Talk:War Doctor

Name: War Doctor / Warrior

Although the Doctor mentions "Warrior" in the minisode, the credits list "War Doctor". I think "War Doctor" should therefore be the primary name (including the name of the Wikipedia article), but we should not remove references to "Warrior". Consensus? Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. QuadraticGiraffe (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And what source is there to say "Warrior"? -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

War Doctor seems to be the official name so far, at least. So, agree. Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The official BBC twitter mentions the secondary name "The Warrior" among the Doctor's titles. 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be wrong to use the title Doctor for the Warrior, based on the following quote from Steven Moffat: "I’ve been really, really quite careful about the numbering of the Doctors. He’s very specific, the John Hurt Doctor, that he doesn’t take the name of the Doctor. He doesn’t call himself that. He’s the same Time Lord, the same being as the Doctors either side of him, but he’s the one who says, ‘I’m not the Doctor.’ So the Eleventh Doctor is still the Eleventh Doctor, the Tenth Doctor is still the Tenth…" Nijnie (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

He's referred (and refers to himself as) the Doctor on the episode, so either Moffat didn't actually say that or Moffat wasn't as careful as he suggested. Either way, he's called The Doctor.Stamfordbminus (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hurt appears in three episodes: he's credited as The War Doctor in "The Night of the Doctor" mini-episode, but as The Doctor in the full-length episodes "The Name of the Doctor" and "The Day of the Doctor".94.175.94.220 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Preceded by/ Succeeded By issue

In the current version of this document, we say that the character was preceded by the eight and succeeded by the ninth doctors. This would be true in-universe, but WP has issues with that WP:INUNIVERSE, insisting that articles instead are written from a real world perspective. As such, this character isn't part of the doctor timeline at all, since it is still within the real world timeline of the eleventh. I suggest that we therefore get rid of the preceded by and succeeded by entries totally, because they don't line up with the Wikipedia MOS. (This would bring it in line with the Valeyard entry, which is supposed to be after the twelfth incarnation.

If however we decided to keep this, then the entries for the eighth and ninth should be updated to make it consistent.

Just want to have a discussion on this one before doing anything.Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Treating him like the Valeyard should be fine. Apart from preceding/succeeding, not being the lead of the programme means that he doesn't have a tenure. DonQuixote (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hardly...especially when there is such a clear timeline that has been established. Besides, that whole info box section of proceeded/succeeded by is in universe! -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand the revert and your dissenting opinion. Do you have any reference that the infobox is in universe? If you revert this, then you will need to update the preceded and succeeded for the eighth and the ninth. We need to be consistent. Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been pondering what you are saying Alucard here, but do you mean "previous discussions" about the Preceded by/Succeeded entry in the infobox? Edgepedia (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No, MisterShiney made the claim that the infobox section is "in universe", and I was asking for some reference to that, since all I can find is that WP should be written from a real world perspective. If no information to support that is forthcoming, I would suggest that the "real world perspective" should apply, and that we should not have a "preceded by/Succeeded by" section in this article. I would like to see some sort of "official" statement to that effect, is all. Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is a clear timeline for the Valeyard - he comes immediately after the Twelfth doctor. Shouldn't he be added in as well, to keep things consistent? Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This source ("Moffat: "The Doctor numbering stays exactly the same"". Doctor Who TV.) is probably useful. Edgepedia (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - all I am asking for here is some consistency - I do not see that consistency in the articles for the War Doctor, Eighth and Ninth (and, if you insist that the War Doctor is one of the line, the Valeyard, too). Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It would seem Moffat has changed his mind. As of 27/11, he is now saying that in fact, John Hurt is a numbered doctor...and in fact, he is shown in line with all the other doctors in "The Day of the Doctor:.(http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-11-25/steven-moffat-is-rewriting-doctor-who-folklore-to-produce-a-christmas-cracker)Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The Valeyard's place in the timeline is (at least for now) fairly abstract. I think we should look at this again if we see Hurt's Doctor visibly regenerate into Eccleston's. QuadraticGiraffe (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't even know that is going to happen, either during the 50th or ever. For all we know there could even be another non-Doctor Doctor in between... Moffat says 2 regenerations this year [[1]], the one we've seen plus presumably 11th to 12th (unless the Xmas special runs over into a new-year second part or 11th to 12th isn't a conventional regeneration, or he's lying). Also Hurt's deleted tweet that hinted he might be sticking around into Capaldi's tenure. Succeeded by Eccleston should be removed. Rubiscous (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether we're working from an in-universe or a real world perspective, am I right in saying that he is at least preceded by the Eighth Doctor, since even from a real-world perspective, McGann's Doctor appears in the minisode? QuadraticGiraffe (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Zythe makes a good point here that the infoboxes should be as simple as possible. Any other information can be stated in the article directly. DonQuixote (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Hurt is shown regenerating into Eccleston at the end of the 50th anniversary special. His place is thus cemented in the chronology of the character. So how does that affect things here now? P M C 21:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

He's seen starting to regenerate, but I don't recall Eccleston appearing... Rubiscous (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

He says: "I hope my ears aren't so big" (or similar), making it obvious he's regenerating into Ecclestone.

Jgharston (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so he didn't assume the name The Doctor, but he is the on-screen canonical result of the McCoy Doctor regenerating, and he on-screen canonically regenerates into the Eccleston Doctor, so if Eccleston is the 9th Doctor, he is still the 10th bodily incarnation of that "person"/"entity"/"DNA expression"/whatever, and Capaldi is the result of the 12th regeneration, the 13th "body", even if that 13th "body" is the 12th to assume the name "The Doctor", as canonically on-screen refered to "all 13 of them!", is all 13 incarnations of that "person", regardless of the name assumed by each incarnation. Jgharston (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see Eccleston. I saw the beginning of a regeneration, and the camera cut away. I even reran it in slomo on my DVR and we see nothing that resembles Eccelston, just the start of a new face that has much longer hair. --Drmargi (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

“On the fields of Trenzalore, at the fall of the 11th..." plus we know that Trenzalore features in the Xmas special, Matt Smith's final episode. We also know that Trenzalore is The Doctor's final resting place... This of course could mean that the 11th is the last Doctor, and Capaldi could for some convoluted reason lie between Hurt and Eccleston... It's all speculation, original research and synthesis until we have an explicit authoritative source. Never assume with Doctor Who ;) Rubiscous (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Appearances section

Shouldn't the appearances section be organized chronologically, with Night of the Doctor first? --Aresef (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It's basically the same debate as is going on up there over in-universe/real world. The first time the War Doctor 'appeared' was in The Name of the Doctor. QuadraticGiraffe (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Rename?

How about calling him the Joran Doctor? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.46.205 (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Night of the Doctor names him "The War Doctor", we've had a previous article on this character deleted as WP:Too soon, so I think putting this on hold for 7 days is sensible. Rankersbo (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Hi, I have started a discussion regarding a possible DYK nomination here. Thanks, Matty.007 19:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Better Main Image

I think this shot of him is better, personally: http://www.comingsoon.net/gallery/111491/hr_Doctor_Who_-_The_Day_of_the_Doctor_24.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiderByte0 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

War Doctor regenerating into the Ninth Doctor

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/eccleston.jpg - This picture is solid proof from the 50th anniversary special that the War Doctor regenerates into the Ninth Doctor. Not only does the face look like Eccleston's, the War Doctor is placed in-between the Eighth and Ninth incarnations, canon-wise.

Thanks. We know that, and it's mentioned in the article. DonQuixote (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes - however it doesn't actually say word for word in the article. It only says (twice in the article) that we see the War Doctor simply 'begin to regenerate' where it should say that he regenerates into the Ninth Doctor. I added this now correct fact into the article but it ended up getting deleted due to a user saying that we 'don't actually see him regenerate' when in fact we do - I think it is all personally down to who did or didn't see him regenerate, and this therefore affects the editing of the article. The simple fact of the matter is that we DID see the War Doctor regenerate into the Ninth Doctor albeit only for a split second towards the end of the scene. 92.40.249.201 (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That picture does not look like Eccleston to me, and nothing in the episode made clear either why he was regenerating or into whom. We have to err on the side of caution, and simply say he regenerated; that's the salient fact. --Drmargi (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It may not look like Eccleston to you, but the picture proves that it is Christopher Eccleston's face superimposed onto John Hurt's. The episode made it clear as to why he was regenerating, because in the 50th anniversary prequel minisode 'The Night of The Doctor' the War Doctor there is a lot younger - implying that the War Doctor has aged a lot since 'The Night of The Doctor'. He also says that he 'is wearing a bit thin' during the beginning of his regeneration. The War Doctor also implies he is regenerating into the Ninth Doctor as the War Doctor says 'I hope the ears are a bit less conspicuous this time.', referring to the fact that the Ninth Doctor's ears are pretty big. 92.40.249.156 (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm with the above - I also see Eccleston pretty clearly, and it's being stated by both the production team and in-universe. I think we should explicitly state he regenerates into the Ninth Doctor. Esprix (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the day, saying that he regenerates is good enough. Both versions are fine, one's more detailed than the other, and it's all a matter of taste. See this recent edit which really didn't change the flavour of the article: [2]. DonQuixote (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, DonQuixote. Regenerates covers it, and allows for the ambiguity. The other editors may see what they want to see; I don't see Christopher Eccelston at all, and the WD's line, based on the subtitles, was that he hoped the YEARS (not ears) are a bit less conspicuous," in other words, that the next iteration would appear younger. He couldn't have known about #9's ears; that line only makes sense if it's Eccelston regenerating. Likewise he didn't refer to himself as wearing a bit thin; he said "ITS wearing a bit thin." If you listen without expecting #9 to turn up, it makes more sense. --Drmargi (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it is factual to say that the War Doctor simply regenerates, but personally I think that stating that he regenerates into the Ninth Doctor is something that the article needs as it expands on information. Like Esprix said it has been stated by the production team that he regenerates into the Ninth Doctor. Drmargi, the official BBC iPlayer subtitles show that the War Doctor says 'I hope the ears are a bit less conspicuous this time' referring to the big ears of the Ninth Doctor. Also, again according to the official BBC iPlayer subtitles he does not say 'Its wearing a bit thin', but 'Course, suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin.', therefore referring to himself and the regeneration. 84.92.164.36 (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It's no good simply asserting that the production team have made a statement, do you have a source so we can put this to rest? Rubiscous (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-11-15/doctor-who-steven-moffat-clears-up-confusion-around-the-number-of-john-hurts-doctor:

QUOTE:

“I’ve been really, really quite careful about the numbering of the Doctors,” he said. “He’s very specific, the John Hurt Doctor, that he doesn’t take the name of the Doctor. He doesn’t call himself that. He’s the same Time Lord, the same being as the Doctors either side of him, but he’s the one who says, ‘I’m not the Doctor.’ So the Eleventh Doctor is still the Eleventh Doctor, the Tenth Doctor is still the Tenth…”

As seen in yesterday’s mini-episode The Night of the Doctor, John Hurt’s ‘The War Doctor’ is first glimpsed after regenerating from Paul McGann’s eighth – putting him between McGann and the ninth Doctor, played by Christopher Eccleston. Writing in this week’s Doctor Who Magazine, Moffat went on to clarify further.

"Technically, if you really counted it, the David Tennant Doctor is two Doctors, on account of the Meta-Crisis Doctor [in Journey's End]… It’s not a matter of counting the regenerations, but of counting the faces of the Time Lord that calls himself the Doctor.

“There’s an anomaly Doctor slotted in somewhere, that’s all. In the script to The Day of the Doctor, Matt’s Doctor was called the Eleventh, and David’s was called the Tenth, so the numbering stays exactly the same – and we call Peter Capaldi the Twelfth Doctor.” Esprix (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't explicitly say War regenerated directly into Ninth. It says between, the possibility that he regenerated into another as-yet unknown incarnation wouldn't stop him lying between McGann and Eccleston. There would simply be another incarnation that also lay between those two. I had assumed that you meant a statement had been made by a member of the production team verifying that Eccleston's face had indeed been used in that shot. Rubiscous (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly we're just going to disagree, so I give up. Bygones!  :) Esprix (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC

I'd like to offer some new evidence to consider from a quote from Stephen Moffatt: http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/24/doctor-who-steven-moffat-clears-up-the-whole-doctor-regeneration-problem-sort-of-4199592/ QUOTE: ‘He has no more ever called himself the 11th Doctor than he would call himself Matt Smith. The Doctor doesn’t know off the top of his head [what number he is]‘ he said. ‘If you worry about such things, and I do, then I specifically said John Hurt’s Doctor doesn’t use the title. [Matt Smith's Doctor] is in his 12th body but he’s the 11th Doctor, however there is no such character as the 11th Doctor – he’s just the Doctor – that’s what he calls himself.’

I would like to submit that if Moffatt specifically says Matt Smith is in his 12th body, then there is no possibility of there being another incarnation/regeneration between the War Doctor and the Ninth Doctor. The evidence seems quite overwhelming, the last still frame of the actual regeneration that does strongly look like Eccleston, the line about the EARS not being so prominent, and the above quote from the current show-runner. I'm sure someone could still pick holes in this, but not saying the War Doctor regenerations into the Ninth Doctor is now to me an unreasonable omission based on a personal viewpoint, rather than evidence beyond this point.

The burden of proof is upon those wishing to insert material finding a source. Taking a statement about Matt Smith portraying the Doctor's 12th body and working backwards is synthesis. Tonight I read a comment on a forum that suggested knowledge that they filmed a more complete regeneration sequence (using archive footage? CGI? Dunno.) but decided it looked crap so they cut it last minute. I can't find a source at present though, if someone with better google skills or knowledge of decent Who news sources could oblige then such a source would be more than sufficient to settle the matter. Rubiscous (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to respectfully suggest that the above does not qualify as synthesis. If there was another way of using this evidence to demonstrate a contrary argument, or if there was also evidence presented against it, or if it was just an opinion, and someone else could argue or view it differently, then yes, I could agree that was synthesis. I would like to present SYNTH is not obvious II as my counter to the SYNTH claim. The source that Matt Smith's Doctor is the 12th body, the knowledge that we know of 12 bodies, we know of all the regenerations, plus Christopher Eccleston's face is in the War Doctor regeneration, makes is a logical deduction rather than an opinion, and doesn't have any unclear or vague aspects correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.172.87 (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, there are no actual sources stating John Hurt regenerated into Christopher Eccleston but it is obvious that it happened. On YouTube people have made complete regenerations, in official BBC images Hurt is standing next to Eccleston, the regeneration clip uses CGI to show the partial face of Eccleston and Steven Moffat said that the War Doctor was created because Eccleston declined to appear. You don't need sources for everything. It is clear Eccleston succeeded Hurt and Smith is the Thirteenth Doctor showing that there cannot of been a regeneration between Hurt and Eccleston. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, plus the Time of the Doctor established that if there had been any additional regenerations/bodies between the War Doctor and the Ninth, then the Doctor would have run out of regenerations before the Eleventh Doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.172.87 (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone could add this to the article that would be great and beneficial to the reader. 84.92.164.36 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

http://zap2it.com/blogs/doctor_who_steven_moffat_explains_christopher_ecclestons_day_of_the_doctor_absence-2014-05 - I think this article adds to the fact that the War Doctor regenerates into the Ninth. 84.92.164.36 (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDYSiERa50s - This video form the official Doctor Who Youtube channel shows the War Doctor regenerate into the ninth, as told in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.191.162 (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

War Doctor is the Ninth Doctor

Unless I am mistaken, he character is never referred to s "The War Doctor" anywhere within the show (just the Doctor), so labeling him as such seems odd. He's the 9th incarnation of the timelord known as the Doctor and all relating pages should be adjusted for accuracy.Stamfordbminus (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

By the same token, the show refers to him as "not being the Doctor" and the production team and the BBC have clearly left the numbering in place. For the sake of encyclopeadic reference, he is not the Ninth Doctor but is instead the War Doctor. (What that means for future regenerations of the character will have to be seen as the show progresses.) Esprix (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he refers to himself as "The Doctor" within the show itself. He is the 9th incarnation of the character. He is called the Doctor. Therefore he is the 9th Doctor.Stamfordbminus (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

He does, but, again, although he may chronologically, physically be the ninth body of the character, the BBC's website quite pointedly has not in any way changed the number of the characters (i.e., Christopher Eccleston is still listed as "the ninth Doctor"). I personally agree with you about the numbering, but it appears the BBC and production teams do not. Esprix (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither did the show refer to him as the ninth Doctor. But don't forget the graphic at the end of The Name of the Doctor which explicitly says "Introducing John Hurt as The War Doctor." It doesn't get any more indisputable than that. We can't then turn around and, based on a system of ordinals used by the show to keep track of the number of Doctors the show has featured as show leads, arbitrarily renumber the final four, particularly given the BBC and the show are beginning to prepare us for Peter Capaldi as the Twelfth, not Thirteenth Doctor. Hurt is the War Doctor who is ninth in the line of regenerations we've seen, but not the Ninth Doctor for the purposes of the show. It's contradictory, but that's the way it is, as confirmed by Steven Moffatt himself. --Drmargi (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect - his credit at the end of "The Name of the Doctor" was simply "The Doctor - http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RkVl1pDD-Po/UZlthTixm8I/AAAAAAAACcw/gl29lqenwP4/s1600/screen-shot-2013-05-19-at-3-35-38-pm.png Regardless, I agree with your numbering argument. Esprix (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The whole "War Doctor" thing is actually pretty easy to dispute. He's called the Doctor in the episode and he is the 9th incarnation. By any logical count he is the 9th incarnation of the Doctor. That is to say, he is the 9th Doctor and (as distasteful as it may be) all other Doctors after him will require renumbering.Stamfordbminus (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Take it up with Moffat, unless there's official word on the matter then we can't include our own logic here, however sound it may be. Rubiscous (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a requirement. We look to the show for the accuracy of the material. Not contradictory evidence in interviews or toy packaging. In the show, Hurt is the 9th incarnation of the Doctor.Stamfordbminus (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

But not the 9th Doctor, as the following incarnations haven't counted him in the past, so clearly incarnations can be discounted. The events of the 50th special may indeed cause 11th to change his mind and consider himself the 12th from now on, but until this is stated then we must assume no change. Rubiscous (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That's in-universe interpretation, and not within how we frame things from an encyclopedic view. As stated, we look at the show for the information, but we do not defer to a character within the show's personal perspective - though I agree that should be noted.Stamfordbminus (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not just the Doctor himself who numbers himself that way, other characters do also. The Silence for example "On the fields of Trenzalore, at the fall of the eleventh" clearly aren't talking about David Tennent. I have no problem with mentioning that the War Doctor is the 9th incarnation of the Doctor, but he's not the Ninth Doctor by Wikipedia standards, see WP:COMMONNAME. Rubiscous (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't really count pre-retcon material in that manner.Stamfordbminus (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Although the numbering doesnt change, it should still have him in chronological order and have it mentioned (like in the other Doctor articles) that preceding him was the 8th Doctor (Paul McGann) and following him was the 9th (Christopher Eccleston). Because he is a clear sequential incarnation. A 8.5 if you will. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It can be mentioned in the article if sourced, but the infobox is the order in which Doctors have been the lead in the show, not the order of regenerations. Rubiscous (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as in-continuity actors to take on the role, then I agree. But as far as how we reference the incarnations everywhere else, Hurt is the new 9th.Stamfordbminus (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not unless sourced he's not. Otherwise it's WP:SYNTH. Rubiscous (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It's sourced. The transition from the 8th incarnation to the 9th is shown directly on screen, and numbering always works the same way. The character is not named "the 9th Doctor" or the "10th Doctor" anymore than he is named "Doctor Who". He's just the Doctor. And as we count their in-continuity sequential appearances Hurt is definitively the 9th.Stamfordbminus (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No we don't, we count WP:COMMONNAME. Christopher Eccleston is commonly named the Ninth Doctor, David Tennant the Tenth Doctor and Matt Smith the Eleventh Doctor. Both in-universe and in secondary sources. It would be against policy to call them anything else at present. Rubiscous (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I was using the word "count" as in mathematically. As in we literally see the 8th incarnation of the Doctor regenerate into the 9th incarnation. We can count the progression of incarnations, 1-13. And when we do, Hurt is the 9th. That's just the way the math plays out, and referring to Hurt as the 9th is the most accurate. The common name of the incarnations previous were accurate before the retcon, but in fictional universes subject to retroactive alterations, such rules are less applicable. Just as we no longer call the once official Shalka Doctor the 9th, so to changes Ecclestons place in the list.Stamfordbminus (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The retcon doesn't change the common name automatically, people need to start using the new numbers to refer to the different Doctors first. This has yet to have demonstrably taken effect, and whilst Moffat's most recent word on the subject remains that the numbers are not changed then renumbering is unlikely to become the prevailing trend. John Hurt is referred to as the War Doctor, and Christopher Eccleston the Ninth Doctor. That has not yet changed, even if technically wrong. Rubiscous (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

For those who are following, see my link to an interview with Stephen Moffat above. In it, he says, “There’s an anomaly Doctor slotted in somewhere, that’s all. In the script to The Day of the Doctor, Matt’s Doctor was called the Eleventh, and David’s was called the Tenth, so the numbering stays exactly the same – and we call Peter Capaldi the Twelfth Doctor.” So, there it is, at least for now. Esprix (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If I may toss a feline amongst the kit of Columbidae, the names First Doctor, Second Doctor, Third Doctor, etc., are arbitrary. Suppose they had been named by some other scheme, such as Doctor Alpha, Doctor Beta, Doctor Gamma, etc. If another Doctor were inserted in between with another arbitrary name, such as Doctor Columbidae, would you feel the need to rename the others retrospectively? No, I would think not. As odd as the sequence may now seem, unless the canon of the series explicitly renames them (which, so far, it hasn't), then I would not think it appropriate to rename any of the Doctors based on a revised chronology. —sroc 💬 14:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The numbers designate sequential order. That is their primary purpose. So contrary to your premature declaration that I would not take issue with this scenario under a different set of circumstances, I would still insist that the 9th incarnation of the character to exist in a linear progression is the 9th and that he be referred to as such - no matter what other terms we named them by.Stamfordbminus (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a quote from Moffat after the episode was aired at the 50th Birthday anniversary celebrations (after what has already been quoted re The Night of the Doctor), and featured in the Metro this Sunday

"‘He has no more ever called himself the 11th Doctor than he would call himself Matt Smith. The Doctor doesn’t know off the top of his head [what number he is]‘ he said. ‘If you worry about such things, and I do, then I specifically said John Hurt’s Doctor doesn’t use the title. [Matt Smith's Doctor] is in his 12th body but he’s the 11th Doctor, however there is no such character as the 11th Doctor – he’s just the Doctor – that’s what he calls himself.’"

From reading this I believe Moffat is saying not to put too much emphasis on the numbering other than as a sequential chronological ordering - as to whether this is In-Universe or not I haven't the foggiest. Either way there is still a fundamental issue that the "War Doctor" brings up. Either the War Doctor is the 9th regeneration [in-universe interpretation] in which case he should rightly be included after McGann before Ecclestone OR he should be labelled the 12 "person to play the doctor" [real universe] on the basis that he was the next doctor to be featured on screen after Matt Smith, albeit only for a few minutes before Capaldi (who incidentally was referred to by the Gallifreyan as the Thirteenth). I would suggest that the proceeded/succeeded section on the infobox for the 8th, War, and 9th doctors be amended to 8th->War Doctor->9th in that order.Aprhys (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder about the veracity of that interview as it runs counter to what was actually in the show. John Hurt's Doctor definitely uses the title of "Doctor". And yes, there is no such character as "the 11th Doctor". He's just the "Doctor". That's actually what I have been arguing all along. The numbering exists not as a name or a title, but as a real world method of tracking the sequential order of the incarnations. Hurt is the 9th incarnation of the Doctor. That is indisputable. That make shim the 9th Doctor. Calling someone else the 9th as if it were a name rather than a numbering order is confusing and bizarre. It smells of fandom rather than fact.Stamfordbminus (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think what he means by title is by a numerical title eg 9th doctor

I believe the argument centers around this: is the numbering of the doctor in-universe or real world? If it's real world then it must also be outside the "hard wiring" of the tv series itself and there is evidence of this in that certain charity specials are included in various stats of the doctors (such as numbers of appearances as the Doctor etc). Surely if this is the way that the doctor is listed on wikipedia then Peter Cushing's doctor must be included as one of the incarnations - if not then we are implicitly arguing that this is an "in-universe" ordering of the doctors - surely that must then mean that Hurt is the 9th Doctor.Aprhys (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's confusing or bizarre, whether it's fandom or fact, what matters is what's "out there". The term "Ninth Doctor" is associated with the incarnation of the Doctor played by Christopher Eccleston. Among fans, among the media, on the BBC website and so on. We can argue on whether this logically or canonically should continue to be the case or otherwise but such an argument is moot until we observe a significant change in usage. Rubiscous (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The Other Doctor

Looks like the first official merchandise will list the Hurt Doctor as "The Other Doctor", further confusing the issue. http://merchandise.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/doctor-who-the-other-doctors-sonic-screwdriver/50.8.216.135 (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's another: http://www.forbiddenplanet.co.uk/doctor-who-the-other-doctor-from-day-of-doctor-figure

It's looking like the name "War Doctor" is premature. Official merchandise calls him "The Other Doctor". This page should be changed accordingly.Stamfordbminus (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. Doesn't matter much what a toy 's blurb calls him: his on-screen credit is The War Doctor, and so is the character's page on the BBC site. Why are you so obsessed with complicating things? Mezigue (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Official merchandise matters when discussing a characters official name. And check your facts. The most recent on screen credit for John Hurt's Doctor was just "The Doctor". And it was placed between McGann and Eccleston. So you say we have to go by the credits as if they were some sort of stone tablet handed down by the gods? Well if we're going by credits, he's most clearly labeled as the 9th Doctor. thanks for your vote on that.Stamfordbminus (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless they managed to mock it up in a couple of days following broadcast, the name on the packaging probably pre-dates The Day of the Doctor (or more specifically, The Last Day), when it was being designed the name "War Doctor" hadn't yet been credited, and mention of such to the merchandise companies was probably subject to the infamous embargo. Or it could be a trademark issue. John Hurt was credited as "War Doctor" in The Last Day, and the name has taken hold in the vast majority of sources, so changing it based on conflicting packaging (the reasons for which are unknown) is premature. Rubiscous (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And to complicate things further, the subitles for the Blu-Ray release of Day of the Doctor call him the "Old Doctor" (Or maybe I just misread them). --UserJDalek 02:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Does John Hurt portray the Doctor's 9th incarnation?

I'm curious, can anyone deny that John Hurt's version of the Doctor is sequentially the 9th incarnation of the fictional being known as the Doctor? I am not asking if he should be called the "Ninth Doctor" or the "War Doctor" or the "Other Doctor"... Just if anyone here can reasonably deny that McGann, the 8th incarnation, regenerated into the John Hurt Doctor. Because if he did (and he did), the Hurt Doctor unquestionably represents the 9th sequential body of the being known as the Doctor. This, regardless of popular name or common name or title, makes Hurt's Doctor the 9th incarnation - which is relevant enough to warrant inclusion from an encyclopedic viewpoint.50.8.216.135 (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it warrants inclusion, if not necessarily in the lead. --Yamla (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be included in the most naturally fitting and concise place possible. Opening with "The War Doctor is the ninth incarnation of the Doctor" wastes no time and is less confusing than the comparatively generic "The War Doctor is an incarnation of the Doctor". We don't need to add a separate section or create an aside. He is the Doctor. He is the ninth incarnation. He is then the ninth incarnation of the Doctor. We never needed this distinction before as the Doctor's were all "named" in proper sequential order. Now that this is no longer the case, all the Doctor pages should be brought in to line with this new information.50.8.216.135 (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That the War Doctor is depicted as the ninth incarnation is correct and should be included in the article. But it shouldn't be in the lead paragraph, let alone the lead sentence, because it is confusing to place it there. To introduce the War Doctor as the ninth incarnation of the Doctor, and then start talking two sentences later about the Ninth Doctor as a distinct entity, is going to be very confusing for readers.

It takes some discussion to explain that there was an established sequence of incarnations, that the War Doctor was retroactively added to it between the eighth and ninth Doctors for the 50th anniversary special, and that the producers got around renumbering subsequent Doctors by stating Hurt's was a disowned incarnation that didn't take the name "the Doctor." Without that explanation, the fact that he happened to be "ninth" is rather trivial, and introducing it in the lead sentence is needlessly confusing.--Trystan (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Funny, you (unintentionally, I assume) make a strong case for why the Doctor's should simply be listed in sequential order. Which would make Eccleston the 10th. I argued in favor of that, and said that having a sequential numbering of Doctor's incarnations not actually run sequentially was needlessly confusing. Yet here we are, avoiding the inclusion of factually correct and pertinent information out of fear that it will be "needlessly confusing". That said, you are incorrect. It certainly is not anymore confusing to imply that the Doctor's incarnations occur sequentially then it is to omit this fact and leave the information as is. If the reader can manage teh concept of This is a relevant aspect of the character and inclusion should occur at the simplest and most direct point. All the other baggage you mention can be covered later in the article.50.8.216.135 (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, the Hurt Doctor did take the name the Doctor, and was referred to as the Doctor.

Well, assuming the first Doctor is actualllt the first. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair point.50.8.216.135 (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It certainly would make things simpler to ignore WP:COMMONNAME and a real-world focus, in order to come up with our own naming system. The reasons we don't do this have been well-discussed on this and related pages over the past week.--Trystan (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:Commonname is a non-issue here. I'm not talking about renaming anyone (though I believe we should). This section is about giving an accurate description within the page under the current name, rather than the generic one we currently have. We call him the War Doctor? Okay. But he is still the ninth incarnation of the Doctor (as opposed to "an incarnation"). That information should be where it belongs - at the start of the article.50.8.216.135 (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

To say he's the ninth incarnation of the Doctor is in-universe, and fiction should be written from a real-world perspective. He's not the ninth incarnation because we have seen more than eight before him. –anemoneprojectors– 21:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This argument about not writing in the "in universe" perspective has always puzzled me. The logic follows that we must list the doctors as they appear in real time. No one has yet given me an explanation as to why Peter Cushing's incarnation doesn't count as a doctor. We're after all writing in real time out of the Doctor Who universe.Aprhys (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Peter Cushing does count as having played a version of the character and it is mentioned as such in the relevant articles in a real-world tone. Contrary to what you might think, this explanation has been repeated many times. Review writing about fiction for more information. DonQuixote (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, saying he's an "incarnation" rather than just listing the actor is in-universe. Saying the Hurt Doctor is the 9th incarnation is no more an issue than saying that Bruce Wayne became Batman because his parents were murdered.166.137.191.32 (talk)< —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's more than one meaning of the word "incarnation". There's the in-universe incarnation in terms of regeneration, and then there's the real-world incarnation as in terms of character portrayal (incarnations of Sherlock Holmes, incarnations of James Bond, etc.). Both are grammatically valid. DonQuixote (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. But it's a stretch to suggest that "incarnation" as the page currently reads, refers to anything other than the in-universe regenerations. The usage I am suggesting us as appropriate as the First Doctor page that currently reads "initial incarnation".166.137.209.172 (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"Incarnation of the protagonist, played by X" is basic English, and accurately tells you that multiple actors have played this same character in different ways. Anyway, the issue has nothing to do with the substantive truth of whether he comes first, ninth or 999th; it's simply much less confusing to say "an incarnation" and then—later in the lead—explain the situation as it occurred in the real world, rather than come anywhere close to fictography. Zythe (talk)20:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Surely it would just be more appropriate to just say that the War Doctor is the 9th but commonly known as the War Doctor and then put them in the correct order sequentially in the info box seeing as that is how he actually is in the order of things. Then in the subsequent boxes there is a mention of the correct place they are in the order of regenerations. But then point out they are "commonly known as X incarnation". But lets face it...enough years go past and the correct order will be more firmly established and the current "common name" will be but a distant memory. MisterShiney ✉ 19:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected

All the edits from various anonymous IP addresses in the past few days have been reverted. As such, I've stuck a one-week semi-protection on the article. --Yamla (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. That should make for some better discussions. Thanks, Matty.007 18:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Appearances

In addition to his TV appearances, he was also in the Dead Man's Hand comic series, and Strax Field Report: The Doctor's Greatest Secret (a webcast, fourth of the general Strax Field Report series). The comic, at least, features all the Doctors in some way, but beyond that I know pretty much nada about either. They're genuine appearances, so I think at least should get a brief mention, even if they're not as big as his TV appearances.

In other news, I'm going to try and dig up some stuff for Development and Reception sections, will tell if I find anything nice and juicy. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As noted here, Moffat explained that the War Doctor's role would have been filled by the Ninth Doctor if Eccleston had taken part in the episode. Ωphois 01:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Could have, would have, probably shouldn't have, didn't. How is your comment related to the above?Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"Could have, would have, probably shouldn't have, didn't."? You mean the key aspects of a development section? Well, if you bothered to even read the full comment that I replied to instead of making an unnecessary comment yourself, you would see he clearly noted he was trying to find sources for a development section, something this page is sorely lacking. Ωphois 04:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Do You Think We Should Add Preeceding Doctor and Succseding Doctor?

Do you guys think we should add preeceding Doctor Paul McGann and Succesding Doctor Chrostopher Ecclestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mighty Med55 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No. The preceding and succeeding parameters are for the actors. DonQuixote (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we should because we are going chronologically and the War Doctor comes after the 8th and before the 9th doctor. Rotainiumyt (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

In the real world, chronologically it's 1996 (McGann) and then 2005 (Eccleston). 2013 (Hurt) comes way after either of those dates. DonQuixote (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Costume

I've amended the description to say that the overcoat and waistcoat are not actually those of the Ninth and Eighth Doctors respectively. For one thing, War's coat is much older and worn than Nine's so to say it is the same coat is a non-starter. Comparison of the waistcoat worn by Eight in "The Night of Doctor" shows Eight's to be the same colour as his trousers, which are a much lighter shade of brown, practically tan or beige. Certainly the effect is to given an impression of an image between 8 and 9, but they did not take it that far. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)