Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor (Doctor Who) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Doctor Who WikiProject
Doctor Who Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
The Mona Lisa This article in the Arts category is being tracked by the Work via WikiProjects group at Wikipedia 1.0, as part of our plan to organise and build a collection of articles for offline release.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. 8 September 2004 – 8 April 2006
  2. 8 April 2006 – 31 December 2006
  3. January–August 2007
  4. September–December 2007


Contents

[edit] Article Image

The image used on this article is up for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion to discuss whether it should be kept or not. Million_Moments (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the results are in: Keep the image, but remove the logo in the center. Simply blacking it out would meet this requirement, but that wouldn't be very aesthetic IMO. Perhaps we could find some free image that would fit (the time vortex might be nice, but don't think we have any free images of it). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personality section needs a rewrite

After reviewing the recent edits to the [[Doctor (Doctor Who)#Personality|]] section (and the section as a whole), it would seem to need a rewrite. There is a lot of uncited opinion and speculation in the text, and there are no references for any of the conclusions about the Doctor's personality traits. Thoughts? (I wanted to leave a note here first, rather than adding a template to the section.) --Ckatzchatspy 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bakert.jpg

The above image has been removed as its function can be fulfilled by the image in the infobox, and therefore fails the criteria for inclusion of non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The infobox image does not show the scarf very well, which is the image's purpose in that section. Multiple editors have disagreed with it's removal, so please do not edit-war. — Edokter • Talk • 17:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the answer is to blank Tom Baker out of the info box, and refer the reader to the image section below Fasach Nua (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No it's not. The BBC won't sue if we used two images instead of one. Two different purposes, two different images. Will (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the image should be left in. From the infobox image, you can't tell at all that his scarf is any longer than a typical scarf. And do you seriously think blanking him out of the infobox is an at all reasonable solution? I'm actually asking here, as my sarcasmeter is on the fritz today. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Your sarcasmeter is fine... He also proposed replacing the image of Mondas be replaced with a free image of the earth turned upside down. — Edokter • Talk • 19:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I was simply making the point that the WP:NFC would not support the use of both images, and if you wanted to use a seperate image of Tom Baker that showed the scarf, then this would also fill the function of showing what he looked like, thus making the infobox image redundant Fasach Nua (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, even though this should be obvious, let me explain: Policy does state we should minimize the use of fair use images, and that 2 images should not be used if 1 would suffice. Here, the question is, would one image of the fourth doctor suffice? In the end, no. I've already covered why we need the second image. We need one of him in the infobox to illustrate his role in the changing face of the doctor. Leaving him out is just a laughable solution, Not even getting into how much outcry it would cause, given how he's one of the most notable doctors and most deserving to be in there, doing this would break the continuity of the images, cause confusion from readers who would expect to see him there, and/or look ugly. Just try to imagine the image with a small note where Tom Baker should be saying "Look further down in the article to see the fourth doctor." It's really hard to take you seriously when your solutions are of this order. Please, try to think through what you're actually recommending and - this is important for everyone - be willing to admit you just might be wrong in a particular instance. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
And if the image of Tom Baker with the long scarf was used in the infobox, the average reader would not be able to tell that this was a different Doctor to the others? Fasach Nua (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not the problem. The problem is that if we crop and zoom the image so that it clearly shows how long the scarf is, we're showing far more of the doctor's body than in the other pics, and his face is relatively smaller. It doesn't fit with the flow of the other images, which are all predominantly headshots. And I don't think a good case can be made for changing the rest of them into expanded pictures, either. We'd just lose too much overall detail in the faces that way, and it looks more like that picture is showing a change of outfits than a change of bodies. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
So if the image is kept on the grounds of asthetics does WP:NFC support this usage? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
As long as all ten of the criteria are met, yes, and consensus is that they are. Will (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus? Were is this consensus? Who has stated that even the first criteria is met, never mind all ten of them? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This section. Will (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
User:This section? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want names, Edokter, myself, StuartDD, Infophile, Vadder, Garda40. Either by statements on this page or on the article, they believe that the image is fine under NFCC. Will (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Names, great! Diffs would be even better! Fasach Nua (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now you're just moving the goalposts. Your previous comment implied very clearly that you were looking for names of users. Once that was provided, you asked for diffs. If those are provided, what will you ask for next? More diffs, which make it even clearer that consensus is against you? Well, I say we stop here. We gave you what you asked for; if anyone listed there wishes to clarify/correct their position, they're welcome to do so. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I accept there is clear consensus to keep the image, but I have seen no evidence to say that there is a consensus by editors that the use of Image:Bakert.jpg in the same article as the Tom Baker component in the infobox is compliant with WP:NFC, most editors havent even mentioned criteria #1 Fasach Nua (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Baker is in his seventies, so we can't get a photo of him now in role as the Doctor. The odds of a free picture of Baker in role (e.g. filming) otherwise are nil. Therefore, there's no free equivalent of the image. Will (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
woops (blushes), I meant 3(a), I do apologise Fasach Nua (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
3a, minimal usage, is more subjective. It doesn't say only one image is allowed; two, three, or even four can be used if they serve different purposes in the text - the infobox image is used for identification of the Doctors, while the Baker image is used while discussing the changing fashions (although I do think two images side-by-side for comparison would be good). Will (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to identify Tom Baker from image:bakert.jpg? If so one could be used rather than two Fasach Nua (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It's the Fourth Doctor, yes. But it's not being used for identification of the character. It's being used as an example of the Doctor's changing fashions. It'd be nice to have Tennant's "geek chic" or Eccleston's "anti-fashion" fashions alongside. There may actually be a better claim for fair use that way. Will (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
And I point you back up to the infobox image. It does that already, a second image for the same reason steps over "minimal use". If there was something else germane to the section, or any section, that Bakert.jpg illustrated in the overall context of the character, not just the 4th incarnation, then the image would have a reason for being in the article. Is there some point that it does that for? - J Greb (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

I can only assume your being distruptive because you didn't get the image of all 10 doctors deleted - so stop. StuartDD contributions 21:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you find yourself so limited Fasach Nua (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Fasach, consensus is against you, both in content and policy interpetation. That means the rest does not agree with you. Starting another edit war and forcing your interpretation of policy does not help your case and is considered disruptive. If you actually want to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, you would do well to learn more about consensus and work from there. If you continue the way you are acting now, you may find yourself subjected to a topic ban, meaning you could be barred by the community from editing any Doctor Who related articles. — Edokter • Talk • 22:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It is odd to hear you mention policy interpretation, no-one has yet to suggest what contribution the Tom Baker component of the main image makes that cannot be made using the image Image:Bakert.jpg and hence meet WP:NFC #1, perhaps you could enlighten me as to the function of the two images and the policy interpretation that allows them both, and perhaps I may be able to join in your consensus! Fasach Nua (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The Tom Baker component of the infobox image puts Tom Baker in context in the history of the character The Doctor on BBC television. The large image of Tom Baker that ably shows his scarf being worn could not do that. It just shows Tom as the Doctor, and the scarf. Neither of these images is decorative, neither has a free equivalent, and both increase the readers' understanding of the respective points being illustrated. Vadder (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(From the poor sod that kicked this off...)

The original reasons I pulled the solo image and added the text directing to the infobox images are as follows:

  1. The infobox image serves a very specific purpose: illustrating the 10 incarnations of the charter which is the subject of the article.
  2. It also illustrates the 10 primary actors to play the role and the visual costuming changes.
  3. Bakert.jpg is used as an illustration for the section dealing with the changing styles of the Doctor.
  4. In this capacity, Bakert.jpg fails miserably. Yes, it illustrates the 4th Doctor, but that's it. It lacks context of the other 8 Doctors to even remotely do more than that.
  5. Bringing context to the section would require either adding more images to the section, something that seriously bucks the fair use guidelines, or directing readers to an image in the article that already fills the bill.
  6. Doing the later reduces the Bakert.jpg image from being an illustration of one Doctor to being just decoration in this article.

Since the 'box image suffices both as a depictor for the character and to illustrate the section, and since since "decoration" isn't a rational to justify the use of a non-free image in an article, I yanked Bakert.jpg.

I submit that is still the case, even with the points brought up here. Arguing that a fuller depiction of the scarf opens the section to needing a fuller depiction of Colin Baker's motley, Eccelson's dock worker ensemble, McCoy's outfit (likely both tones), and Pertwee's full suit (the limited portion of the coat just doesn't give the full impact). Including just one implies an unwarranted favoritism, including them all turns the section into a gallery. Neither is a good idea.

- J Greb (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Some valid points, however... Ask anyone to name a favorite clothing piece of Doctor Who, and you will undoubtedly hear "scarf" most of the time. The scarf is iconic for Doctor Who, and that is the thing being illustrated here. — Edokter • Talk • 01:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
As for the issue of favoritism, how many people have stopped by the talkpage to complain about showing off the scarf specifically? There doesn't seem to be much of an issue with it in this context. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Edokter,
Two problems:
  1. This isn't the article about the 4th Doctor, or "the most recognized Doctor". It's about the character in general. Since there are separate article for each incarnation, there is no good reason to single out one to get a picture in any section, let alone this one.
  2. If it is a fair statement that the majority know about the scarf, there may be debate between that an the umbrella, it really isn't necessary to illustrate it.
Infophile,
It really isn't a problem based on showing the scarf per se, it's a question of why the image is there and if it's justifiable.
Ideally the image is there in support of the section, in full, that it's next to. That requires more than just one Doctor since the section is about the distinct changes between them. The article already has that image, at the top left, so in this respect the Baker only image is just eye candy.
If it's to clarify, then it's clarifying what is argued (see Edokter's comment) to be the best known Doctor and costume element, and in least need of illustration to the general reader. It comes off as capricious decoration, especially in this context. - J Greb (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

Is it possible to change to fourth doctor image in the infobox to the one showing his scarf - that way we still show the scarf. StuartDD contributions 08:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried doing that yesterday, cropping and zooming the scarf picture. From what I said above, "The problem is that if we crop and zoom the image so that it clearly shows how long the scarf is, we're showing far more of the doctor's body than in the other pics, and his face is relatively smaller. It doesn't fit with the flow of the other images, which are all predominantly headshots. And I don't think a good case can be made for changing the rest of them into expanded pictures, either. We'd just lose too much overall detail in the faces that way, and it looks more like that picture is showing a change of outfits than a change of bodies." This particular judgment is a much more subjective call, though, so it's possible to disagree on how well it would work. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the caption is what nudges the image into fair use as it fits the section very well -- the key being that the long scarf, which is a result of the changing fashion, has become iconic. If you want to be persnickety, you can crop his head to just show the outfit, but that may be a little tacky. DonQuixote (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue is WP:NFC 3A, if the image with the scarf is kept, is there any contribution the Tom Baker component of the infobox image makes that is not already fulfilled by the inclusion of this image? Fasach Nua (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
(Oops, beat me to it before I made the addendum to the above. Anyway...) Actually, on second thought, the inclusion of Tom Baker's face in the outfit image is unavoidable as Christopher Eccleston's and David Tennant's faces in the regeneration image. The point is that the actors' images are secondary to the main image, which is the outfit and the regeneration respectively. DonQuixote (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Slight case of "lemons and limes". Yes, we can't avoid having 2 Doctors in an illustration of the regeneration sequence on screen mechanics, but it is a point that the 'box image does not, and cannot convey. "And the sense of style/costume is..." is an intrinsic part of the 'box image. That means it can and does act as an illustration of the later section as well as the main subject of the article.
As for Fasach Nua's suggestion of dropping the 'box image down to 9... that breaks the reason for the 'box image as well as adding an implied judgment: Baker isn't important enough to be included. - J Greb (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned the only question to ask is "Is the use both Tom Baker supported by WP:NFC 3(a)?", and I have seen nothing here to suggest it is Fasach Nua (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
No, you simply refuse to see it; many people have demonstrated why both images are warranted and how they each serve their pupose: The infobox image is a headshot used for identification, Bakert.jpg illustrates the scarf. It has also been explained why one cannot replace the other, because it would be detrimental to either use. — Edokter • Talk • 14:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
You are seriously telling me you could not identify the fourth doctor from the photo image:bakert.jpg? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course you can, but removing/replacing the Fourth Doctor in the infobox image has proven to be impractical; Infophile already tried that. Hence why both are needed. — Edokter • Talk • 15:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Asthetics is not supported by WP:NFC, if one image can provide identification of the doctor and the same one can provide identification of the scarf. Then I conclude that the only reason the image is in the infobox is to look pretty, and that is unsuported by WP:NFC. Would posting this to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems for a post inclusion analysis be acceptable? Fasach Nua (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with asthetics, but with practical and technical restrictions. Since one cannot replace one with the other we need each image. We cannot simply take out Baker from the infobox image for obvious reasons; that would break consistency. Nor can we put Bakert.jpg in the mosaic; it would be way too small to fit in. So unless you can fix those problems, I and others are not incline to remove either one. Asking for a 3rd opinion is always a good idea. — Edokter • Talk • 16:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(← Dedent and edit conflict)

Would both of you step back a second.

Edokter,

What's been proven to this point is that Bakert.jpg can be used to identify the 4th Doctor in a costume typical of Baker`s run on the show. That is a valid FUR for the image to be used in the infobox for the article on the 4th Doctor. It has been suggested by you and other that it also can be used to support the main premise of the "Changing fashions" section. Bluntly, it cannot do that by itself, it needs images of the other Doctors for comparison. This is something that 10dr19.jpg does well.

It has also been put forward that it is to illustrate the scarf. This is capricious since other signature props or articles mentioned in the section are not likewise illustrated. This include the 7th's umbrella, the 4th's hat, the 5th's celery, the 6th's pins, the question mark branding, and so on. Most of these, as well as the scarf, are adequately describe in the text of the section, the exception being the branding. In this regard Bakert.jpg doesn't add anything to the section it's just a pretty picture.

Most of what's coming across from the arguments is a desire to keep a picture that some feel deserves to be there, somewhere, and hang properly justifying it's use.

Fasach Nua,

The rational for using 10dr19.jpg in the infobox boils down to "For identification purposes in conjunction with discussion of the topic of the article." In the case of this topic, and the squabbles that arise if a single version of the character were to be used, such an image needs to have all 10 of the versions represented. Removing one invalidates that.

Beyond that, since there is a good FUR for the use of 10dr19.jpg, aesthetics does come into play. That is "Yes the image, or one like can be used, but does it look good?" It's been pointed out, rightly I think, swapping Bakert.jpg in for the 4th Doctor makes the image awkward, making it less desirable to use.

That boils things down to asking which image fills both criteria, supporting the article as a whole and supporting the "Changing fashions" section. Both images do not satisfy both criteria. In such a case it's the one that falls short that is decoration, not the portion of the one that meets both.

Also keep in mind that 10dr19.jpg is used in another article. Tweaking it may adversely affect its use there as well... actually, removing Baker would be grounds for removing it from the other article.

- J Greb (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me take a completely different tack here. I can buy the argument that the scarf is sufficiently well-described in the text. Now, what about using a picture of an outfit which isn't so easy to describe and could benefit more from a picture? For instance, the tenth doctor's "geek chic" look can't give across the whole impact in just a description. A picture might help this out more. We might also be able to make an argument for using one other picture (preferably the two will be of consecutive doctors to show an immediate change). What do you guys think of this idea? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 05:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor's age redux

The article is still citing the trailer for VOTD as the source of the 903. However trailers are not necessarily canon. Does he ever actually say that he's 903 in the episode itself? If he doesn't, then the reference to 903 needs to be modified; it should still be noted because obviously he's being promoted as 903 years old, but in terms of strict canon a trailer isn't really considered part of continuity unless it actually advances the storyline (like the Tardisodes from series 2). 68.146.41.232 (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the episode says that. Will (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The exact quote is "I'm the Doctor. I'm a Time Lord. I'm from the planet Gallifrey in the constellation of Kasterborous. I'm 903 years old, and I'm the man who's gonna save your lives and all six billion people on the planet below. You got a problem with that? ". LizzieHarrison 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

I changed it to "The Doctor", as the character is always called like that, and not only "Doctor". Wedineinheck (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved it back. I'm sorry, but we need some consistency in naming conventions (See also Master, Rani etc.) WP:MOS en WP:WHO MoS tell us to avoid having unnecessary articles in article titles. — Edokter • Talk • 18:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Master (Doctor Who) has also been moved twice in the past day, using the same rationale. --Ckatzchatspy 18:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The Doctor (Doctor Who) redirects here anyway. StuartDD contributions 11:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research? It's in the text.

IAN: Just open the doors, Doctor Foreman. DOCTOR: (To himself.) Eh? Doctor who? What's he talking about...?

(later)

BARBARA: Oh, look, I don't understand it any more than you do. The inside of the ship, suddenly finding ourselves here...even some of the things Doctor Foreman says… IAN: That's not his name. Who is he? Doctor who? Perhaps if we knew his name, we might have a clue as to all of this.

(later still)

IAN: I think we'd better get going. Doctor, will you lead? DOCTOR: (Still fanning himself with the handkerchief, gets up.) Yes, yes yes yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.117.102.3 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no proof the Doctor adopts the name "Doctor" at this point, and based on the quotes you've referenced, it is more likely that he is confused about "Foreman". More to the point, though, is that you are drawing conclusions based on your own personal analysis of what occurs. That doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability and original research. If someone officially connected to the series were to say, "That is where he adopted the name", then the text could be used. (For future reference, if you find your text involves terms such as "seems to" or "apparently", it is probably not suitable.) Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Then where does Ian get "Doctor" from at all?, is my thought. -- (same person as above. I seem to have forgotten my login pass. sorry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.182.84 (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the short answer is, we don't know. We can speculate all we like (and when i say we, i don't mean here!), but that's the whole point of what Wiki isn't; speculation. We need clear, verifiable sources either way before it can really go in. Ged UK (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
At least in the original pilot--I haven't seen the generally aired second version since my one and only time in the 1980s, but except for when/where Susan said she was born, changes in dialogue were minimal--when Ian and Barbara discuss their joint problem student (Susan, of course), Barbara says the records that she checked for an address also indicate the girl lives with her grandfather, to which Ian responds with the question, "He's a doctor, isn't he?" (I believe I've remembered that line exactly right, but at least I'm very close--the pilot version, remember), which means that Susan has said as much, and maybe it is in the records. Come to think of it (and I do mean that I have just this moment thought of this), while I've always thought it dense of Ian to assume that the Doctor was Susan's paternal grandfather (the only plausible way they'd have the same surname) and ignore the possibility of the maternal side, if "grandfather" is in the school's records, it must also specify a name, mustn't it? I am not suggesting that all of this "reading between the lines" be put in the article, of course (OR, just as Ged UK suggests), but am merely trying to help answer the question. Ted Watson (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how canon the novelisations of the TV show are considered to be, but I'm sitting here looking at a copy of 'Doctor Who and an Unearthly Child' by Terrance Dicks:

"She said it would be absolutely impossible because her grandfather dislikes strangers."

"Bit of a lame excuse, isn't it?" said Ian thoughtfully. "Who is her grandfather anyway? Isn't he supposed to be a doctor of some kind?"

Then later in the second chapter:

Barbara turned to the old man. "So you must be Doctor Foreman?"

The old man smiled. "Not really. The name was on the notice-board, and I borrowed it. It might be best if you were to address me simply as Doctor."

"Very well then - Doctor. Why didn't you tell us who you were?"

"I don't discuss my private life with strangers."

Don't know if that helps anyone. - Scelestus (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nearing the end of my seventh life quote.

Ok, here's the quote. There's nothing that flatly states that the seventh Doctor had foreknowledge of his impending death.

Eight Doctor Narrating (therefore his POV): In all my travels through space and time, and nearing the end of my seventh life, I was beginning to realise you could never be too careful.

DonQuixote (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As I read that carefully, I can see that it is debatable as to whether or not he means that the realisation came from knowing he was "nearing the end." Maybe it's clearer in context. The film has yet to be officially released in any video format here in the States, and post-Fox Network telecasts have been on channels that, at least at the time it turned up on them, I did not have access to. Hope springs eternal for BBC America (but would it be the Beeb's more frequently screened--and vid issued--censored version?)! In any event, without my own copy, regs clearly prohibit me from pushing the debate any further, so that's that. Ted Watson (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting reversion by Edokter

The editor Edoktor reverted a three-item set of edits by me. I have reinstitued my work for the following reasons.

  • 1: Concerning the eighth Doctor's "dead too long" remark, I pointed out "If he is not misspeaking, this is the only instance to date of the process [regenerating into his next incarnation] coming after death." These are the only two physical possibilities here; that is, one or the other must be the fact, and pointing out every possibility in a given situation is not speculating, as he indicated in his edit summary, but avoiding doing so. To favor one over the other(s would be speculation, but this is not.
  • 2: I state that the book The Discontinuity Guide has described evidence that points to the fourth Doctor's statement of having used the alternate console room introduced in The Masque of Mandragora referred to his second and/or third incarnations rather than alleged pre-first (i.e., pre-Hartnell) Doctors as suggested in the article here, and included a specific citation, down to precise page numbers. While that text does not specifically deal with any claim of pre-Hartnell incarnations in this connection, it nevertheless makes the claim that the earlier usage was probably in their theorised "Season 6B" by the second Doctor, and they do point out his recorder, found by the fourth and Sarah Jane when they first enter the room, as evidence to their claim, and mention that the third's ruffled-front shirt (they erroneously say it is a smoking jacket, but check the story itself, and you'll see that it is one of those shirts) is there as well. This is solid evidence that contradicts speculation already present (and which he let stand), and it is cited. As Edoktor's edit summary doesn't even apply to this, I can assume only that he wasn't paying full attention and didn't realise he was reverting this along with the other two items.
  • 3: He insists that "the lates William Hartnell and Patrick Troughton" should be "the late...." I have encountered this plural usage in passages dealing with more than one dead person on more occasions in my fifty years of voracious reading than I would care to try to count. Like it or not, that is correct. If Edoktor wishes to claim that this is a difference between American and British usage, as the latter must prevail here, that would be fair enough, but it isn't what he claimed.

I stand by all of that in and of itself as proper, given what was already there. If he wants to eliminate a lot of pre-existing material on the grounds that it is uncited speculation, fine. But he can't justify any of my material and no more on that ground. Ted Watson (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored Edoktor's changes for several reasons. Given that E's not the only editor that opposes your changes, I think it should be discussed here first. Personally, I've never observed the use of "lates", and I can't find anything to verify that it is correct. With regards to "if he is not misspeaking..." and the console room, that is speculation. --Ckatzchatspy 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Concerning "late" vs. "lates", you didn't have enough time to look for evidence for finding no support of the plural to have much strength (especially given my aforementioned experience with it), and did you find anything to say it is wrong? The mere fact that "late" was posted first shouldn't put it above verification requirements, after all. Saying that "...misspeaking..." and the console room are speculation does not make the case that they are, and the existence of my arguments that they are not requires more than a unilateral proclamation from you. In fact, my defense of my revision to the latter (my second version with citation and without the statements as to just when in their respective histories the second and third Doctors are most likely to have used it, anyway) is absolutely irrefutable. That edit is statements of flat and cited fact and one cited authority's theorizing--not mine!--that contradict speculation that is already there and is nothing else. The uncited theory that the fourth Doctor's comment about this room's prior use constitutes significant support for the pre-Hartnell Doctors hypothesis is contradicted by the presence of props that are connected to known incarnations as pointed out by other sources, and all I did was document that fact. Period and not open to reasonable and reality-based debate. Your reversion of that is absolutely unconscionable. Either my addition must stand or the entire passage be grossly rewritten if not removed entirely. Indeed, much of this article is much more speculation than any of my edits can possibly be claimed to be. Another posting as lacking in validity as the above will result in a complaint being filed, and I do know where to do so. Ted Watson (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
First on the subject of speculation, or more specifically, original research; If I encouter words like "suggests", "likely", "indicates", "possibly" and other such phrases, it tells me that those statements are not likely to be certain in any way, and are deducted from the available information, which constitutes speculation. Only when those facts are irrifutably stated can they go into the article. Next, "late" vs. "lates"; Late is used as an adjective, not as a noun. Adjectives don't have plurals. It is often mistaken as a noun because it is preceded by "the". Basically, what you are writing he "he is late, they are lates", which simply makes no sense. It is just bad English. — Edokter • Talk • 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
1) Death: That's assuming that he wasn't dead during any other regeneration. Since the mechanics of regeneration is up to the whims of the writers, saying that this is his only death is OR.
2) Console Room: Actually, this doesn't support anything one way or the other. That whole bit should probably be taken out, leaving just Brain of Morbius and the Cartmel Masterplan.
3) "Lates" is rather obscure (I found one instance of it online, and it was in a very old New York Times article). It might be less confusing to just rewrite that as "the late William Hartnell and the late Patrick Troughton". DonQuixote (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm too ill with flu today to point out the garbage here. Later. Ted Watson (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel a bit better today. First, "late vs. "lates": There are exceptions to every rule and this is the one for "no plurals of adjectives." Saying it "simply makes no sense. It is just bad English," does not stop the "proper authorities" from insisting that the proper use of the verb "to comprise" is "the whole comprises the parts." It is very rare to find it used that way because indeed "it makes no sense." The whole does nothing while the parts come together to make the whole, yet the authorities do insist on it. See here for one of them. I generally advise avoiding using that word. Another example is their insistence that "to beg the question" means "to avoid or evade one," which is just not there. "To beg" means, of course, "to ask for," which is how most people use it with "the question." Here, I stand with the general public, because it is a construction of common English words and they mean what they mean, so the authorities' position on this particular phrase simply can not be defended, just unilaterally stood by. The only difference between those and "late/lates" is that while the plural has dropped out of general use, there is nothing truly wrong with it, for in the example under dispute, the uninitiated would not automatically realize it was being applied to both actors. Our context would make the point, but there are a number of other possible contexts where it would not be so, and the usage is necessary. Here, however, I'll go along with DonQuixote's suggestion of applying it individually to each man. Concerning Edokter's most recent comment about my additions to the "dead too long" and "alternate console room" passages, of the "phrases" that he complains about (all of which are single words, incidentally, while a phrase is made up of multiple words—if he gets to be picky about definitions, then so do I), only "indicates" is in either of my passages, it appears just once, and I deny that it contains the ambiguity he attributes to it. I repeat my assertion that I have previously presented a case proving that the "console room" revision is "not open to reasonable and reality-based debate" as to having no speculation of my own and very little from the cited source, which is given only as it contradicts speculation already present, not as spec in and of itself. For him to respond to that by taking words all but one of which are not actually present out of supposed context and reading something into them from their dictionary definitions that is not present in my passage itself, even in the one word that is actually there, and ignoring the stated fact that speculation is already present in the article—containing the very words he complains about—is highly out of line, impossible for me to read as anything but proof of a hidden agenda, and cause for some disciplinary action, but none is indicated on his talk page. I've been handed warnings for a lot less. Ted Watson (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Go read late on Wiktionary; it even demonstrates "late", as an adjective, as a euphimism for "deceased". The proper use in this case would be "The both late William Hartnell and Patrick Troughton..." I maintain the fact that there is no such word as "lates". Last, if the speculation was indeed part of the cited publication, you should have stated it as such. But even then, it would be hard to maintain, as this article should only contain the established facts put forward by the TV series itself, not speculation revolving around those facts, even if they can be attributet to an outside source. — Edokter • Talk • 22:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what "Wiktionary" says any more than I automatically care about what somebody puts in any article here. I explained why current common usage is no proof of anything, and that's what you'll find there. And I don't want to have to tell you one more time that my passage was NOT speculation itself. Continuing to say so does not constitute proof that it is. There is NO proof that it is because it isn't. And the article is loaded with stuff that IS speculation, especially the alternate control room passage to which I added my work. You're objection to my work here when limited to my work alone is blatantly invalid and, as I said before in other terms, it's impossible to believe it's coming in good faith. Ted Watson (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It has now been two weeks, and no one has attempted to discuss these matters any further, and, aside from the "lates vs. late" dispute to which I agreed to a compromise, no one ever did try to do so with statements that were relevant, reasonable, and factually accurate. At least one of these is missing from each posting by others above (and especially note that Edokter was cautioned for being unreasonable in the dispute about an image of Tom Baker earlier on this same board, and that I have not been given any sort of warning for saying he is not working in good faith here). Let me also point out something relevant to the regeneration edit that closes it to question. In all cases the Doctor is clearly moving, breathing, often even talking, and therefore alive when regeneration begins, with the sole exception of the second-to-third transition. While this one takes place off-screen the programme expressly puts it forth as having been artificially induced by the Time Lords as part of the then perfectly healthy second Doctor's punishment (The Discontinuity Guide's "Season 6B" theory and its widespread acceptance notwithstanding). This contradicts Don Quixote's statement here, "That's assuming he wasn't dead during any other regeneration." There is no assumption here at all, but a fact again not open to reasonable debate. The aforementioned two weeks gap constitutes conceding to my positions, and I am therefore reposting my edits, including the agreed upon compromise to the "lates/late" dispute. Absolutely ANY reversion of my work and mine alone without an accurate, relevant and reasonable justification given will result in a complaint being filed with Wiki authorities. Ted Watson (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ted, please don't make threats - if we're looking at this as a process of consensus, then consensus is clearly against your position. Please accept that. --Ckatzchatspy 21:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ted... You, I and other contributors have each give their opinion and explained to you what the exact problems were with your edits. I advice you to read Wikipedia:Consensus, then re-read the entire discussion again. If you intend to repost your edits, you are going against consensus, which is regarded as disruptive editing. Your resolve on this issue border on obsession. Please reconsider your statement to repost, as it may result in a block if you go through with it. — Edokter • Talk • 21:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you reread the discussion. I refuted every argument everybody put up, and they gave up. That is a concession to my position and there is therefore no consensus against me. I have already reposted, and Ckatz has already made only slight alterations to the "alternate console room" one. However, he has deleted the "regeneration/death" one and given only the already refuted reason, so there will be a complaint filed; I'm out of time today, though. With your claim of obsession when I gave everybody a month to say something in response to my last post here, you again give evidence of a lack of good faith on your part. Ted Watson (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No one condeded to your position... we just got tired talking to a brick wall. Good luck with the complaint. — Edokter • Talk • 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, please do not misinterpret the course of the discussion as a "concession" to [your] position". I can't speak for the others who have opposed your insistence on adding this material, only for myself. With that in mind, I have to say that it is extremely frustrating to try to have a meaningful discussion with someone who insists on labelling the opinions of others as "garbage", who repeatedly makes accusations of "bad faith" editing, and who attempts to force his opinion on others through the use of threats. I trust you will include those aspects of your behaviour when you file your complaint. --Ckatzchatspy 22:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I will certainly point out that the behavior of the three of you absolutely justified my use of those terms. I put up absolutely well taken defenses of my edits and refutations of your (that's a plural) criticisms, the latter blatantly invalid when put up against the actual material. What you people said was garbage, especially Edokter's effective lie (he has a semantic technicality to offer in defense against that charge, but absolutely nothing else, hence, "effective") about the presence of certain dubious words in my edits when only one of them was there at all, just once, and in context his complaint about them didn't apply to it. His most recent posting, "We just got tired talking to a brick wall," is a flat lie, no loophole-based defense of any kind, as none of you tried to deal with what I actually said. Your (still plural, even collective) complete lack of acknowledging my actual original arguments against your (ditto) edit summaries and comments is a lack of discussing in good faith. Period. If you don't like being called it, don't earn it. Next stop is the complaint location. Ted Watson (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just at the risk of flaring all this up again now it's been died down for a couple of months, and while I haven't got any particular opinions on the first two points (I'm an absolute fan of the programme, sure, but not to that extent), I thought I'd throw in another voice to say that as far as I know 'the lates' is not correct usage, current or otherwise. 'Late' in the sense of 'dead' is an adjective just as 'dead' would be, and shouldn't be pluralised. That said, it's probably simpler, especially if you're referring to more than one deceased person, to leave 'the late' out entirely, as more often than not it's more for decoration than practical value. - Scelestus (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Faith

Recently, I have noticed a spate of arguaments and disputes on this page - although this is to be expected, the amount is now far from normal. Thus, I propose that everyone take a deep breath, step back a moment, and review the discussions, not with an aim to criticise, but compliment and encourage. The arguaments here can only serve to put people down, and this is unneccesary. Can everyone please calm down? If there are any problems, feel free to discuss them on my talk page, but please, be civil. Thanks - Weebiloobil (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does nobody but me seem to think that dealing with the facts under discussion in an accurate as well as resaonably fair and logical manner is important? Ted Watson (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It is important, but arguing is not going to get anything done. A clear head is needed, before the facts can clearly, intelligently and responibly be reviewed - Weebiloobil (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If they had "clearly, intelligently and reasonably...reviewed" the facts to begin with, I would not have posted most of what I eventually did. Try again. Ted Watson (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not say that you were at fault, nor anyone else. What I was suggesting is that everybody just calms down - Weebiloobil (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And I am saying that lack of calm has not been the primary problem. Ted Watson (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

...but it is a contributing factor, and so should be combated whenever possible. Articles do not get improved by arguing, so one this disagreement stops, you will be able to continue contributing - Weebiloobil (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Disagreements lead to arguments, which resolve the disagreement if being "civil" is not given a higher priority than being accurate and logical. If this or any disagreement "stops" without being truly resolved, the encyclopedia has been done a disservice. Ted Watson (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
And yet, such a disagreement as this only causes heated tempers, making people more likely to offend, and to make mistakes. Like I said in my first post, a disagreement "is only to be expected", but not one on this scale. Please, just calm down, and assume good faith - Weebiloobil (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)There are no official policies or guidelines on accuracy per se. However when it comes to content, official Wikipedia policy states that verifiability is more important than truth. Likewise since we do have an official policy on civility, Weebiloobil is -strictly speaking- correct that being civil is more desirable than article accuracy. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There may well be a Wiki policy giving civility a higher priority than accuracy—and, by the way, we have unquestionably been talking about talk page discussions, not article edits; that "verifiability" statement was exactly the sort of unfair (to the point of being irrelevant to the actual discussion) remark I have been talking against—but "more desirable" is something else again. It is not more desirable to me, as it gets in the way of making the encyclopedia all it should be. Ted Watson (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that the facts being discussed on the talk page are not relevant to the article? --Kralizec! (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You haven't read the thread about Edokter's reversion, have you? I'm saying that when one discusses an article and/or edits to it on the talk page, what's in the postings should reflect what is in the article and/or the edits under discussion and what has been said in previous postings on the thread. Edokter and Ckatz utterly failed to do this, and I therefore filed a complaint against them. (My computer time for today is at an end, so I won't be reading any responses to this until tomorrow.) Ted Watson (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you have not read the replies, but your complaint to WP:AN/I appears to have been declined (which is why I came here to help foster consensus and collaboration). --Kralizec! (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have sworn I posted this before, but it obviously didn't take, so here goes again: Of course I've read the replies. I have in fact responded to them. What an offensive—and incompetent—thing to say! As for the complaint, I found the posted response absurd, and have said so—and why—there. Ted Watson (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
"What an offensive—and incompetent—thing to say" - can we assume Good Faith, please? Is it entirely possibl that these matters are resolved please? Ted, I think that you are kind-of right, but just wait before posting replies above. This matter can be resolved, somehow - Weebiloobil (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, which applies to the earlier thread that I launched as an edit dispute and which Edokter and Ckatz failed to participate in fairly, not the immediately above. Incompetence and offensiveness can be and often are committed without a lack of good faith, and I do indeed assume that to be the case with "Kralizec!". (I know that the closing punctuation there is technically not accurate, but I wanted to be sure nobody thought that the exclamation point was my doing for emphasis, which would have been quite understandable; I made a link of him somewhere, and it didn't work at first because I hadn't noticed the ex. point, so I certainly couldn't fault anybody else for not realizing here that it's part of his name.) Ted Watson (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Age of actors playing the Doctor

In case a more detailed discussion of the relative ages of the actors playing the Doctor should arise, I though I'd preserve some data here for posterity. These ages are somewhat rounded off, since I mostly only compared years, not exact airdates and birthdates.

William Hartnell: Doctor from age 55 to 58. Was oldest Doctor ever for most of that time.
Patrick Troughton: Age 46 to 49.
Jon Pertwee: Age 51 to 55.
Tom Baker: Age 40 to 47.
Peter Davison: Age 30 to 33. For all of that time, youngest Doctor ever.
Colin Baker: Age 41 to 43.
Sylvester McCoy: Age 44 to 46, and again at age 52. (Note that SM was born a few months after CB.)
Paul McGann: Age 36.
Christopher Eccleston: Age 41. (Note that while CE is younger than PM, CE didn't play the Dr. until later in life.)
David Tennant: Age 34 to 37 thus far.
74.10.73.253 (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, if that had been Colin instead of a disguised McCoy in the regeneration scene opening season 24, he would have been older at his last, official (i.e., "Children in Need" doesn't count) on-screen appearance as the Doctor than McCoy was at his first. I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence with this, but a number of editors (and please note that in order to avoid giving unnecessary offense I have not given any specifics whatsoever) have, whether I say so or not, displayed some mental density, and I consequently felt that this clarification was necessary. Ted Watson (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Effect v. Affect

To affect a mannerism is to display (or in some uses, in fact most times the word is even used, deliberately simulate) vocal and body cues. To effect a mannerism would mean to alter or cause change to said mannerism. If someone affects a scottish accent, then they are speaking in a faked scottish accent. If someone effects a Scottish accent, then they have presumably shoved a handful of marbles in a Scott's mouth. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Describing Jack

I've inserted the word pansexual to describe Captain Jack. I think based upon dialogue in The Empty Child that this is an accurate term to use, though if someone wants to change it to bisexual, that's OK, too. 23skidoo (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My question would be "What is the point of inserting that there?" It's not relevant to that sentence, and really just seems to toss in an unncessary noun. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Please review my edits

Hello - I'm getting a bit frustrated with editors blanket reverting me and templating me as a vandal for removing original research and guesswork from the Doctor (Doctor Who) article. Can people check my edits and if they have SPECIFIC objections to my removal of material - can they tell me a) why it is not currently original research/guesswork and b) what source supports the statements I have removed. Just blanking reverting me on the basis that "people have worked hard" is not useful and has no bearing on the application of policy. --87.112.82.25 (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the page for 12 hours, giving all parties invloved a chance to discuss the changes. Sadly, I can't give my opinion until the protection has expired. — Edokter • Talk • 13:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
that would be nice but the evidence so far is that people perfer to just revert and label people removing original resource as vandals - if that fails, they then try to recruit meatpuppets to do it to beat 3rr. --87.112.82.25 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A quick skim over the text you removed tells me it's plain old original research. Plainly put (as you already know) your removal was correct. Matthew (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for actually taking the time to check my edits. I have absolutely no problem with people disagreeing with my view that the material reviewed was original research - but just blank reverting me and templating me as a vandal was really pissing me off. --87.112.82.25 (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
While I don't have a problem with you removing the material in the edit here from line 120 to line 200 I do have a problem with you seemingly then go hunting for other material to remove and your edit comments didn't help in that regard . While some of it is justified , like the producer allegation , other material like how the author Daniel O Mahony referenced the fan idea of the Doctors second heart only growing after his first regeneration now appears to suggest that he thought that idea up by himself .
I admit there is a fine line between mentioning fan theories and presenting orignal research but don't let us throw out the baby with the bath water . Garda40 (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
it's referenced in the book - that we can source - if we want to state that it was a fan theory first, then you need to a ) supply a source to that effect and b) find evidence that the writer didn't think up the idea independently - because otherwise it's... original research. --87.112.82.25 (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
oh and I'm not sure what you mean by "hunting" - I read the article and removed original research and guesswork as I found it. --87.112.82.25 (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
re the book then put a fact tag on it as you did for another item and the reason why I used the word "hunting" is that as I said you had reverted out the material from line 120 and you then went through the article and removed material with individual edits (justified or not ) with not very helpful edit summaries .Garda40 (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
and which of them isn't currently original research/guesswork and cannot be removed by any editor on sight as per fundamental policy? If you've got sources, you feel free to put the material back in. The onus has *always* been on those wanting to keep material to provide sources. Fact tags have become a way for the lazy to retain material for months and even years without sources. --87.112.82.25 (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Based on what you said about fact tags I'm puzzled how this edit justified a fact tag when you saw it but other edits justified removal on sight .I've heard of the fan theory of unseen adventures but decades and/or hundreds of years of them and can the fan theory even be sourced to a source that wikipedia will accept.
Using words like It has been postulated that .. is just a way of say it's a fan theory without using the word fan .Garda40 (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
That's great but we don't do fan theories unless they have been picked up by reliable third party sources, we also don't do "it can be sourced" as a source - if material doesn't have a source, any editor can remove it and it's upto the people wanting inclusion to FIND the sources not the other way around. --87.112.226.155 (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to support the removal of original research. I would think it shouldn't be too hard to find sources for some parts, like the personality section. Then it could be put back in. Algr (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting to note how you completely failed to answer the question about that edit .Garda40 (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
What's interesting about it ? communication is easier on a wiki when people are explict rather than speaking out of the side of their mouth. Be EXPLICT what's interesting about it? How does it affect my application of policy? how does it change the validity of my edits? --87.114.130.127 (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
87.112.226.155, you might want to get yourself a proper user name, I think Garda40 thinks I'm you. (I didn't make any edits here.) Garda40, exactly what question are you referring to? Algr (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Never even heard of you before today Algr and it's this edit and why it deserved a fact tag and not removal like other fan theories .Garda40 (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No I don't want an account - it's a just a wikitrap. I manage quite fine to work without one. --87.114.130.127 (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an un-involved editor and admin, these 8 edits appear to be spot-on removal of materials that do not otherwise meet Wikipedia's official policies on WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. While Doctor Who may be the favourite television program for many of us (I started during the early 1980s with the PBS rebroadcasts of the Tom Baker years), that does not exempt it from Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

As another uninvolved (but non-admin) type, and after reviewing the total edits, I thought I'd way in with my opinion. My biggest "complaint" (a term I'm using loosely) would be the removal of some of the information in the section on the different personalities of the different incarnations of the Doctor. I certainly agree that some of the material ("he was blah, but really it was just masking blah") is OR without having outside sourcing. But I think a decent chunk of the basic material ("Three was a swashbuckling dandy", or whatever they say) that's readily available from the source material, should be allowable - like doing a plot synopsis. Is it really OR to say that Three was skilled in martial arts, when in multiple serials, he throws villains around, and mentions "Venusian judo" (I think it was, or similar)? Maybe this needs some citing to particular serials, but even so. I saw a comment here recently to the effect that "no OR shouldn't trump common sense". Anyway, to summarize: Doctors' personalities: readily observable info should stay, perhaps with additional sourcing; deeper psychological analyses definitely need reliable sources. Just my $0.02, for whatever it's worth, umrguy42 18:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

common sense doesn't exist on wikipedia (but that's a discussion for another time) - I have no problem with material that be sourced to the show or other RS being put back in - a lazy, revert it all back - I would. --87.114.39.226 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:EPISODE is a good read. It dictates that the actual episodes (or whole series) may be used as a source for information about the episode and constitutes a primary source. Such use does not constitute original research if it is used to verify a fact. This is why this edit in particular disturbed me. Regards, --Cameron (T|C) 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm familar with WP:EPISODE - but it's not a get out for not providing.. sources.. so put it back in when you can source it to actual episodes not just "well it happened in SOME episodes". --87.113.70.64 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
We probably would not have this issue if the facts in question (looking at the edit history, apparently about 6k of text) were cited to an episode, external source, or anything for that matter. However the fact remains that WP:VER is quite specific that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" and "any material lacking a reliable source may be removed." And my suspicion is that a lot of this text (such as "The sensitive, vulnerable, peaceful and less commanding Fifth Doctor was very much a long-lived soul in spite of his youthful body") will be nigh un-citable. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Kralizec!, that's an example of the parts that I believe do need cutting. But like I said, saying that Two was more clownish, Three was a dandy, Four was bohemian, Seven was much darker, Nine had an underlying anger, etc., some of which needs episode citing, some of which can prossibly be left without based on the overall picture (clothing, etc. - although it needs discussing), that could be put back. --umrguy42 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with umrguy. I'm not saying I want it left word for word. I'm just saying some of it can be based on the overall picture. --Cameron (T|C) 10:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
And nobody is saying otherwise, you feel free to put back in that which you can source to specific episodes or groups of episodes. --87.113.74.241 (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Doctor's Daughter

I removed part of the text about the Doctor's family

He mentions his previous family to Donna Noble in the same episode and says that he lost his paternal instinct some time ago, however his eventual acceptance of Jenny indicates otherwise.

because IMHO it's not well enough supported by the episode in question and also to prevent the paragraph about family getting disproportionately long. The quote no doubt being referred to (which does indeed give a little additional insight into the subject of the article) is about 29 mins into the episode:

The Doctor: Donna, I've been a father before.

Donna: What?

The Doctor: I lost all that a long time ago. Along with everything else.

Donna: I'm sorry. I didn't know. Why didn't you tell me? You talk all the time but you don't say anything.

The Doctor: I know. It's just... when I look at her now, I can see them. The hole they left, all the pain that filled it. I just don't know if I can face that every day.

Donna: It won't stay like that. She'll help you. We both will.

The Doctor: When they died, that part of me died with them. It'll never come back, not now.

Donna: I'll tell you something, Doctor. Something that I've never told you before. I think you're wrong.

While it's a reasonable interpretation of the scene, it is not explicit that the Doctor was talking about parental instinct (and how can an "instinct" be lost?), or about family life, or anything else. It may become clearer by the end of series 4, but the text before gave the misleading impression of a near verbatim quotation. (Also this was two sentences joined by a comma rather than a semicolon.) --79.72.89.161 (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)