Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 →

Doctor vs The Doctor

I've moved the article to The Doctor (Doctor Who), since our Time Lord is credited as "The Doctor" (ie including the article) in the new series. --Kwekubo 17:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). The Doctor, as written, is never as "The Doctor" but always "the Doctor". We've discussed this before, here. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Blinovich and his limitations

Khaosworks recently removed a mention of Father's Day from the section on regenerations meeting. I don't think it needs to be in this article, but even though there was no visible energy discharge or explosion when the two Roses touched in Father's Day, Paul Cornell has made it clear that the "ZAP!" the Doctor warned Rose about was the BLE, and that it was the BLE energy discharge caused by Rose touching her baby self (sounds a bit icky!) which allowed the Reaper to enter the church. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The doctor and his lovelife

The discussion regarding the character of Doctor Who and his lack of sexuality, becoming controversy and then hinting at involvement with the character of Rose, does not refer to the slight flirtation with the characetr of Captain Jack and the references that both Doctor and Jack make to being 'not restricted' to one gender... I don't know how to put it without making it seem like a 'cry for time-traveller-gay-rights' :) - can someone else do this - please?! (Also - reference needs to be made to the episode where cassandra inhabits the odctor's body and how the sexuality and love aspects are played out) Crescent 23:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor's age

I haven't edited the main page to reflect the following observation as I don't have a copy of Vampire Science to hand: I recall that in Orman and Blum's book the Doctor gives his age as '3', i.e. the lifespan of his eighth incarnation so far. In the same conversation he gives the 1012 figure by adding up the lifespans of all his incarnations.
Applying the same rule, 900 years could be the lifespan of the Ninth Doctor only, making him well over 2000 if we consider the books canon.
Jsteph 06:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard this theory before, but it doesn't jibe with the 900 years of phone box travel, 900 years of time space, or (especially) his "Look at the ears" line which implies a recent regeneration, so I've never put much stock into it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think his regen into #9 was all that recent when Rose staretd. Looking back, the Doctor would have needed ample time as #9 to go back in time and appear in all those pictures that Clive/Mickey had on the "Who Is The Doctor?" website. Notice Rose was nowhere in those photos. - EmiOfBrie 17:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So what if she doesn't appear in the photos she saw - she knows she didn't appear in them. For all we know, she was standing behind the camera/told the sketcher not to include her to avoid exacerbating the paradox - SoM 19:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And in any case, they all could have taken place between the time he leaves her at the end and then returns for her ("Did I mention it also travels in time?") at the end of Rose. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather put them before Rose altogether than try and force something in there - that's not a "gap" - look at his face throughout the scene, both B&A. No way is there more time elapsing between those scenes for the Doctor than Rose. - SoM 20:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the placement is not clear. It's like the unseen portions preceding The Face of Evil taking place in that moment where you see the TARDIS just fading out (and not even completely at that) in Robot. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not the Morbius Doctors again.

Wilipedia shouldn't cling to an interpretation of a scene that contradicts everything around it, while giving so much less weight to another explanation that makes perfect sense. The faces in the mind bending game are Morbius. It takes whole novels worth of retroactive continuity to find a way for them to be the Doctor. Only one line supports the "Morbius Doctors" interpretation, and it is coming from someone who's brain is being destroyed at the time. If the production team intended to IMPLY that their MIGHT be previous Doctors, then they did so as a red herring. They've certainly implied the Doctor's death enough times. I suggest pulling this from the Doctor (Doctor Who) article entirely, and just having it on the The Brain of Morbius page. Algr 17:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that viewing that story alone, it absolutely looks as if the faces are the Doctor's. Morbius is shouting, "Back, back, to your beginning!" and the Doctor certainly appears to be losing the battle at that point. Although later production teams contradicted it, it's clear that the intention of the Hinchcliffe/Holmes team was that these were the faces of earlier Doctors. It's only in the context of later stories that this interpretation is problematic. You've got to retcon either way: it's really just as much a retcon to say "the faces are Morbius's" as it is to say "they're the Doctor's, but not exactly (see Other (Doctor Who))". True, it's much simpler to say "Morbius got it wrong" than to say "these are past lives of the Doctor's, but Hartnell was still the first" and come up with "before there was regeneration, there was reincarnation". But given that licensed media have come up with these fanwanky ways to work around the series' contradictions, why not mention them?

As the article stands now, Wikipedia isn't clinging to any one interpretation: it's just presenting the (contradictory) evidence given on-screen and letting readers decide for themselves. I think it's an interesting discontinuity, and one that belongs in the article. If you think it's given undue weight, we could add the alternate reading that the faces are Morbius's; however, I have to say that that reading is not supported by the scene itself. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

it absolutely looks as if the faces are the Doctor's.

It absolutely does not. The first face is Morbius's fish-bowl, the second is the statue we see of him. Only then do we see any Doctors, so why would no further Morbiuses appear? Algr 17:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I just did some research and determined that the face I took to be the defiant Tom Baker is actually Phillip Hinchcliffe. But this doesn't change the basic problems I point out at the start. This is an obscure issue that only effects a single episode, (like the Doctor's sudden magic power with the tape in Ambassadors of Death.) and so shouldn't be highlighted in a general article about the Doctor.

Neither the "Morbius" or "Other" explanations permit those faces to be the Doctor. If Wikipedia DOESN'T endorse either explanation, then the scene makes no sense, and belongs under discontinuities, or out of this article entirely. Algr 09:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The scene makes perfect sense - and is thus not a discontinuity - whichever of the following three hypotheses you accept. Either it's Morbius's faces or it's the Other's or it's the Doctor lying. All three theories, floated at one time or another in fandom, are consistent with the twelve regenerations concept. The only apparent discontinuity (and I do stress the adjective) is if we theorise that these are the Doctor's. It's not an obscure issue, certainly, since it's spawned literally years of debate and the concept of the Other introduced in the novels (not to mention The Infinity Doctors). And indeed, Wikipedia does not and cannot endorse either explanation, but simply explain that this scene has created controversy, why it has done so, and present all of these hypotheses in an equal manner. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've altered "implying" to "can be taken as implying", which appears to be what the point of contention here is, although not actually outright stated by anyone. Morwen - Talk 11:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Morwen. I confess I don't know if that really is Algr's problem with it, but I'm perfectly fine with this rewording. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that fixes it. Thanks. Algr 15:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Last Time Lord

See my comments on the Talk pages of Time War and S2 episode School Reunion about the point at which the Doctor became the last Time Lord: if there are more information fragments they could be brought together as a section on this page. Jackiespeel 21:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Suggestions of hanky panky"

Aside from the fact that this is highly unencyclopedic wording, what are the suggestions for this other than the epilogue of The Dying Days?--Keycard ^(talk) 06:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

None in the series; this was mostly (as stated) played up by the press and/or the production team (read: JNT). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

After the Twelfth Doctor

I recall coming across "somewhere" that one of the Doctors said that he can only have twelve reincarnations ("elementary cell regeneration technobabble" being the reason). What would happen to the series when that point is reached? The Tardis is a living organism - as the Doctor says in The Impossible Planet - would it die as well? Rose "absorbed" part of the Tardis' force in The Parting of the Ways which was then transferred to the Nineth Doctor which implies a form of symbiosis. Could the Tardis select a new partner - would it require a Gallifreyan? (Jack Harkness's ship appears to be a more conventional form of transport... in the sense that a time machine can be conventional) Jackiespeel 12:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Twelve regenerations; thirteen doctors in all. Discussed in the regenerations section to great detail. I wouldn't worry about the series all that much, and they'll cross that bridge when they come to it. I can come up with at least five different ways to continue it past the Thirteenth Doctor with minimal mental effort. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Give us a few there. GusF 17:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In The Five Doctors, the high counsel rather casually offers the Master a complete new set of regenerations in return for his cooperation. Anthony Ainley is actually the 14th Master, Eric Roberts is the 15th. (Although stealing bodies this way probably isn't a good choice for the hero of a series. Algr 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't Eric Roberts be the 16th Master, with Gordon Tipple as the 15th? GusF 19:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

With the destruction of the other Time Lords things might change. Another possibility - the time travel group Jack Harkness parted company is given/acquires some of the technology etc involved/evolves into the successor group. Some things are best considered in advance (g) Jackiespeel 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumably when and if the series makes it to the 13th Doctor (which could be 20 years from now for all we know, if Tennant and his successors each stay for 5 seasons, for example), the writers will come up with some way for the Doctor to renew himself for another go-around. According to Trial of a Time-Lord, somewhere in between the 12th and 13th Doctors there is supposed to be an evil incarnation known as The Valeyard and he could stir up trouble. Although it's doubtful the heroic Doctor would steal bodies the way the Master did, I'm sure that with or without the Time Lords, he'll figure out an heroic way to keep himself alive. 23skidoo 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A few off the top of my head:

1) The Doctor is "more" than a Time Lord - suitably mysterious. 2) A younger Time Lord willingly gives up his body to the Doctor (The Keeper of Traken). 3) The biogenic molecules that make regeneration possible get a kick start. 4) Energies from the Eye of Harmony or the equivalent create a new regenerative cycle (as the Master tried to do twice). 5) The Doctor is reborn into a new body with a new set of regenerations (as the Other was). 6) Regenerations are transferred from someone else (Mawdryn Undead, the TVM). 7) The regeneration limit was not a physical one, and with Time Lords gone, it no longer applies. 8) The Doctor is regressed along his own timeline to become a younger William Hartnell like Troughton was originally intended to be (hence not requiring a Billy lookalike, and since regeneration is random, his subsequent incarnations don't have to look like the others either).

I could come up with more, if actually given time. As I said, these are just off the top of my head; the details are still fuzzy, but they can always be worked out with minimal effort, and besides, it's not as if the writers have always been too fussed about continuity anyway. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Or...they could do what Americans do with Superman every twenty years or so--reboot the character. :P DonQuixote 04:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Rebooting would be annoying as frell... DrWho42 04:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Lots of planets have a North!"

An anonymous editor recently removed this line from the section on the Doctor's accent(s) as too specific for an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure I disagree, but it's such a great line I'm slightly loath to lose it. What do other people think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is fantastistic, but where does it come from? Jefffire 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's from the episode Rose. Since this is a general article, it may be better just to note the line in the Ninth Doctor entry, where it is quoted verbatim. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's also in Aliens of London, isn't it? Or was it boomtown? Algr 18:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's World War Three — Rose repeats the line to Harriet Jones, MP (Flydale North). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cho-Je?

I see new entries have been added to the "Doctors" category. There are a lot of incarnations you should but couldn't add but my point is: Who is Cho Je?-Davros27

Assuming it's not a rhetorical question, he's the future projection of K'an-Po, same as the Watcher was a projection of the Fourth Doctor. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why is it listed on incarnations of The Doctor then?-Davros27

Please sign your comments. I think this might be an error. I've never heard of Cho-Je being called an incarnation of the Doctor. I'll put the question on the template's talk page. 23skidoo 19:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor and Susan

I believe that it is said somewhere (in a book or an episode) that The Doctor and Susan(his Grand Daughter) are not blood-related but he just decided to call her his grand daughter. But please correct me if I am wrong.

Books? Doubtful. More likely one of many vague fan rumblings about the Doctor's early years, I think. I've heard it before, but as I recall, it was purely speculation on some fan's part -- granted, that could become book canon eventually, but you know what I mean. :)--SB | T 14:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor mentions being a father in Fear Her, so I think it's more than likely she's his granddaughter. I always felt such grumblings came from fans not wishing the Doctor to be a sexual figure.

Although the books exist in that often-cited "grey area of canon" because the BBC has never made a definitive ruling on the matter (unlike Paramount and Star Trek), and a few of the more recent books have suggested that Susan wasn't actually the granddaughter of the Doctor but rather a descendent of one of the Doctor's ancestors ... or something like that ... episodes broadcast on TV still trump everything else. The first 2 seasons plus the Five Doctors special categorically indicate (in dialogue) that Susan is the Doctor's granddaugher, so therefore she is. And as noted above (as well as in I believe Tomb of the Cybermen but I might be thinking of another episode) the fact the Doctor has offspring has been mentioned in passing but to date we've yet to meet any. I agree that there is a really large "fanon" element that wants to see the Doctor being completely asexual, but once again there really isn't much to be seen in televised episodes to suggest this is the case. Indeed, the Eccleston season, the TV movie (which like it or not is canon) and several moments in the classic series, suggest otherwise. 23skidoo 23:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

when the doctor mentions that he has had a daughter in Fear Her, he wasnt talking about Susan, but another girl named Miranda. Im not sure if she is a Time Lord or not but she appeared after gallifrey was destroyed and the doctor was living on earth.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.Warr (talk • contribs) .

Well, he definitely wasn't talking about Susan because Susan's his granddaughter, not daughter. For Miranda, see Miranda (Doctor Who). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Susan was the Doctor's adopted grandaughter. Her real grandfather was the Doctor's genetic forebearer, the Other. Also intrestingly Miranda's real father is the final incarnation of the Doctor.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.42.167.168 (talk • contribs) 01:39, July 5, 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the Other or Miranda are canon considering the Eighth Doctor's revelation of being a half-human, and of course if Miranda could be a daughter, then why not Susan another granddaughter. Not to say the Doctor is a playboy, but well, he's been around a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki-newbie (talk • contribs) 07:32, July 5, 2006 (UTC)

Whether the Doctor is half-human (as the TV movie would have it) or not doesn't really affect the canonicity of Miranda or the Other either way. The novels have presented several possible options for Susan's origins: according to Lungbarrow she's the granddaughter of the Other, but according to Sometime Never... she's Miranda's daughter Zezanne. (Just to be clear, Miranda was adopted by the Eighth Doctor but may be the genetic daughter of a future Doctor. Got it?) However, Sometime Never... was part of an elaborate storyarc in the Eighth Doctor novels which involved Gallifrey having been taken out of time, with the Doctor's origins apparently having been erased — the Zezanne business was part of an alternate origin for the Doctor which wouldn't require Gallifrey. However, The Gallifrey Chronicles changed the premise slightly, making the alternate origin redundant, and although the new series also operates with a Gallifrey-less universe it seems more consistent with the version from The Gallifrey Chronicles (it was destroyed in time, and is just inaccessible because of a temporal event horizon) than the version from Sometime Never... (which, I gather, implies that it was removed from time so that it never existed, which would make the Doctor a paradox until his new origin is cut-and-pasted into the universe). (Whew!)

Anyway, I don't think that anyone official has confirmed whether in Fear Her the Doctor was talking about Susan's mother (or father), or Miranda (if they're not the same person), or another son or daughter. I think that it's more likely Susan's mother or father, simply because the Miranda/Zezanne business and the Other are too complicated and inaccessible for the television audience.

By the way, folks, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~ . It's helpful in conversations to see who said what. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

7th - 8th regeneration

I seem to remember the doctor being shot as he exited the TARDIS at the start of the episode and then regenerating in the morgue, not as a result of surgery as stated in the article. Someone corect me if i'm wrong i only watched the movie once and refuse towatch it again as i consider it a blasphemy.

You can read a aynopsis at Doctor Who (1996). The Seventh Doctor was shot, but he was still alive. He was brought to the hospital, operated on, and died on the operating table because Grace couldn't navigate his alien physiology. They even say that the bullet wounds weren't that serious. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe he was only ever shot in the shoulder and leg. There have been more fatal injuries on record!--71.139.18.66 10:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Mention in novel

I'm sure I recall seeing somewhere that the Doctor makes a cameo appearance in High Wizardry by Diane Duane: he's the "man at the bar" who helps the protagonist escape from her pursuers, and the description is apparently a dead ringer for the Fifth Doctor. There is much discussion on the forum at her fan-site but I haven't yet been able to track down any specific yeah-or-nay from Diane herself.
Correction: I was able to track down this reference …which is on the Errantry Concordance, DD's official site, at which articles may only be created with her approval. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

New photo

Should the main photo be replaced with the new one seen on the Tenth Doctor's page or not? GusF 18:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so; I uploaded the new one for Ten's article as the character is at a lonely, melancholy point in the narrative, post-Series 2. The pic here, I think, should reflect him more generally (he's standing in for nine predecessors, as well), so I think it's fine as it is. Radagast 02:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

TARDIS assisting in regeneration

Hi, I've edited the page a couple of times to correct the article's claim that the Doctor regenerated outside of the TARDIS four times, and the list of special circumstances associated with these transitions. In fact he's done it five times, the fifth being Logopolis after the Doctor falls off the huge antenna. The special circumstance in this case would be merging with the Watcher. For some reason both of these edits have since been deleted and the article again features the inaccurate content. Is there something I'm missing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.6.224.49 (talk • contribs) .

Yes. You're double counting - it's been only four times.

The Time Lords forcibly regenerating him in The War Games.
The push from Cho-Je in Planet of the Spiders.
The falling off from the tower and the subsequent recovery in the Zero Room (Logopolis and Castrovalva).
The television movie.

As I've tried to point out a few times in the edit summary, the Logopolis regeneration and the Castrovalva regeneration are the same one: he regenerated in the former story and recovered in the latter story, so it's already covered. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I just realized my mistake as well - sorry about the brainfart and thanks for your diligence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.6.224.49 (talk • contribs) 08:26, August 11, 2006 (UTC)

This may not be the correct place for this, but I'm wondering about the connection with Captain Jack -- in the first Torchwood episode, we find out that he has been rendered immortal after Rose brought him back to life in Parting of the Ways, which she could do because she had opened up the TARDIS and absorbed the Time Vortex. Obviously this must have something to do with how he was brought back? Or am I out on a limb here? If I'm not, should it be incorporated somehow? Saffran 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That does seem the most likely explanation for Jack's immortality, but I think that we can't really incorporate anything here until it's either been properly explained in the series proper, or commented on by a reliable source. In the case of Doctor Who, reliable sources might include newspaper columnists, Doctor Who Magazine, or comments on trusted forums from writers associated with the series. If it's just fan speculation — even if it sounds probable — we can't really include it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who? reference

I don't remember which Hartnel episode (War Machines and Gunfighters come to mind) where he introduces himself as The Doctor to someone. This person says "Doctor Who?" and Hartnell says "yes...quite right" and then goes on. Just wondering if that should be mentioned in the Doctor Who? section of the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sabalon (talk • contribs) 16:33, August 30, 2006 (UTC)

For the reference, I think it was The Gunfight at the OK Corral. --Jashank 06:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Half-human" and the Telemovie

It's referred to as being a "key premise" in the telemovie. It's a throwaway line which may or may not be meant to be taken seriously, and is not referred to *ever again* in the telemovie, let alone anywhere else. If that's a key premise, then so's the bit about flying off the top of the Eiffel Tower in "City of Death". El Zoof 04:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's more than a throwaway line: the fact that the Doctor's retinal pattern is human is pretty central to the plot and the opening of the Eye of Harmony. That being said, the "key" adjective is too strong, and the paragraph not really necessary since the half-human thing is discussed below. I'm removing it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the important thing to note here is that I'm half-idiot (on my own side). I'd completely forgotten that bit about the Master referring to the Doctor as being half-human. —El Zoof (talk • contribs) 00:54, September 12, 2006 (UTC)

Current edit war

I'm going to revert one more time, and then leave it for others to handle. Essentially, the edits by 66.167.91.95 (talk · contribs) or Aquanostra9 (talk · contribs) or whichever identity he's decdiding to use at the time excise a large chunk of the article, shift footnoted information, screws up the organisation that has been settled on after much months of refinement among several editors, and winds up with bad punctuation, bad formating, and quite a sizeable chunk of POV and inelegant writing. On top of that, the new picture with the various regneratons is just plain ugly, and he use of the montage in the infobox is awkward. Not to put too fine a point on it, these are not improvements to the article and in fact, damage it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly this may simply be because I wrote said paragraph, but I find the removal of just about the only chunk of "real world" information there was in the whole article rather... odd. Heaven knows I can go into too much detail on occasion, but I can't believe that we don't want a bit of non-fanwank stuff in the piece somewhere. Angmering 06:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Regeneration photos

Since newbies should be able to see images that accurately represent each of the Doctor's onscreen regenerations, I think the image to the right should be used...

The Doctor's regenerations. (counter-clockwise from top left: The First Doctor regenerates (The Tenth Planet), the Second ( The War Games), the Third (Planet of the Spiders), the Fourth (Logopolis), the Fifth (The Caves of Androzani), the Sixth ( Time and the Rani), the Seventh (1996 television movie), and the Ninth (Parting of the Ways.)

However, Terrance (Khaosworks), feels that this image is SO ugly that it needs to be deleted. Frankly, I don't know why. It's not unlike the one used on the main Doctor Who page, and it doesn't take up much room. Plus, it's visually interesting, for it shows how each of the Doctor's regenerations are different from each other... and even a little odd. I think such an image would probably spark off a newbie's curiousity.

While I don't care if this specific image is used or not, I DO think it'd be nice for people to glimpse all 8 regenerations in one image. Why not? So, until one offers up another collage, I think my version should stay.(Of course, anyone else who decided to make a collage would still have to use very similar images from each regeneration. So, perhaps Terrance just thinks that too many regeneration images next to each are ugly in general. I don't know.)

Plus, I think the sections about the Doctor's age and romance could be a little shorter, and all of the sections dealing with the Doctor's changing face, attire, and regeneration, etc should be blended together and condensed as much as possible. BTW, Terrance, I'm a "she", not a "he". My name's Nina, and my writing is just fine. haha 66.167.250.23 00:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly ambivilent about the picture generally, although I'd question whether the article needs both a collage of all the Doctor's incarnations and one of all the regenerations. Personally I'd suggest that just the former would suffice. Angmering 00:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. All I know is that my newbie friends have always seemed fascinated whenever I've shown them images of ALL of the Doctor's regenerations together. They ask me why the process wasn't the same each time... and what the circumstances were. They get curious. This curiosity alone should be reason enough to also include a collage of the Doctor's 8 regenerations. Mind you, I think we hardcore Whovians take for granted just how cool "regeneration" is. (I think the most visually interesting ones are Logopolis, Caves, and Parting) We hardcore fans don't need wikedpedia to know about Doctor Who, for it's all in our heads. For all we know, just seeing all of these images may be enough to get a newbie to buy an episode. You never know. Plus, regeneration is the reason WHY we have all of these Doctors in the first place. Why show just one when we can show all 8? :-)66.167.250.23 00:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to stay out of the "is it ugly" argument, but the order of the images is rather screwed up. You shouldn't use "clockwise" when dealing with columned images otherwise it really looks like they're out of order -- and in fact I didn't even notice the 9th Doctor regeneration at first... I was about complain that it was omitted. Just go left, right, left right, etc. That'll make it easier to follow. I do have a bit of an issue with the fact that the image could constitute a visual spoiler. What are the rules regarding such things? 23skidoo 00:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've just noticed that this dispute has already violated the Three-Revert Rule. For anyone who doesn't know, the 3RR states a user cannot revert an edit more than three times within 24 hours (unless the edit being reverted is vandalism or libel). 23skidoo 00:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

While I was going to do L- R, L-R, I thought it'd be slightly harder to label. However, I guess one can simply say "upper left to right'. So, here's the L-R version...

The Doctor's regenerations. (upper left to right: The First Doctor regenerates (The Tenth Planet), the Second ( The War Games), the Third (Planet of the Spiders), the Fourth (Logopolis), the Fifth (The Caves of Androzani), the Sixth ( Time and the Rani), the Seventh (1996 television movie), and the Ninth (Parting of the Ways.)

Either one is fine with me. :-)Aquanostra9 01:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I question the need for this collage to begin with. We are not here to advertise for the series, nor are we here to pique newbies' curiosity. We are here to provide information, so - what's it for? What information does it actually convey? We establish the Doctor regenerates, so why does each individual way he regenerates need to be illustrated? It's not as if it has any particular significance in the context of the series itself. In any case, most regeneration sequences are hard to show in static pictures, since you don't get the sense of the transition, which is probably the most significant part of the regeneration and the best reason, if any, to include an illustration of which. I would be more supportive of a sequence of still pictures showing, say, the Ninth Doctor regenerating into the Tenth or the Seventh changing into the Eighth rather than a close up of Hartnell's face, or a blurry superimposition of Tom over Jon's.

On another note, if you want to use my given name, please spell it correctly. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been able to look over all the recent changes yet, but I will say that I too question the need to depict all the Doctor's regenerations. This may be a case where something is more suitable for the Doctor Who Wiki at Wikia than for Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about it being hard to show the transition (which, as you said, is very important, for it's a "process"). Personally, I think the process in Logopolis and Parting are probably the most visually interesting.(Logopolis is my favorite because the Watcher is so damn beautiful, creepy, and chrysalis-like... which is symbolically fitting. Of course, the 9th's Dr's phoenix-like imagery is symbolically fitting aswell... but less odd and creepy. I guess I just really love the Watcher, and would hate to see him visually left out whenever regeneration was discussed.

This is how I see it: The Doctor's regenerated 9 times (not once)... each one was "different"... that very FACT alone is worth something. Why were they different? (Fans can speculate about this for years.) This is interesting information which can be conveyed simply through one image. Why give the inaccurate impression to newbies that the regeneration looks the same each time? Why would they think otherwise IF they were just shown one image?

If you don't think it's important to convey this in one simple image, then why bother mentioning in detail about how each of the Doctor's accents have been different? Surely, the 'way' that the Doctor regenerates is just as relevant to to him and the circumstances. Just look at the Watcher.

Each regeneration reflects the aesthetics, technology, and ideals of the production team at the time. (How could they not?) For good or for bad, the series itself has changed over the years... change and creativity is its middle name...I feel this is summed up at the micro-level by these images.

BTW, I DO think we're here to advertise for the series to 'some degree'. Our 'love' for the show is what mainly motivates us to create and edit entries, and 'curiousity' about the show is what motivates a newbie to look up Doctor Who. The trick is to take our love for the show and filter it through to newbies in a factual manner in order to satisfy their curiousity.66.167.250.23 04:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Although each regeneration effect has been different, it has never been questioned in the story, nor has it had any effect on the story, so it's a production detail at best. Anything else, like speculating why, would be original research. The reason why accents and fashion details are notable is because people discuss them quite avidly whenever a new Doctor takes over. Nobody talks about how the regeneration effect is different.

One might mention that the effects are different in the text but certainly they don't all need to be illustrated. If (and I said this advisedly) people feel there is a need for an illustration of a regeneration, then pick one and do a series of stills. Any more would be excessive. The collage, as it stands, is objectionable because it's aesthetically unpleasing (the column layout doesn't sit well with the more horizontal alignment of the other pictures and I also have some issues with the exact stills chosen), but more importantly, it does not adequately illustrate the process of any regeneration. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the previous still of the 9th Dr's regeneration didn't adequately illustrate the regeneration 'process' either,... but everyone still kept it. So that alone isn't a good reason against this collage. Each photo in the collage is an accurate representation of each regeneration. I also think the vertical version works better with the text than a horizontal version. See?....

The Doctor's regenerations. (clockwise from top left: The First Doctor regenerates (The Tenth Planet), the Second ( The War Games), the Third (Planet of the Spiders), the Fourth (Logopolis), the Fifth (The Caves of Androzani), the Sixth ( Time and the Rani), the Seventh (1996 television movie), and the Ninth (Parting of the Ways.)

The reason why each version of the regeneration hasn't been questioned within the story (except for maybe the Watcher, or the 5th commenting how it felt different) is because no companion has ever seen the process more than once (and the Doctor doesn't watch himself regenerate)... but we've seen them all... and each version was indeed different. That's a relevant fact. After all,it's called the Doctor's regenerationS.

Besides, just because something hasn't been regularly questioned within a story doesn't mean that it's not cool to include or relevant to Doctor Who in general.(Look at the audios, books, and comics.)I think a newbie would find these images more interesting than reading about accents. Except for the 2005 and 1996 versions, the Doctor's accent has never been questioned, talked about, or had a true effect on the story.

(The people I know have talked more about the visual aspects of each regeneration than about the Doctor's accent. We consider them just as important, and cool to look at, as the different title sequences.)

Anyway, I said my peace, and I'm not doing anymore. So, you guys can either keep it, leave it, do your versions, or illustrate the process for just one. :-)66.167.250.23 06:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, since you're trying to illustrate a process, I think that one set of photos (probably consisting of three) illustrating one particular regeneration should be enough. DonQuixote 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Showing the process has always been fine with me. (Illustrate either the 4th Dr's regeneration or the 9th's.) However, newbies should also be told in the Regeneration section that each process has been different ( and it'd be nice to show them how they were different). So, a collage of all 8 should probably be used somewhere, or perhaps each Doctor's section could show his own process. 66.167.250.23 08:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It'll be less messy if each Doctor had his own rather than a single collage. DonQuixote 13:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|350px|right|]] Here's my own quickly put together one, which illustrates just the one regeneration. I think this is more informative (and more illustrative, therefore putting it squarely within a plausible fair use rationale) example of what a "regeneration" illustration should be like. Feel free to critique. If acceptable, this will also be put on Time Lord. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks okay. Perhaps find an image of CE not smiling. (Even though he did smile right beforehand, the Doctor's usually in pain, unconscious, or very weak right before he regenerates. The process is not an enjoyable one for him... and that should probably be conveyed. Maybe replace the upper righthand corner image. Then again, it's hard to find appropriate photos, so you have to work with what you have.)

Since these transition images are pretty similar, perhaps do the 4th Dr's regeneration, for that version has some great visual transitions from Tom to Watcher to Peter, and would illustrate the process quite well... probably even better. Then again, while Tom is more well known, the 9th's is the most recent.Aquanostra9 14:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I selected Eccleston to Tennant because it simply looks better than most of the other regenerations, with the possible exception of McCoy to McGann. As for the upper right image, that's the morphing shot, which is why it was specificallyh chosen; and as for Eccleston smiling... well, that's simply how it was, just before he exploded in light. I didn't want to choose an image from earlier on, since it wouldn't be accurate. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The bottom left looks more like the morphing shot to me. Plus, keep in mind that while a non-smiling pic may not be accurate to that regeneration, it'd more accurately show how the Doctor's usually messed up before he regenerates.

Anyway, I think the Watcher version looks the best (with the best transitions), for you really get the sense that the Dr's healing and transforming within that cocoon/chrysalis.Aquanostra9 14:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|300px|right|]]

No, take it from me, the upper left shot is the morph. From that point on, the only that really changes is the hair growing out.

The entire point of the way Davies carried out the Ninth to Tenth regeneration was to show the younger viewers that it wasn't as traumatic as it might seem, that it's a process of change. The Doctor's speech is as much to reassure the audience as it is Rose, so to go away from that intent doesn't sit well with me. Anyway, here's is a similar layout with the Fourth to Fifth from Castrovalva. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for trying the Logopolis version. However, I think it should probably look a little different... perhaps six images like your 9th dr version, or atleast zoom the 4 out a bit to show a little more of his body transforming, such as this...

Image:RegenL.jpg

But it's hard finding images. I just started looking in order to try my own version, but, so far, I couldn't find Davison's face, as you did. I wish my scanner was still working.

As for the 2005 version, whether that was the actual morphing shot or not, I don't think it looks right how Tennant has more hair in the upper right than in the lower left. But it's no biggie. Plus, I'm aware of RTD's intention (one which I never liked... yet atleast the visuals were nice), and I can appreciate you not wanting to stray from that.

I just don't like seeing the Doctor so happy and chummy right before he regenerates. While I understand that he found inner peace at that moment(and was trying to prepare Rose), I loved how the 1st and 4th Drs couldn't even be bothered to spoonfeed a damn thing. It was mysterious and traumatic. Screw the audience, the kids, and the companions! They should all be traumatized! haha Then again, that wouldn't fit in with RTD's chummy, touchy feely vision of the show. Don't mind me, I just don't like most of the New Series or RTD's take on certain things. But I try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Anyway, I have to leave for the next week. I'm sure whatever you guys pick will be a good illustration of "regeneration". Just also please consider letting people know that each regeneration was indeed different.Aquanostra9 16:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new version. What does everyone else think, though? My preference is for the Ninth to Tenth, myself. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor and evil

In the 7th Doctor book The Algebra of Ice, the anti-entropic "creatures" say he has little slivers of ice in his hearts, and "... little Doctor, you belong with us ...". Could someone work out a way to factor this into the page?--Jashank 05:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it really notable? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't think it is. I mean, every hero character (e.g. Superman) has at least one scene where the baddie says there's a little bit of evil in him. DonQuixote 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Seventh Doctor regeneration

Just to explain the rationale for my change, the movie clearly indicates in dialogue that the gunshot went right through his shoulder causing "no damage" so says a nurse. The reason why he's on the operating table is the X-rays show an abnormality in his cardiovascular system; this is why Dr. Grace Holloway, a heart specialist is called in. She states to the Seventh Doctor that she is going to examine his heart, figure out the problem "And then I'm going to fix it." The Doctor tries to tell her he isn't human (which sorta contradicts what the 8th Doctor says to her later, but anyway...) but he's put under and Grace basically commits a bit of malpractice causing the Doctor to enter cardiac arrest and die. (So actually now that I've written this the actual cause of his death is a heart attack.) This makes Grace the only companion to actually "kill" the Doctor (although Doctors 5 and 9 regenerate as a direct consequence of trying to save their companions, of course). 23skidoo 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Doctors

I've been wondering if there should be a page with a title like Incarnations of the Doctor from spin-off media, detailing what little we know of the Anghelides Doctor, the Infinity Doctor, the Unbound Doctors, etc. Any thoughts? Daibhid C 18:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea to me. We should have some info on these off-canon Doctors and I'm not comfertable putting in the main article. I don't think I'm really wild about the proposed title, though I can't think of a better alternative. Jonathan D. Parshall 23:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Doctor actor's ages

Leaving aside the snitty accusation of vandalism, can someone explain why is this relevant or in need of a table? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Good article?

Is this article plusgood enough for the nomination? DrWho42 09:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It needs a lot more episode references, but I agree it is an A-class article that could be on the way to FA. Wiki-newbie 09:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives