment. Please read the entire discussion, both here and at talk:The Master before making these images as at present you are simply wasting your time. Nothing of merit can be achieved by simply throwing out another design.

The Master image discussion saw tonnes of variants being chucked into the mix from all sides, but ultimately it boiled down to what the consensus was, and that was to include a variety of incarnations. The Doctor's featured have been selected for a purpose, and I'm sure the ones that didn't make the cut will be satisfied being central on the page for their specific incarnation. Again, they haven't been selected because they were the favourites of the user who made them; they're there because they were deemed to represent a specific feature of the character e.g. Hartnell for the black-and-white era. Your time would be much better spent adding images to pages that don't have any, rather than endlessly rehashing this one.

I'm beginning to feel like a stuck record, telling each and every user these same things and I'm sure anyone who's taken part in this discussion before is now sick of it, so again, please read what has come before so that you can better appreciate the process that led to the current image's use. Thanks--Skittles the hog - talk 15:37, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Just as at talk:The Master, I remind you all that we have thousands of articles which need illustration. The current image illustrates the subject well enough. I'd also point out that we've already agreed in two separate discussions that the collage of a Time Lord should not contain all actors who ever played that Time Lord. I am investigating the possibility of finding solutions that will rotate the image automatically so that no one feels like "their Doctor" or "their Master" is slighted. In the meantime, please provide illustrations for other articles.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  15:38: Mon 03 Sep 2012

Last ditch effort. Solves several problems, gives 83px square to each Doctor, plus larger space for the current iteration. All faces are visible and identifiable, doesn't feel cluttered, is exhaustive without being exhausting.

In that case, can we at least have a cleaner image in the meantime? Without even zooming in on the current image, you can see the black borders are uneven and ill-placed, and the quality of the photos appears to be rather different as well.

I'll stop after this, only because I hadn't seen the latest edits while working on this. I'd put together one final image which utilizes the current individual articles' main pictures (solving "allowable pictures"), features a tall design (allowing for more visible images, as you can see in its 250-width form at right), and notably includes all eleven Doctors. It seems (having read this and the Master's talk pages) that consensus was very barely reached if at all, and for the Master at the time of discussion consensus appears to have been for showing all six televised Masters. I'm not trying to crack open the debate all over again, but honestly the current image needs to be replaced. For what is arguably the most important page on the wiki, can we not at least try to make it look nice? I am proposing that the image be cleaned up and/or replaced. d ●•· 16:26, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically what the infobox should be.

As everyone can see from those two images posted cramming 11 images into an image that is going to sit within the infobox is nigh on impossible.

If everyone's so determined to change the image on the article, go back to the article and muse on what it's actually about.

It's not about the individual incarnations of the Doctor, it's about the concepts and ideas of "the Doctor" as a figure and as a whole. The image here is of the Doctor's House (Lungbarrow) and his calling card from Remembrance of the Daleks. Two things which are covered on this article and that represent elements of the Doctor. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:11, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Heh, careful, TD. If you're suggesting that we go for a symbolic picture, logic would demand that we make it a closeup on a question mark. Especially now that Moffat has everyone saying "Doctor Who?" every five damned seconds.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  16:16: Mon 03 Sep 2012

Maybe we should.

As I've said in the actor/current actor discussion the article isn't about each of the Doctors, so while the rotating gallery of images might solve the immediate "problem" it doesn't really go to the heart of what the article is about.

So, I think that, yes a symbolic picture would be best for an article which is (or perhaps should be more so) about the concept of the Doctor, the symbology of his character and what makes up that character. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:24, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

I'm laughing at CzechOut's comment, but I do like Tangerineduel's idea. It's similar to the decision we reached about the "main actor". I don't know whether I like the house, but I do like the calling card. With no particular incarnation featured, we'd have fewer people wanting to change it to include their favorite. Shambala108 ☎ 16:31, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

The Doctor's calling card.

Right, this is going to get complicated with users pulling it in different directions. I'll just say an unreconcilable no to showing all 11 in one image, and maybe to symbolism, as that sounds like a happy medium.--Skittles the hog - talk 16:31, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Here we go. Just the Doctor's calling card. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:52, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Jokes aside, I'm firmly opposed to the symbolism — especially that which gives clear preference to obscure parts of the Seventh Doctor's era. Sorry, but the calling card is just something almost no one will get. You do remember the ratings Remembrance got, right? And you also know how low the print run was on Lungbarrow? No, that's all stuff from the dark corridors of Doctor Who and it can't be the illustration for one of our most-linked articles.

Ultimately, I will give ya something that rotates the pictures around. But that's gonna take some javascript. For the moment it's gotta be acceptable that the image now changes on every pageload Well, randomly changes on every pageload; obviously there's a chance that it'll stay the same. That's certainly a fair stopgap measure. Can we please get back to the more important work of actually adding pictures, rather than endlessly remixing this one?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  16:56: Mon 03 Sep 2012

Works for me. d ●•· 17:03, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to come off as being argumentative, but I oppose the rotating images, which are if anything worse than the grouped/grid compromise image we had before as it doesn't present a united idea.

As for obscurity. The image on the Dalek infobox image comes from a relatively obscure and certainly harder to find comic strip (even the reprint is quite out of print now) comic strip than Remembrance of the Daleks. Remembrance of the Daleks got 2 DVD releases. The Seventh Doctor's era isn't exactly obscure either, as far as dark corridors go there are far more darker and obscure ones then that. The Seventh Doctor's era in novel form represents much of the first Wilderness Era of Doctor Who, not exactly obscure.

As I've maintained, while this article is one of the most linked, it's also poorly understood. Because we have individual articles for the different Doctors what you're left with is the symbology, the concepts and the ideology that is spread over the Doctor's character.

This article is unique and therefore should have unique image that represents the Doctor without being of a single incarnation. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:28, September 3, 2012 (UTC)