Talk:Eleventh Doctor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Start page

Thought I'd start the Eleventh Doctor page so all the latest news can be added to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.16.174 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Since any verifiable information is next to none, there is nothing useful to add. Best is to leave it as a redirect. — Edokter • Talk • 23:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Preceding or Succeeding

Shouldn't he be succeeding David Tennant not preceding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leighto (talk • contribs) 20:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Preceding: Existing or coming before another or others in time, place, rank, or sequence; previous.

Preceding is used as david tennant preceds him aka tennant occurs before smith. Pro66 (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The War Doctor

On other pages (eg. Ninth Doctor talk page) it is suggested that the sequence for the War Doctor should be between the Eighth Doctor and the Ninth Doctor (McGann -> Hurt -> Eccleston). However, as Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective and not from in-universe perpesctive, this has been disputed.

I suggest that the War Doctor is placed between the Eleventh Doctor and the Twelfth Doctor in the sequence, as this is the order they will appear on-screen in real world time (so Smith -> Hurt -> Capaldi). This stops the War Doctor being 'orphaned' in the preceeding/suceeding sequence.

As a result, the sidebar should be changed to: "Succeeded by: War Doctor (John Hurt)" The page for the Twelfth Doctor should also be changed accordingly.

This is based on a misconception, however. Hurt is not, in no way, "in-between" Smith and Capaldi. Smith is going to reappear in the Christmas Special and directly transition to Capaldi. The Eleventh remains the protagonist, while Hurt is (currently) a one-off that shares some of the runtime with the Eleventh. The choice is, subsequently, between agreeing with the in-universe succession, or orphaning Hurt in the sequence. --88.217.85.188 (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Intro

The 11th Doctor will not "appear on screen" until the last of Tennant's episodes, which won't air for another year. It's incorrect to say otherwise, so I changed the intro to indicate that he's the announced 11th incarnation who will be appearing starting in 2010. 23skidoo (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Whole paragraph feels wrong to me

This paragraph

Speculation about the identity of the Eleventh Doctor began on 28 June 2008; the penultimate episode of the fourth series, "The Stolen Earth", ended as the Doctor was regenerating after being shot by a Dalek's death ray. The lack of a trailer for the second part, "Journey's End", prompted a media and public frenzy surrounding the show which helped Doctor Who attain the highest position in the weekly ratings—first—in the show's history. The rumoured replacements included Catherine Tate—then playing Donna Noble, the Doctor's companion—Robert Carlyle, Jason Statham, Alan Davies, and James Nesbitt. The Daily Mail also reported the theories that two Doctors could be created—eventually proven to be correct—and that Tennant's announcement that he would leave in 2009 was a bluff to create a shock regeneration.

just seems wrong to me. To put a precise date on when speculation about the 11th Doctor began is awfully presumptuous. There has been speculation every time Tennant has given a high profile interview and he's avoided saying when he would go. (Indeed, there was a fairly intense round of speculation following on the Series 4 press launch, when Catherine Tate definitively said that this was his last season, forcing Tennant to sheepishly walk Tate's statement back a bit.) And I'm not quite sure I buy the necessity to recap the narrative events of the end of series 4 in order to explain how Matt Smith got the job. There's no causal link between the two. Certainly the ratings of "Journey's End" are peripheral to Matt Smith's casting. The paragraph has some citations, so I've pulled it over here for discussion. But my instinct is just to cut the whole thing. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Would "widespread speculation" be better? It is a cliché that when you become the Doctor, people ask when you go, and when you go, people ask when you'll be back, but TSE really kicked off the speculation. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Image dispute

See Talk:Doctor Who‎‎, there's already a similar discussion going on about the same subject. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Because he's holding a script, the image is technically a picture of Matt Smith in rehearsal rather than a picture of (Smith's portrayal of) the 11th Doctor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Too tired to check the other discussion first, but precisely how much does this matter and can you cite some Wiki law stating that? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Nevermind. This is an old, old issue that isn't even under discussion over there.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter too much, but would be good to replace it with a more 'Doctorish' picture when one's available.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - it's the bet we have right now (from "official" sources anway) - so when a better one comes along, it'll be replaced Etron81 (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Image Compromise in this article

I would like to propose a compromise regarding the use of Matt Smith's image within the Eleventh Doctor article. The debate seems to be whether the image is truly suitable as a visual representation of the Eleventh Doctor, so how about dropping it from the main infobox and relocating it to the section regarding casting? This is after all an image released officially by the BBC to promote the casting of Matt Smith. The image could be clearly tagged as such. magnius (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. DonQuixote (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Image moved. What do you think? — Edokter • Talk • 16:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Though this subject is old and I'm sure that Edokter noticed my references in Talk:Doctor Who, I will point out that this image has been factually attributed as "in character" by several journalism sources who received it from BBC PR. I think that the image works just fine where it is; partially because I'm sure there'll be a better option available later on; but the debate of "in character" is pretty much closed barring new reputable sources stating otherwise. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Where are these sources? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Here[1] are two[2], and there are more out there I'm just too tired to hunt them down again. All reputable news sources (well, screenrant is on the outer edge in the "movie/tv subsect" catagory), but it's quite clearly mentioned as "in character" by more than a few journalists who received the image from BBC PR. With a little hunting you can find more. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you know where this PR actually is, though? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Where this PR actually is"? I'm sorry, coming from someone that's worked heavily in the field, but I have to ask if you actually know how PR works with reporters? There's a difference between what you put on your own site (example: the site) and what you send in briefings/packages to reporters (example: this picture, etc etc). If you'll notice the picture is directly attributed to BBC PR (though, being British, there's a different abbreviation than "PR" used). It's the exact same thing as 90% of the news you see out there: company/organization/individual releases a statement of information (if not an out-and-out first draft of an article) at which point the "reporter" rehashes it into what you read.

At any rate... no, I do not know the name of the individual responsible for releasing the PR packets, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the source (both company and individual journalist; to in general be able to count it as "valid" and in specific to make sure it meets Wikipedia standards as a reference, which the Guardian certainly does) and the information contained (in this case the specific mentions of "in character"). What you have here are valid sources with a picture directly attributed to the BBC specifically stating that it is "in character", meaning that until contradictory information arises from a reputable source that is simply what the facts are. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm fine with that, then. I was just wondering if such sources ever have a primary source attributed to them. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you mean for WIkipedia, not so much. It's in general not even necessary. If this were most articles, such fuss over sourcing them wouldn't even be needed. As it is there are many people in disagreement as to whether it even is proper to state that he has been contracted as the next actor, which basically I attribute the most of it to fans still in the stage of picking and choosing favorite options of their own. Regardless, it's all very well sourced; both the picture and the choice of actor himself. I do think there will likely be a better option for picture later, but this is simply the earliest official in-character one released. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to a website which has dozens of unseen Eleventh Doctor photos, of him in character. Note, they are near the bottom of the page. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.95.8.81 (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Companion name

The Daily Mirror carried a feature naming Karen Gillan's character as Amy. Please be aware that The Mirror is NOT a reliable source and cannot be accepted as a reference for her name. Until such time that the BBC (or other undeniably reliable source) sees fit to publish her name, she should simply be listed as "Unknown". magnius (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Amy Pond" says the BBC. Regards SoWhy 13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I think it's been added to most articles now, but I expect a few have been missed. magnius (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Announcement on Monday 20th July?

There seems to be growing evidence of a big announcement regarding the Eleventh Doctor happening at around 8.30am tomorrow morning, this is backed up by Dave Golder, editor of SFX magazine [4], who hinted that readers should log on to the SFX website at 8.30am, plus the editor of Doctor Who Magazine is apparently a guest on Breakfast News on BBC1 at around 8.45am. So I invite earlybird editors to keep an eye out. Some suggestion is that we are getting official images of Matt Smith in costume, but that is pure guess work. magnius (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

8:30 am in what time zone? If you're talking England-zone, then that's 3am EST. Then again, I havn't read the link yet. :P --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, should have said...it's 8.30am GMT (UK time). magnius (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, bugger that. I'll catch it later. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be little or nothing, but I thought I'd give a heads up. magnius (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a new official, in-character photo of Mr. Smith as well as the companion's name. Looooots of material there to be worked into the article. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That announcement also exists as a super-reliable™ BBC source: click me!. Regards SoWhy 13:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

But we can't use the photo of his new geography teacher uniform.... 80.193.130.5 (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. While he is 'in suit', he is not in character. — Edokter • Talk • 14:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What if we replace the previous photo with the one released today? I twould be a better representation of Matt as the Doctor than one currently on the page. We can keep it out of the infobox per the previous concensus if "in-charcter" is an issue. Etron81 (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The new picture is definitely a better representation of the character than the current one. However, I would assume that more pictures will become available in the next few days so it might be worth a little patience perhaps? --Beeurd (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to use the new picture, at least he is in costume which is more than you can say about the other one. magnius (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Arrgh, missed this discussion as it didn't indicate the image was under review. As per my edit summary, the newer image is far more appropriate given that it is more representative of the character rather than the actor. The only concern I would have is to see if we can retain the image quality, as it appears to drop with regards to the images of the other Doctors. That, however, is a technical issue - the dark-suit Matt Smith image is just a generic actor shot and should go in favour of the actual costume. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(←) Very well. I updated the original image, so quality is no longer an issue. Still, I feel it would have been more prudent to wait for a more suitable, in-character, publicity photo. — Edokter • Talk • 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I also figure that consensus would push for this new image and regardless we'll likely be getting better options shortly. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Image position

Are there rules regarding the positioning of the image? I'm sure that images in infoboxes must be of the character, but I have seen arguments that this is an image of Matt Smith in costume, but not in character (apparently subtle difference). magnius (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Source

The editor of Esquire and a fashion director at Westminster University have disected the Doctor's outfit for BBC News: Geoghegan, Tom (21 July 2009). "The fashion police on Doctor Who's new outfit". BBC News Magazine. Retrieved 21 July 2009.. This should help pad out the "Appearance" section with real-world info and help with the rationale for File:11th Doctor.jpg. Bradley0110 (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And a negative one from The Guardian's "fashion features writer": Freeman, Hadley (22 July 2009). "Matt Smith's Doctor Who proves a fashion flop". The Guardian. Guardian News & Media. Bradley0110 (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Matt Smith be the 12th doctor?. David Tennant played the role of the 10th and 11th doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.110.82 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

David Tennant only played the 10th Doctor, the clone doesn't count. Besides, the BBC are calling Smith 11th, so that is gospel. magnius (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No need for fair-use image in infobox

There is no longer a need for a fair-use image in the infobox of this article. Especially so, now that we have a free-use image replacement to use instead. Cirt (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree—in this case, the fair-use image better captures the character as it shows him in full costume, as described by the article and independent sources. The free image is inadequate in this regard. I'm pleased that Cirt has given us such a definite opinion above, rather than posing the question in an NPOV way, and I will start an RfC parallel to that at Talk:Amy Pond if necessary. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 08:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  Per image policy we have no need for this image. The character is in costume in the free-use image. To use a fair-use image in this instance is wholly inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  The character is not in costume. He is in half-costume, as we have reliable sources to confirm. Shall I start an RfC? ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 08:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  I've protected the page after seeing an appropriate request for it at WP:RFPP. Request unprotection there, or on my talk page once things have been sorted. There are many experienced editors here, thus a consensus should be easily forthcoming. NJA (t/c) 08:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

News coverage of the new Doctor's style focusses almost entirely on the bow-tie and tweed jacket shown only in the fair-use image. The BBC notes that, "The Time Lord's new look consists of tweed jacket, bow tie... " The Telegraph describes Smith's first appearance in costume as, "a natty bow tie and tweed jacket." SKY News carries the headline, "Doctor Who Matt Smith Unveiled In Costume Wearing Bow Tie And Tweed Jacket." HELLO Magazine heralds the way in which, "New Time Lord Matt Smith gets to work on 'Dr Who' in bow tie and tweeds."

I can provide more on request. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 08:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCC#1, that costume can be described in-text. And per WP:NFCC#1, the fair-use image should be replaced by an available free-use image. In this case, there is an available free-use image. Cirt (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If the costume can be described in text, then Tenth Doctor and Ninth Doctor can also dispense with their fair-use images, right? No, of course not, because no textual description is as good as an image. The NFCC mean that if there is an adequate free replacement, it should be used. I contend that the one proposed is inadequate, as it provides not just an incomplete picture of the Eleventh Doctor's style, but a misleading one, as the costume he is wearing is (according to reliable sources) exceptional. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 09:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a free-use image of the character, in-costume. That, plus a textual description, is sufficient that, per WP:NFCC#1, a fair-use image should not be used. If we had a free-use image of the other individuals in-character, those would be preferable as well, instead of a fair-use alternative. Cirt (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

He is not in costume any more than a free image of John Barrowman naked would be in costume for a small portion of one episode. What Smith is wearing as exceptional and not his regular style or costume, as reliable sources confirm. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 09:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, disagree, he most certainly is in-costume. The overusage of italics are not needed here, not really conducive to a polite and constructive dialogue :(. Cirt (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

He is not in-costume. True, he's wearing clothes – television is littered with instances of a character wearing a one-off outfit for effect; for example, in one episode of Yes Minister, Humphrey Appleby wears an Arab head-dress rather than his usual suit (The Moral Dimension). A free image of him wearing an Arab head-dress would not, however, depict the character in-costume IMO. It would give the misleading impression that an Arab head-dress was standard garb, whereas in fact the drab grey suit was a key part of the characterisation and style. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 09:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Image use in infobox

Should the image in the infobox be a fair-use image, or replaced with an available free-use image? 08:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Please do not have threaded discussions in your individual subsection. Please only do that in the subsection, Further discussion. 08:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

Comments from Cirt

• The dispute is over replacing a fair-use image in the infobox (File:11th Doctor.jpg) with a free-use image, confirmed under a free-use license on Wikimedia Commons via WP:OTRS (File:Eleventh Doctor.jpg).
• The free-use alternative should be used instead, and the fair-use image removed from the article. There is no need for a fair-use image when we have a free-use alternative that accomplishes the same thing.
• I note relevant comments from previously-uninvolved editors at a similar RfC at Talk:Amy Pond:
  • AnmaFinotera: I'd say it was fine, if its cropped to focus on her then used in the infobox as it is clearly a free alternative to the same image in the infobox, as she is "in-character" at the time it was taken.
  • pd_THOR: I concur with AnmaFinotera; since the image is taken of the character (from a filming POV, which is irrelevant) as performed, it should suffice as the sole imagery for this character, as WP:NFCC#1 precludes non-free imagery performing the same function.
  • The Wordsmith: Also, a much better option than a non-free image. Free is *always* better.

These three previously-uninvolved editors in commenting at a related RfC, all support replacing the fair-use image in the character's infobox, with a similar free-use image. Cirt (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In summation, I agree with pd_THOR (talk · contribs), who cited WP:NFCC#1. Cirt (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from TreasuryTag

• My views are made clear here and here and particularly here
• The difference with Amy Pond is that she is wearing full costume, thus showcasing her proper style. Matt, however, is only "half-dressed" so to speak; he is not sporting the bow-tie and tweed jacket which many reliable sources have discussed as being a key part of his style.
• It is highly inappropriate to quote others from the Amy Pond discussion. I was in favour of this image being used there; this case is different, as I've said above, and those quoted may think so too. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 08:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Edokter

I restored the fair-use image, simmply because the free replacement does not adequately represent the 11th Doctor as discussed in the article; most notably his attire is completely missing. The free image simply lacks the function that the original image serves; depicting the 11th Doctor as broadly as possible. I believe that NFCC#1 is fully met as the image supplements the text quite well is his description. The free image does not, and subsequently is not adequate to replace the fair-use one. — Edokter • Talk • 17:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

Comment by NJA

I would agree that a free-use image already available and confirmed on commons would be most appropriate, though the point about that image not fully representing the subject matter should be taken into account. I suppose it comes down to whether or not the free-use suffices in fulfilling the purpose of what's being depicted. I suppose my comments are clear as mud, and I would like to see a little more discussion before coming down one way or the other. NJA (t/c) 08:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Garion96

• WP:NFCC#1 is quite clear on this. There is a free image so the non-free image must go. Garion96 (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Exxolon

Many proponents of the fair use image want the image because the free one doesn't show the costume. So the free one does show enough of the costume to delete it on copyright concerns but not enough to replace the fair use one? Garion96 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Eubulides

• TreasuryTag makes a reasonable case that the free image doesn't adequately depict the character in his readily-identifiable costume. I am inclined to keep the non-free image until a more suitable replacement is found. (I suppose it wouldn't do to Photoshop a tweed jacket and bow tie into the free image....) Eubulides (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Seraphim

Per the WP:NFCC criteria 1, I believe the non-free image is no longer suitable as a free image has been obtained. Whilst that image may not be an exact equivalent (which is very difficult to find!), the free image meets our purpose of displaying the character adequately and per the WP:NFCC criteria 1, it meets the "acceptable quality" clause. The point of contention here is about the costume and I don't think we should be using a non-free image against the NFCC just for this purpose. The costume can be described in text well enough. Don't underestimate the power of good descriptive prose! :) Seraphim♥ 12:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from J04n

• I find the case made by TreasuryTag to be reasonable but not sufficient, in my mind, to supersede WP:NFCC criterion 1; the free-use image should be used. Happy New Year J04n(talk page) 13:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sceptre

I'm generally supportive of the replacement at the current moment in time. The fair use image, at the moment, fails NFCC#1. However, I have no objections to its reintroduction if the appearance is actually subject to significant commentary upon in reliable sources (I'm taking it as a fait accompli that the appearance of the character is important, but without substantiation, we can't do anything!). See also Horatio Caine, which uses a free image of Caruso (albeit with the character's trademark sunglasses). Sceptre ^(talk) 18:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Human.v2.0

Wikipedia:NFCC policy rule #1 specifically makes note of "that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose", which by inclusion acknowledges that a free image may not necessarily serve the same purpose as a fair-use image. It goes on with the test question of "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?"; the argument here is that the image's purpose (aka - whatever image is here) is to show an in-character, in-proper-costume image with an absolute minimum of out-of-context diminishing. To that, in my opinion, the answer is "No". The next question, "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?", can be a slightly muddier issue but it has already pointed out that a similar situation is in effect on other pages, and also that in the context of costume and appearance text-only would make an absolutely poor substitute. None of the other criteria have particular relevance at this time. Answering "No" to both of the questions for those reasons, I do not see a valid argument for the image's removal/replacement given so far, though I doubt that will remain so for much longer as a suitable free image will likely be available any time now. As an aside, I've never seen any article have so much strife over a lead image as this one has had since it's creation.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Exxolon

I'm concerned that the free image may not actually be free in itself. My rationale is that an actor in costume as a character is an artistic work in their own right - photographing an actor in character is a derivative work of a copyrighted concept, therefore it's not possible to release the image under a free license without the consent of the copyright holder.

E.g.

I know Matt Smith, I dress him in the same costume as the doctor and photograph him - even though I created the photograph I doubt I can publish or use the image without landing in hot water with the BBC for obvious reasons.

I'll be looking at getting the free image deleted under these grounds. Keep the fair use - we use publicity photos normally for doctors, but a screenshot is also perfectly acceptable fair use. Exxolon (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

• Note: TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) is not a previously-uninvolved editor - he participated in reverting the fair-use image back into the article [5], showed up at the talk page of another user that did the same [6], and was previously involved in a similar dispute at Talk:Amy Pond. Cirt (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, my mistake. You could have just spoken to me personally, rather than producing diffs and addressing a complaint in the third person. I am (yet again) offended at your dismissive and impersonal attitude. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 08:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Responded at talk page for TreasuryTag (talk · contribs), in an attempt to keep this RfC focused on the issue itself. Cirt (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Consensus among previously-uninvolved editors appears to be for the available free-use image instead of the fair-use image, as per WP:NFCC#1. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  Comment: those editors previously involved are also entitled to input to the consensus. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 20:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Weight should be given to those previously uninvolved. Of course input is appreciated from all. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Equal weight, yes. Show me one policy which says that uninvolved editors are entitled to more weight than involved editors (the latter group being more likely to have expert knowledge and learned input, for want of better cliches). ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 12:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Individuals previously uninvolved in the dispute are likely to be more NPOV, and less likely to have entrenched, previously-developed opinions about the subject matter. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Under which policy are uninvolved editors explicitly afforded more weight in the consensus-building process than previously involved editors? ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 18:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To varying degrees, applicable pages include WP:CONLIMITED, WP:NPOV, WP:SPA, WP:MEAT, and WP:UNINVOLVED. Cirt (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that WP:NPOV appears to be based entirely around content rather than consensus-building, WP:UNINVOLVED seems to apply solely to technical administrative actions, WP:CONLIMITED merely states that a small group of WikiProject (as in, involved) editors can't override a broader consensus, WP:SPA and WP:MEAT refer to single-purpose accounts and meatpuppets respectively (and I'm sure you aren't accusing anyone here of being either)... so those are all irrelevant.

Therefore, I can only repeat my very specific question: Under which policy are uninvolved editors explicitly afforded more weight in the consensus-building process than previously involved editors? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 19:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

They all inform the general idea of RfC, which is to gather outside input. From WP:RfC: Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input... Cirt (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a very enlightening answer to a completely different question.

You seem to have implied above, several times, that uninvolved editors are tangibly afforded more weight in the consensus-building process than previously involved editors. I am asking if you can name a specific policy which explicitly states and codifies this. The fact that you have failed to provide anything fruitful after numerous tries strongly suggests to me that you can't cite such a rule. Am I being unfair? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 19:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Cirt (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought not.

There is obviously no policy which champions the giving of more weight to uninvolved editors while consensus-building. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 19:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, see the first line of the page WP:RFC. Cirt (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read it, and don't see anything which champions the giving of more weight to uninvolved editors while consensus-building. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 13:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It is the very reason for having an WP:RFC. Cirt (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. The reason for having an RfC is to gather a broader input, including comments from those previously uninvolved. It is not a mechanism those uninvolved have their views trump everyone else's. Please do not continue implying this fallacious and ludicrous idea (I'm more than happy to launch a specific enquiry, or you can!). ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 22:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I also support using the free image and am nominating the non-free one for FFD. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the NF image should be used as the quality of the free image is so poor (in this context) that the distinctiveness of the character is lost by the free image. If people feel otherwise (that this does illustrate the character), I don't see how the comment by Exxolon can be ignored and you're just replacing one clearly non-free image with another that is debatable. Hobit (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit removed free-use image and replaced with fair-use?

[7] - Shokuwarrior (talk · contribs) - Edit removed free-use image and replaced with fair-use? Cirt (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Article unprotected

I unprotected the article after a couple of minor additions to the article turned into a bit more than I thought they would. Please do not edit war over the image; wait for the RfC to run its course and then enact the consensus of it. Thank you. NW (Talk) 03:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

He's a busy man...

"In a trailer for series 5, the Eleventh Doctor punches a man, fires a gun, is kissed by Amy Pond and generally acts differently to the Tenth Doctor.[17] "

This sounds like the babbling of an elderly woman recalling a dream she once had. Wiki can do better than "generally he acts differently to the previous incarnation, isn't that remarkable?" doktorb _words^deeds 10:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

IP edit, OR

[8] = This edit introduces WP:OR, and it also is not necessary to rely on primary sources for this info - when it is covered by hundreds of secondary sources. Further, the edit makes it look like the info is sourced to the cite at the end of the sentence - when it clearly is not. That is misleading. Cirt (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll fix the problem with the citation in just a moment. Other than that, I see no problem with the material: it is entirely verifiable, the trailer is available to everyone. WP:NOR exists to exclude "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas" – this is none of the above, it is just as much original research as the note that the Doctor is seen in the trailer firing a gun. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 20:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Cirt (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Ginger" gag

The article previously mentioned that the Doctor remarks upon missing out on being ginger again, referencing The Christmas Invasion. This has been removed, but in the light of this story that the BBC had to put out a statement after receiving complaints that the line was anti-redhead, is it maybe worth putting back in?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not the best WP:RS source there... Cirt (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Take your pick. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The first official promotional image of the Eleventh Doctor

http://news.whoviannet.co.uk/2010/01/and-here-it-is/ Should we replace the set photo picture with this one? Hai Tien (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be inclined to, as it doesn't clearly show the Doctor's attire, which is one of the major points of debate above. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 13:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100320063913/tardis/images/0/07/Elevendocheadshot.jpg What about this one? Shokuwarrior (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In what way is it an improvement on the current one? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 22:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material and Original research

This article as it stands currently has lots of unsourced material and violations of WP:NOR. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. Please, do not add unsourced additions to this page. Even primary sources as citations at the ends of sentences or paragraphs are better than additions to the page cited to no sources whatsoever. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Life

We are clear that this is the eleventh incarnation of the doctor, but does it need noting that this is life number twelve (due to the partial regeneration of Tennant at the end of series four)!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.243.245 (talk • contribs)

No because they intentionally left it ambiguous (it's not necessarily life number 12). DonQuixote (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

if we were to start counting partial regens we would be alot further up the chain of reincarnations. the current rules of counting by BBC standards seems to be new face = new dr. of course this still doesn't include the 9th DR mini series which was cut from canon to reintroduce the new series.152.91.9.153 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Image

Anyone else reckon that the image being used for the article is... blatantly animated? Very realistic animation, I'll give you that. But still, kind of obviously not a real photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.53.244 (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You probably mean computer generated (no animation in the image). The background is, but the foreground is a real photo. DonQuixote (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

May I remind everyone of WP:FORUM, please. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 07:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Get over yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.114 (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Footnote added to lead

In the lead it's stated that Smith has been confirmed as appearing in two series - 2010 and 2011. However, there may be people disputing this given Moffat's announcement of the split season in 2011 and his pronouncement at the Edinburgh International Television Festival that the split will result in two separate series - Series 6 and 7. However the BBC has yet to confirm this itself (they could go with Series 6 and 6.5 or just keep everything Series 6). So just to stave off those who might want to be nitpicky I added the slightly convoluted Footnote. The source I use is a blog citing the BBC Press Office, but of course a direct link to the press release is welcome if preferred. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

rumors

The article lists various actors who were rumored replacements. From WP:BALL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." It is a verifiable fact that the Sun printed a rumor that Colin Salmon was being considered. The Sun itself is a valid source for what it prints. Please pay attention to the article text (bold added):

The rumoured replacements included Catherine Tate (then playing the Doctor's companion Donna Noble), Robert Carlyle, Jason Statham, David Morrissey, Alan Davies, James Nesbitt, and Colin Salmon, who, according to the Sun would have been the first black Doctor. The Daily Mail also reported the theories that two Doctors could be created—eventually proven to be correct.

Regardless of your opinion of the Sun, it remains a verifiable source, and a reliable source for its own contents. The material, accurately described as a rumour, is attributed to its source, which is no less reliable than than the Telegraph or the Daily Mail for its own contents. There is no valid rationale for deleting this notable, verifiable material.μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

To make it as clear as possible, we are not citing the Sun to say that it is a fact that Salmon was considered. We are citing the fact that the Sun printed speculation on his being considered.μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We do not use tabloid rumours is this manner; that is why we did not permit tabloid rumours about who Tennant was dating, for example. Just because a tabloid prints a rumour, it is not automatically notable. Please do not restore the speculative rumours until we can hash this out with a wider input. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason we have the others up, but not the one from the Sun, is because those have tertiary sources backing them up, while the Sun's rumour hasn't been taken seriously. Otherwise, it would have been pinked up by other sources as well. — Edokter • Talk • 21:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The rumour was picked up by Wired Magazine - not too shabby a source. And they credit an interview with David Morrissey, not the Sun. Colin Salmon fishes for Doctor Who role.

BTW, I have placed an informal request for comment here.

IMO it is not important for the article to say who was rumoured to have been seen for the part of the Doctor. Only if they were really seen. Otherwise, it's just hearsay. Stephenb (Talk) 22:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Like the "Missing episode found in garden shed" type of story, all sorts of people get rumoured for the DW and/or companion role at varying intervals, often when journos/editors need a space filler. We need lots of unrelated reliable sources before we can take them at all sriously, and thus worthy of inclusion. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but where does "this lots of unrelated sources" policy come from? All that is required is attribution. The source for the content of Wired is Wired, the source for the content of the Sun is the Sun. What is this missing episode in garden shed nonsense? The fact at hand is whether a rumour was or was not published - not whether the rumour panned out. Are you even paying attention to the question at hand? Read the section head and read the sources.

Speculation about casting for Doctor Who has been a notable topic for decades. We have two rather large circulation and notable publications, the Sun and Wired, independently publishing the same speculation, one attributing it to a BBC source and the other to David Morrissey for god sakes. Except for the fact that Salmon is black, and the Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch, how does this differ from a rumour printed by that paragon of journalism, The Daily Mail? Why don't we require "lots of unrelated sources" before we say that there was speculation another minority, Catherine Tate, was being eyed for the role? The Sun and Wired are verifiable notable sources and they are perfectly reliable documents of their own content. We don't require the Times or the Economist to comment on The Sun or Wired before we can say that they have said what they have said. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Sun is not considered a reliable source, and is known for repeatedly trying to start rumours about Doctor Who. As for the Wired article, I think that a careful reading of it shows that it does not attribute the Salmon rumour to Morrissey. Note these two lines from Wired:

"While David Morrissey (guest star on the David Tennant-led Who Christmas special, "The Next Doctor") was shedding some secrets about his role in that new episode, Colin Salmon’s name popped up for the most coveted role on British TV."

"The reports aggressively state that Salmon (the actor, not the fish) has already been cast by Moffat"

The writing is vague, but it does not claim that Morrissey actually even commented about Salmon. Instead, it only hints at (undefined) "reports" of Salmon's having been cast at the same time that Morrissey was doing promotions for his own role.

While the following is of course reader-contributed, I'd like to highlight a post that someone contributed to the Wired forum in response to the Salmon article:

"Just like to point out the “the reports” that are “aggressively” stating that Salmon is under consideration/in negotiations/already been cast came from The Sun, the London tabloid that has been continuously and vigorously creating Who rumours since the series was revived, most of which have no basis in reality. Nevertheless, most other media outlets — all of whom should know better — continue to disseminate this rot, often neglecting to indicate how unsubstantiated it is."

--Ckatz^chat_spy 03:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "Missing episode found in garden shed" was intended to illustrate another common long-running theme for DW-related rumour. By "unrelated reliable sources" I meant that these sources should not just be reliable, but have obtained their information independently; many rumours can be traced back to a single hoaxer. By "lots of ..." I meant that the more of these (unrelated reliable sources) that can be obtained, the more likely that truth will out. See also WP:WIDESPREAD. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely it's a far bigger problem is that four of the names listed are completely unsourced? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC) UTC)

References

Does this sentence make gramatical sense?

"Although Steven Moffat expected to pick a middle-aged actor for the new Doctor, when cast Smith was 26, which made him the youngest actor to portray the Doctor, two years younger than Peter Davison was at the time he began his role as the Fifth Doctor."129.139.1.69 (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not the best... I have made an attempt to clarify, partly by breaking the sentence (which had too many clauses) into two! Stephenb (Talk) 17:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Spaceman

Is any of the content of The Spaceman article useful here? I'm thinking the content should be merged here and make the article a redirect. Barrylb (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It should probably be merged into The Impossible Astronaut or List of Doctor Who items. DonQuixote (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphing

I broke up a paragraph for better readability (per WP:PARAGRAPH; Paragraphs should be short enought to be readable), and was reverted by Zythe for the reason of Multiple paras per season is a messy trend that encourages editors to add ridiculous amounts of detail. I find Zythe's reasoning rather ridiculous. Readability comes first; we should not have to worry about what other editors might do. — Edokter (talk) — 11:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Are the paragraphs even all that big? The same format is used elsewhere, like Jack Harkness (me), Wesley Wyndam-Pryce, etc. We really need to keep all plot summary on any fictional character article to an absolute minimum, apart from where it comes into analysis from outside sources. Big paragraphs also look better; it's an annoying trend of the Internet generation that paragraphs only come to three, four sentences tops.Zythe (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Deal... because it is the internet generation that we write for. Also, the size of the summary is not in question here; it is the formattng. Yes, the paragraphs are too big; even on 1280 wide screen it is a wall of text, and no one likes reading those. I maintain that readability trumps any personal preference. — Edokter (talk) — 13:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer then is there is too much plot being summarised even now, and there should be less of it. I'm genuinely opposed to what, 28 episodes of appearances taking up four, five, six paragraphs.Zythe (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Verification

Do we really need a verification tag that the Eleventh Doctor is portrayed by Matt Smith? It's indisputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.81.149 (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I dispute that it's indisputable. Everything should be backed up by reliable sources. However, it doesn't need to be referenced in the lead or the infobox because it's referenced in the casting section. –anemoneprojectors– 20:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Er, no, it's indisputable. Things needing sources and something being disputable are two different things. I get your point, and you're correct, but don't be silly. Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Casting info?

I know absolutely nothing is known about the 11th Doctor so far, but is that any reason to include information on casting, which to my way of thinking is more behind the scenes information than actual information on the 11th Doctor, the 11th incarnation of a time travelling alien? This page should be about the 11th Doctor, his character, his adventures. Should the casting information be removed?Mmm commentaries (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It definitely needs real world information. Stephenb (Talk) 11:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Our articles on the other Doctors tend to be full of in-universe stuff. It's nice to start out on the right foot. It makes an interesting contrast with early versions of the Ten article, and I think it shows that our writing about fiction is maturing. --TS 13:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So it's ok if I remove it? Or someone does?Mmm commentaries (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the above editors are saying at all. It's actually far more important to include real world information on the character, such as casting details, than to have an article full of in-universe storyline retelling and so forth. I recommend having a read of the Manual of Style page on writing about fiction to better understand what the article should detail :) Frickative 02:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am still not understanding I am afraid. Just having a cursory look through the other pages which deal with the Doctor's various incarnations (accessed from the bottom of this very article) show that articles on the Doctor himself talk about the character, not about how the actor was cast, who he was up against, and when the rumour mill started about his casting. to me this 11th Doctor page is in stark contrast to the other pages and needs to be changed. I appreciate there is very little information about the 11th Doctor, but that shouldn't be a reason to fill it with the real-world information that is not present in any of the other Doctor's pages.Mmm commentaries (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:IN-U and WP:WAF as previously suggested. The other Doctor articles violate Wikipedia policy and are poor examples to follow. They are the articles which need to be changed to conform with standards, not this one. Jack Harkness, Ianto Jones, and Astrid Peth are examples of well-written Doctor Who character articles because they provide real-world information. Plot information is supposed be kept to a minimum.  Paul  730 05:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just to add to the above, Wikipedia pretty much demands real-world information be featured in articles about fictional characters. To do otherwise renders the article "in-universe" which is not allowed. This differs from the TARDIS Wikia or the Star Trek wiki Memory Alpha where in-universe articles are encouraged. In the case of the 11th Doctor, given we won't know anything for certain about him for another year, as a character, it is perfectly acceptable -- and indeed expected -- to discuss the casting, especially given the heavy news coverage in the UK and abroad. It is on par with the search for the new James Bond (and indeed reaction to the casting has already generated parallels with the reaction to Daniel Craig). 23skidoo (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Companion section

Would this be the right place to add a section devoted to speculation (sourced, of course!) about the identity of the 11th doctor's companion? Best, --Cameron* 13:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it should go in this article. Surely when that character's page is created it go there, and not be mentioned on this page. Another idea is a sentence at List of Doctor Who serials#Series 5 (2010), until we have enough information to spin off other articles. Edgepedia (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Catchphrase

The Eleventh Doctor exclaims "Geronimo" just after regenerating, and says it again in the new series' trailer. It is also used on the BBC website on its 'Eleventh Doctor' page in the same context as the other Doctors' catchphrases.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Kazran and Abigail

Does anyone have the citation to list Kazran and Abigail as companions? They were with The Doctor for at least a week of his life, and made quite a few travels in the TARDIS with him, so by most people's definition, they're companions. Sitbunnynow (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

BBC's image management of Matt Smith

By way of fleshing out this article with some more real-world perspective, I thought that this source, which discusses how Matt Smith's status as the Doctor led to BBC intervention into a separate project, would be a good thing to incorporate. I haven't edited Whovian articles much beyond typo-fixing so I leave it to those who do. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Personality?

"...The Doctor has also shown a desperation to be adored, which was best displayed in "The God Complex", when he admitted to Amy that he had taken her with him because he was vain."

The Doctor's apotheosis in Amy's eyes made her fodder for the imprisoned Beast in "The God Complex". The Doctor only had a moment, during which he destroyed her faith in him, as quickly as possible, in order to save Amy from that beast. He doesn't crave attention and he isn't vain - he was simply trying to stop the beast from killing her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenTBrooke (talk • contribs) 21:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out how that that was an original interpretation. That section has been removed till reliable sources are used. DonQuixote (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Outfit section outdated

I added an "update" tag to the Outfit section as it only describes the Doctor's initial outfit, but beginning in Series 6 and continuing into Series 7 the Doctor's costume has undergone a number of changes. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"Re-encounters"?

"he re-encounters future companion River Song"

Is there such a thing as a re-encounter? Surely that's just an encounter? The word "encounter" does not exclusively refer to first encounters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.62.184 (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• In the context of Doctor Who and of River Song, "re-encounters" is perfectly applicable because of the reverse order they meet each other in. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Matt is the Thirteenth?

I'm just gonna put this here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/doctor-who-christmas-spoilers-matt-2847509 XRGExChaos (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Maybe we should hold off on any changes until after The Time of the Doctor? Because Moffat could say he's the 45th Doctor, or the Other, or Gallifrey knows what. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 03:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Gallifrey knows what.. Hehe. xD 220.245.146.235 (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)