Doctor Who (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 25 December 2023 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doctor Who article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Doctor Who is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 16, 2004.
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.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cardiff, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cardiff-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CardiffWikipedia:WikiProject CardiffTemplate:WikiProject CardiffCardiff articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2010 and 2013.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report6 times. The weeks in which this happened:
You guys do realize the Russell T Davis and Millie Gibson haven't confirmed that Ruby Sunday's isn't leaving the tardis yet and you do realize the new companion might be traveling with the doctor and ruby instead of replacing, so whoever thought that might be legit check all your facts before confirming it's true. 198.217.122.254 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the talk page you're looking for is over yonder. This article doesn't even mention Gibson outside of the infobox. – Rhain☔ (he/him) 00:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's also the relevant discussion over wild (blue) yonder. Summary: "official" announcements by "official" people are not the only valid/reliable source. -- Alex_21TALK 02:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2024edit
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Add the follow citation for the paragraph "The 2006 series introduced a new variation of Cybermen. These Cybus Cybermen were created in a parallel universe by the mad inventor John Lumic; he was attempting to preserve the humans by transplanting their brains into powerful metal bodies, sending them orders using a mobile phone network and inhibiting their emotions with an electronic chip.":
https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-guide/rise-of-the-cybermen-the-age-of-steel/Lanceconstablecuddy (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Done. Thank you! Irltoad (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
With today's announcement that the new series/season will premiere on BBC iPlayer/Disney+ before it's transmission on BBC One, is it prudent to add iPLayer to the "original Network" parameter in the infobox? Etron81 (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here's why I rather think it should list a network rather than a channel, i.e. BBC. Interested to hear others' thoughts. U-Mos (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The United Stares should not be included as a country of origin. Disney money doesn’t change the origin of the show. 90.246.99.203 (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Should we put the network that first aired The Five Doctors on 23 November 1983? Ilovedoctorwhoandninjago (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
This would be fine to note in prose, but the show wasn't produced in the U.S. at the time so it's not appropriate for the infobox. If early international broadcasts were common for the series then it might be worth noting in a footnote, but it only happened twice—1983 and 1988—so it seems a bit trivial to me. – Rhain☔ (he/him) 23:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Mentioned at the beginning of the first paragraph of "History," but not introduced until much further down the article. Bad writing. 148.252.24.246 (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Following the reversion from Bondegezou, I'd like to discuss the table note against each Doctor's tenure range. Currently, this reads "Earlier incarnations of the Doctor have occasionally appeared with the then current incarnation in later plots." I don't think this makes the distinction it needs to; after all, the year ranges also (rightly, in my opinion) exclude the appearances that introduce most Doctors to the series before their first full adventure (e.g. Davison appears in 1981 in Logopolis but his range commences from his first lead appearance in 1982, and Capaldi similarly appears in 2013 in both "Day of the Doctor" and "Time of the Doctor" before assuming the lead role the following year). The note reads as a rather random piece of trivia to the uninitiated currently. I went for "Encompassing each iteration's period as the lead character only" as an explanatory note, though the wording proved fiddly so I'm happy to workshop further here. What do others think? U-Mos (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would agree that your wording is more appropriate, although could use some work (I am also struggling with the exact wording, though). Particularly as the table is shortly followed by the subsection Meetings of different incarnations, I don't feel an explanatory note mentioning that is necessary while it would be useful to note that incarnations are sometimes introduced before their main run. Perhaps something along the lines of "Only years as the series lead are included, although some were introduced earlier or reappeared later" would work, but that might be too wordy? Irltoad (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alternatively, could an asterisk (*) or dagger (†) be placed by ranges where the incarnation first appeared in an earlier year, along with a legend at the top? Irltoad (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for starting this discussion, U-Mos. I think an explanatory note is a good idea, but let's keep it simple. I think that means one note, not symbols for each row. Yes, we all agree wording is difficult. My main objection to U-Mos's wording was not the idea, but that I found it difficult to parse. We should aim for plain English perhaps, rather than brevity. What about: "The years shown cover the actor's tenure as the lead character only." Or we go longer and say: "The years shown cover the actor's tenure as the lead character only. Other incarnations of the Doctor have occasionally appeared with the then current incarnation: see meetings of different incarnations." Bondegezou (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree symbols aren't the way to go - they will tend to add trivia rather than explain what's there, especially as many Doctors first appear in the same calendar year as their first lead episode. I see no problem with the shorter version above; as pointed out, any further detail is covered by the subsequent section. U-Mos (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Great. Agreed. All good with me. Bondegezou (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This edit falls under Original Research. Thickynugnug (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
