Talk:Doctor

Doctor

 * While cleaning up the disambiguation page Doctor (disambiguation) I noted that virtually all links to Doctor intend to point to Physician. After cleaning up those links to directly point there, I have pointed this page to Physician and added a link to the disambiguation at the top of that page.  Kershner 18:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems like a reasonable course of action. Peyna 22:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ayman al-Zawahiri
Ayman al-Zawahiri is a real medical doctor, the name is not an alias, he was a professor in Mansoura_University faculty of medicine before he travels to afghanistan and becomes such a well known terrorist, many of his family members are medical professors as well and are very respected people he /re in Mansoura, Egypt. 84.36.12.154 18:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Docotr D G Hessayon
What about this crazy guy who wrote gardening books, or did he really? He may not have existed.

What an enigma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samepassword (talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"original use of the term"
This article states that the use of Dr to mean holder of a research degree (PhD etc) is the "original use of this term". I am not sure that this is true - as far as I understand the PhD is a relatively recent innovation (eg about 100 years old) and the term "doctor" has been used in relation to medical practitioners, senior clerics and senior lawyers for much longer than this. If it is indeed true that the PhD as a degree has existed for a long time and is the "original use" of the term doctor, this needs a reference. Ceiriog (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC) '''

'''122.183.223.10 (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Benedict - To prove that the original use of the term doctor relates to a Ph D degree, it does not need a reference. Because it is as simple as a child would understand that the literal meaning of this latin word is "Teacher" and not a medical professional! WHY SO MUCH DISCUSSION!''' 
 * It needs to be said that the accompanying Dab page is not an article, and that this kind of material does not belong in a Dab.
 * That being said, the Latin root of Doctor means not physician but teacher, and the concept of doctorates came into being at a time when the state of medicine was so little advanced that "surgeon" meant a despised lout, working with his hands, and capable of nothing more complicated than setting fractures, bandaging, performing amputations, and perhaps doing blood-letting. (Chirgeon, from Gk chir- ; chir- meaning hand, as in chirality=handedness, and chiropodist=hand-and-foot practitioner and chiropractor=practitioner who relies most heavily on manual manipulation.) This as opposed to physicians, exalted personages who administered medicines that would adjust the humor and had no reason to touch their patients. I don't know if medicine was part of the first universities, but it's not obvious that it was worthy. The PhD may not have existed until, say, the 18th or 19th century, but i'd bet doctorates in theology were as early as the spread of the formal degree of "doctor" beyond the first two or three universities that granted them.  So the concept originated in degrees like PhDs rather than those like MD. --Jerzy•t 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Douglas Guthrie, who bases his account on L Thorndike, medical men were first called "Doctor" at the Medical School of Salerno. He states that that the Emperor Frederick II decreed in 1221 that no one should practice medicine until he had been publicly examined and approved by the masters of Salerno. The course lasted 5 years, and to start one had to be 21 years old and show proof of legitimacy and of three years study of logic. The course was followed by a year of supervised practice. After the laureation ceremony the practitioners could call themselves "magister" or "doctor." Early universities like Padua, Bologna, Paris and Oxford awarded degrees in medicine. These degrees may not have involved research, but I doubt that mediaeval theologians were encouraged to do "research" in the modern sense either.


 * Surgeons were not despised in antiquity: Galen, the physician whose medical writings had, like Aristotle's, attained the status of church dogma by the early middle ages, started his career as surgeon to the gladiators. The separation of medicine from surgery may have accelerated after the Council of Tours held in 1163 declared, "Ecclesia abhorret a sanguine:" i.e. "The Church abhors the shedding of blood." This was at a time when most qualified physicians in Europe were in holy orders. A decree of Pope Innocent III in 1215 is also claimed to have contributed. However, in late mediaeval England and Scotland royal charters authorised fully qualified surgeons to use the title of "Master" or "Maister." NRPanikker (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool research!
 * I'm too lazy to go beyond WP and what pops out from my own skull, but i did come up with
 * 848 for University of Constantinople (as a U)
 * 859 for University of Al-Karaouine (as degree granting),
 * 975 for Al-Azhar University, apparently granting formal degrees from that time, and
 * 1088 for University of Bologna
 * with Isalmic influence especially prominent in the Crusades (1095-1272)
 * so we're still left wondering whether "doctor" was applied to all the fields at the same time.
 * (As to theological research, i take it you're equating it to heresy, but i think you'd find that such research was always ongoing, that teaching theology was entrusted to those capable of or aspiring to it, and that heresy is not the label for "anything new" but for the work of those who were wrong about what refinements of the prior scholarly corpus would be useful to those in power, or about which interests were about to come to power.
 * (Actually i picked theology bcz it was all that came to mind when i tried to recall what Faust said he'd studied in Goethe; i'd forgotten law, philosopy, and, yes, medicine. But Faust is supposed to be a 1500-ish figure, so i was looking much too late!) --Jerzy•t 06:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

00:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Edokter here. And I disagree with the notion that being listed on the same disambiguation page makes any difference to whether two different terms could have separate primary topics. Pick any common noun, capitalize it, and stick a “The” in front of it in a Wikipedia search; “The X” seldom redirects to the page for “x.” I don’t see what makes this case any different from, say, Wire (disambiguation)/The Wire (and see no need to split that DAB page, either). Also, there’s no reason this couldn’t instead be split off to The Doctor (disambiguation), so this matter is no more or less urgent than the redirect. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Any split only complicates navigation, so this would be counterporductive.  09:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I glanced over WP:DPAGE before so I didn't notice the article usage piece, but that seems pretty clear in the matter. I'm pretty in favor of not splitting as well now. The terms are too similar. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed redirect

 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.  A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
 * Clear consensus against. Have a jelly baby. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who about that thing it says in the link. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Doctor (proper name starting with “The”) currently redirects to this disambiguation page, Doctor. Should it redirect to Doctor (Doctor Who) as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for “The Doctor”? Note that this disambiguation page for the word itself would remain here at Doctor. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I think there are too many terms that include "the doctor" in their title that it exclude its use as a primary topic. But I'd really like some objective statistics to determin if there is any primacy at all. Untill then, it remains a matter of guesswork and fan pride. (edit) Would there be objection to tagging this with an RfC tag?  22:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * An RFC may be worthwhile, but it might be worthwhile to pursue the conversation above for a bit if not just to get concrete a question(s) for the RfC formulated. If the above doesn't go anywhere, it's definitely going to be worthwhile to get outside opinion. I'll ask the WP:MED folks to check this out in the meantime though as they tend to be pretty dispassionate about who gets what terminology as long as it stays concise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can help you get your arm around this primacy thingee? First off, let's Google "The Doctor" -wikipedia. What appears on the first page? I get one hit for a 1991 movie, one partial title match, and seven Dr. Who related hits. The second page is more of the same: five Dr. Who related hits and five partials. Bottom line: The Doctor (Doctor Who) article gets over 20 times the page views of the 1991 movie. (Compare here and here.) NotUnusual (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have to note this but required if turns out to be community banned user: SPI on User:NotUnusual In ictu oculi (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This was also brought up on my talk page, and I'm copying my comments here. One of my objections is that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC primarily deals with article naming, and which article can forego the (disambiguation) part in their title. Since Doctor (Doctor Who) already is disambiuated, it has no claim of primacy to begin with. And if it is made the primary topic, Doctor (Doctor Who) would have to be renamed to Doctor, and the current Doctor to Doctor (disambiguation), and all that to keep navigation consistent. So this porposal has more consequences then a simple redirect; it introduces an inconsistency, because "The Doctor" is not allowed per WP:TITLEFORMAT, as article names may not start with a definite article unless they are part part of a proper title (name of a work).  10:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Citing an example I cited below: Frederic Smith is a redirect to an article, Fred Smith is a disambig page. Same situation here: redirect The Doctor to an article, keep Doctor as a disambig page. WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT supports this as well. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct that one does work that way, and I believe that Frederic Smith should redirect to Fred Smith not to Frederic H. Smith, Jr.. There is more than one Smith on that DAB page that spells their first name Frederic (no k) and there is no indication that anyone is the primary topic.  One editor decided that is the proper target for that redirect in 2007.  -- GB fan 11:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked a little more at your example, Frederic Smith was made as a redirect in 2007. The other two were created well after that redirect.  The Frederic Jacobs Smith redirect was created in 2009 and the Frederic L. Smith article was created in 2010.  So at the time the Frederic Smith was created that was the only article with that specific spelling of the name.  Since Frederic Smith is not used as a link in any article, I am going to be bold and redirect it the the DAB page.  -- GB fan 11:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with respect to usage due to pervasiveness in popular culture in recent years, as well as with respect to long-term significance due to the same in decades past. No one has as yet made a case for any of the other uses for “The Doctor” as primary. (Note: I’m the nom, but I didn’t give my rationale above.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Primacy should be established in an objective way that can be verified (pageviews, link statistics, etc.); otherwise your argument is mere opinion. Also, ohter pages not claiming primacy is not a criterion.  09:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is precisely one topic among many that is a candidacy for primacy, then that makes it the primary topic. And my argument is based in broad experience, not personal opinion. But since you insist: Last month, the Doctor Who character had an order of magnitude more pageviews than the Cheap Trick album, the EMH, or The Doctors. It also had tens of thousands more views than Physician or Surgeon (and over 20,000 more views than “Physician” in June and July when no new episodes were airing). Satisfied? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not entirely. Pageviews alone are subject to current events (like a series airing). So link statistics would outweigh them.  23:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did give stats for when the series was not airing, as well. These stats seem consistent. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I originally supported this, but after reviewing all the pages that disambig from "The Doctor", there are a few there, such as the Cheap Trick Album, that can make a case as well, so I think that it should now remain as a disambig. Vyselink (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support When hearing 'The Doctor', whether you're a hardcore Star Trek fan or a Doctor or fan or neither, Doctor Who is always what comes to mind first, because The Doctor from Doctor Who is inarguably the most known character for the term, but also one of the most known and most recognised sic-fi characters in the world. It is for this reason 'the Doctor', should be linked to the page in which people are normally referring to, and a disambig link should be linked at the top for (a) EMH Star Trek Doctor and (b) other uses of 'The Doctor' (all of which are minor in comparison).  Doc H e u h  (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 'The Doctor' from Doctor Who is primarily what people are referring to when they say 'The Doctor', therefore when using a direct search in wikipedia, 'The Doctor' from Docotr Who should come up, to suit the majority cause. Fot the select few that do not mean 'The Doctor' from Doctor Who, there can be a disambiguation link at the top for the Stark Trek EMH Doctor and other minor uses. A similar scenario is used for 'Ozymandias'. The most common use of the term is referring to the poem, however there are other uses such as a nickname for Ramesses II and for the Watchmen comic book character of the same name. Ozymandias poem is the redirect, and there is a disambiguation link at the top. Dirac (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'd remind other folks that this disambiguation page does not only include the term "The Doctor". For search terms with an article (a, the, etc.) we include them all on the same page per WP:DPAGE. Since we currently don't have consensus for splitting the terms "doctor" and "the doctor" here, we need to assess a primary topic for all topics on this disambiguation page since we'd be linking to it if the redirect did occur. It may be difficult (but possible) to select a primary topic simply from those with the term "the doctor", but definitely not with much more universal terms like doctor, physician, etc. in the mix. No one has yet made a case per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that searches should be redirected to a single article because they simply include the term doctor. That's what a redirect at this version of the disambiguation would result in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that Doctor be redirected. The Doctor is a different wikilink from Doctor no matter what is on the disambig page. Also see my reply in the above discussion on splitting. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Both terms lead to the same disambiguation page. If the redirect occurred now, the disambiguation link on the Dr. Who page would lead to the disambiguation of both "doctor" and "the doctor". There wasn't any consensus for treating the terms separately, so you would be redirecting the term doctor at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I’m afraid I don’t see your point. Any disambiguation links to Doctor or The Doctor already do lead to the disambiguation page for both. If the retargeting went through, then The Doctor would lead to the article for a fictional character, Doctor would still be a disambiguation page, and any links to Doctor would still lead to that DAB page. Nothing would change except the target of an existing redirect. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, what disambiguation page would be linked to from the Dr. Who article? There are other articles by the same name, so it seems you would need to link back to the current disambiguation page in that case, which also includes "doctor" as its term. That's where the problem lies because based on the above conversation, we are not considering the two terms as distinct during the purposes of a search. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do other disambiguation pages exist? This one is the only one I’m aware of, so… this one, the one that lists other uses for “The Doctor.” What effect do you believe it would have on searches? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion above was about creating a second disambiguation page where only only the term "the doctor" would be used. Currently the topic of this page is both "doctor" and "the doctor". I've explained this a little more elsewhere, so to avoid multiple threads, I'm going to let this one be here for now for simplicity. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose This shouldn't be a discussion. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 20:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is one thing to make a statement that says "'The Doctor' from Doctor Who is primarily what people are referring to when they say 'The Doctor'" or "When hearing 'The Doctor', whether you're a hardcore Star Trek fan or a Doctor or fan or neither, Doctor Who is always what comes to mind first," it quite another thing to support those assertions with facts. I have seen nothing that says either of those statements are true.  I am a fan of Dr Who and Star Trek.  When I hear the Doctor, neither one of those come to mind.  A medical doctor is what comes to my mind.  From my non-scientific poll of people I know, Dr Who fans, Star Trek fans and fans of neither, none of them automatically go to The Doctor from Doctor Who unless the conversation was already discussing Dr Who.  -- GB fan 20:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Would they or you search for an article about medical doctors by capitalizing it and including the word “the”? What comes to mind when someone mentions a term doesn’t necessarily correlate to what you have in mind when you mention the term. Also see my reply to Edokter re pageviews. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Searches are case-independent. Just try searching "the doctor" and see and see what the searchbox comes up with.  23:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see several results that are remarkably less likely to be sought than the proposed target. Hence this discussion over which subject would be most likely to be sought. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, I get what you mean. But you’re wrong. If you for instance type in  and press enter, you’ll be taken to The wire (which happens to be a redirect). So we could have The doctor redirect to Doctor, and The Doctor redirect to Doctor (Doctor Who) (or vice versa), and the case-sensitive search entry would take the user to the appropriate page. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to point out in case it got missed, WP:DPAGE is pretty clear that when terms only vary by articles such as the, or by capitalization as in the above examples, they should all be directed towards the same disambiguation page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn’t. It says they should all have redirects or hatnotes. So this redirect would mean adding  to the  hatnote on the target page. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So basically you're arguing to redirect people to the Doctor Who page first, and then list he hatnote about the term "doctor". Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To redirect them from “The Doctor,” yes, and of course add a hatnote pointing to the appropriate DAB page. I hope the purpose of this proposal is clear to you now. If not, please see my reply to you below.—174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what anyone else would do, and not going to ask. I would not capitalise the "D" nor would I add "the" if I was searching for a physician.  That said I wouldn't add "the" or capitalise the "D" if I was searching for the Doctor from Doctor Who.  -- GB fan 12:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maybe in the sci-fi world "The Doctor" is primarily used to mean the doctor from Doctor Who, but in the rest of the world "the doctor" probably primarily refers to a medical doctor. Any way, no single WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has been established. By lack of consensus, this further shows that there is no primary topic. Therefore, The Doctor should be a DAB page, and as per WP:DPAGE, a redirect to Doctor. And in this case, using page views doesn't help to establish the primary topic. Just because Doctor (Doctor Who) has more views than Physician doesn't mean the phrase "the doctor" is more commonly used in one case than the other. --Scott Alter (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The proposal here is to retarget the existing redirect of “The Doctor,” not “Doctor” (disambig page) or “the doctor” (lowercase redlink). Some of the comments here seem confused about that, so I just wanted to clear up that no other redirect is being proposed. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Scott's post above this pretty clearly demonstrates why we aren't making a distinction between the two terms for the purposes of this page. If someone wants to discuss what you're suggesting now, they need to get consensus for decoupling the two terms in the section above first before discussing what a primary topic would be within The Doctor alone. In the absence of that action, we'd need to pick a primary topic from the current disambiguation page as a whole. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there any basis in policy for this requirement? I’m not aware of anything that says you can’t have a combined disambiguation page and a primary topic for an alternate form. If you’re referring to WP:DPAGE, I’m not seeing any such guidance in there, either. In fact, it gives Fred Smith as an example, and Frederic Smith redirects to the article for one of multiple subjects by that name (I count three listed on the dab page). This is exactly analogous to what’s being proposed here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The policy is WP:CONSENSUS. The previous consensus was to redirect the multiple terms to the disambiguation page and treat them as one topic, hence the disambiguation. If they weren't one topic, we'd have separate disambiguations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you mean “ambiguous term” in place of “topic.” And as I said, I see nothing in any policy to indicate that your demands are consensus. You claim policy forbids us from having primary topics for multiple forms of a term, simply because those forms share a disambiguation page. But WP:DPAGE says nothing about this, or about “combining” them outside of the disambiguation page. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says nothing about combined DAB pages (or “combined terms”) either. Your position would forbid us from having both Wire and The Wire as titles because Wire (disambiguation) lists uses of both terms, and there is no basis in existing policy or consensus for your position. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant what's happened over at The Wire. In this case, both terms are redirected to the same disambiguation, and there has been no consensus to separate the two. The ambiguity mentioned between "doctor" and "the doctor" as search terms is why there hasn't been consensus to make one of those redirects go elsewhere (hence the disambiguation). Without consensus for that, one cannot decide a primary topic for "The Doctor" alone yet. Basically you're wanting to take the second step first, which is why this course of action is problematic. You're apparently not seeing that, so I'm going to stop beating the dead horse and let the RfC run it's course. It doesn't look like there's consensus for the change at this point in time anyways, but if that does change, we can discuss the issues with the two terms later before making any changes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support: I've got a great idea! Lets redirect the phrase "The Doctor" to a page that doesn't even use that article ("The") in the article title – Doctor (Doctor Who) – and ignore all these other pages that actually do, just because Doctor Who is currently a popular TV show:
 * The Doctor (1952 TV series)
 * The Doctor (1991 film)
 * The Doctor (2013 film)
 * The Doctor (1952 TV series)
 * The Doctor (Once Upon a Time)
 * The Doctor (Cheap Trick album)
 * The Doctor (Beenie Man album)
 * The Doctor (Thomas Nöla et son Orchestre album)
 * The Doctor (Mary Wells song)
 * The Doctor (The Doobie Brothers song)
 * –  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 11:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And because the show was broadly known in the decades before its 2005 revival, and because it fits WP:PRIMARYTOPIC better than any other subject listed. Otherwise, yes, that is what’s being proposed. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point. I might have actually weakly supported this if The Doctor (Doctor Who) was the article title.  It's not, and therefore shouldn't take precedence over these others. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has no relevance to my point as a counterargument because the DAB is for "Doctor" and not "The Doctor", given the current page name of the Doctor Who article. (Nevermind, the opposite case is actually the policy: WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT)  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 11:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It likely would be if WP:TITLEFORMAT allowed the use of “the” in such a case. But check the article. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, maybe that article should be moved instead; WP:TITLEFORMAT does allow “The” where it changes the meaning of the title. But, let’s see… a move request some months ago failed. So a redirect may be the best option, à la The Joker (which also has a target whose title does not contain “The”). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe that should be discussed too. I fail to see what makes the DC comics character primary.  17:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are too many things called "The Doctor" to judge whether one is "more likely than all the other topics combined" 213.104.176.176 (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support First, titles with an inherent "The" such as "The Doctor" have absolutely no business redirecting to Doctor at all. The "The" shows it is an artistic reference, not a general one.  Second, although "The Doctor" from Star Trek Voyager is a personal favorite (if you haven't seen this, you are culturally incomplete), there is no question that "The Doctor" refers to the title character of Doctor Who.  References to physicians and Star Trek's The Doctor can and should easily be dealt with as redirects from the main topic, The Doctor of Doctor Who. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wheter a term is artistic or general is not relevant; the key criterion is ease of navigation to any article with the term in its title.  11:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OpposeThe entire reason for the (lower case) Doctor disambiguation page is that there are numerous references to a doctor. In relation, "The Doctor" is not related to any one specific 'doctor' in the eye of public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.160 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * COMMENT There seems to be a very obvious misunderstanding. People seem to think the !vote is for redirecting both Doctor and The Doctor to Doctor Who, when it isn't. It makes this whole exercise pointless. Doc H e u h (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just goes to show there's a bit that should have been sorted out before this RfC, but there are those no votes out there because Doctor and The Doctor as search terms lead to the disambiguation page. Right now we're treating those search terms as ambiguous, so it would seem better to have a discussion on if splitting those search terms to make them distinct should be done. People have different ideas on what articles to look at in assessing a primary topic otherwise, so there probably won't be any easy to define consensus in this RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There doesn't appear to be "a very obvious misunderstanding." Most of the opposes here clearly state that they oppose redirecting The Doctor to Doctor (Doctor Who), which is the proposal in this RFC. The proposal is clear, with a request to redirect The Doctor to Doctor (Doctor Who). This is what people are "supporting" or "opposing". Whether there should be different disambiguation pages for The Doctor and Doctor is a separate question that requires a separate discussion. These are the two distinct binary yes/no questions that should be separately addressed. But based on the two questions, there are 4 possible outcomes. The questions are:
 * Is "The Doctor" a distinct entity different enough from "Doctor" to warrant a separate disambiguation page?
 * If yes, then there should be two separate disambiguation pages for "Doctor" and "The Doctor" (at Doctor and either The Doctor or The Doctor (disambiguation) depending on question #2).
 * If no, then there should continue to be one combined disambiguation page (at Doctor).
 * Is "The Doctor" from Doctor Who the primary use of "The Doctor"?
 * If yes, then The Doctor should point directly to Doctor (Doctor Who).
 * If no, then The Doctor should point to a disambiguation page (either Doctor a separate disambiguation page for "The Doctor" depending on question #1).
 * Here it is in graphical table form:
 * {| class="wikitable"

(Should there be separate disambiguation pages for "Doctor" and "The Doctor"?) (Should The Doctor redirect to Doctor (Doctor Who)?)
 * rowspan="2" colspan="2"| ||colspan="2" style="text-align: center;"| "The Doctor" is distinctly different from "Doctor" to warrant separate disambiguation pages
 * rowspan="2" colspan="2"| ||colspan="2" style="text-align: center;"| "The Doctor" is distinctly different from "Doctor" to warrant separate disambiguation pages
 * Yes || No*
 * rowspan="2"| Primary use of "The Doctor" is The Doctor from Doctor Who
 * rowspan="2"| Primary use of "The Doctor" is The Doctor from Doctor Who
 * rowspan="2"| Primary use of "The Doctor" is The Doctor from Doctor Who
 * Yes**
 * Separate disambiguation pages at Doctor and The Doctor (disambiguation)
 * The Doctor redirects to Doctor (Doctor Who)
 * One disambiguation page at Doctor
 * The Doctor redirects to Doctor (Doctor Who)
 * No* ||
 * Separate disambiguation pages at Doctor and The Doctor
 * The Doctor is its own disambiguation page
 * One disambiguation page at Doctor
 * The Doctor redirects to Doctor
 * colspan="4" style="text-align: center;"| * Current &middot; ** Proposed
 * }
 * These are the two questions and all 4 possibilities. We are discussing just one of the questions here (question #2/left column). The other question (question #1/top row) can be discussed separately, or not at all. If not discussed, the status quo will continue. This really shouldn't be as difficult as some are making it out to be. --Scott Alter (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And just in case there’s any doubt or confusion, this RFC is meant to determine only the following:
 * {| class="wikitable"
 * colspan="4" style="text-align: center;"| * Current &middot; ** Proposed
 * }
 * These are the two questions and all 4 possibilities. We are discussing just one of the questions here (question #2/left column). The other question (question #1/top row) can be discussed separately, or not at all. If not discussed, the status quo will continue. This really shouldn't be as difficult as some are making it out to be. --Scott Alter (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And just in case there’s any doubt or confusion, this RFC is meant to determine only the following:
 * {| class="wikitable"

!rowspan="2" | Primary use of "The Doctor" is The Doctor from Doctor Who (Should The Doctor redirect to Doctor (Doctor Who)?) ! Yes ! No
 * One disambiguation page at Doctor
 * The Doctor redirects to Doctor (Doctor Who)
 * The Doctor redirects to Doctor (Doctor Who)
 * One disambiguation page at Doctor
 * The Doctor redirects to Doctor
 * }
 * By the way, thank you very much for that detailed explanation, Scott. Hopefully that helps those who did seem to misunderstand what was being proposed here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, thank you very much for that detailed explanation, Scott. Hopefully that helps those who did seem to misunderstand what was being proposed here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no confusion. Most (if not all) the 'oppose' are saying that there are too many things called 'THE Doctor' to move the doctor.  Please stop trying to undermine people who disagree with you by pretending that they are arguing against a different thing. 2.122.96.22 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll also mirror this. Most people seemed pretty clear in explaining what they thought as they responded to the RfC as presented. Some people are looking at the very narrow scope of TV characters under "the doctor", some are looking at broader usage of the term as it can go into describing medical doctors, and others are looking at implications that come up due to "doctor" and "the doctor" together. That we're getting different comments like this still within the scope of this RfC would seem to indicate there are wider problems to address that aren't so narrow in scope. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Assume good faith, please. I’m not trying to undermine anyone or anything. While not in all or even half of the opposing votes, there is some confusion evident here and there, as well as some editors (see immediately below) insisting that the two questions are inextricably linked, which perhaps exacerbates that confusion. Clearly, a good number of participants here don’t see “The Doctor” as having a primary topic; but we don’t want those getting mixed up with irrelevant votes against redirecting Doctor. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * However, you do appear to be disregarding some of the broader issues people are bringing up that come from jumping into a redirect at this point. Those points should not just be dismissed as confusion or irrelevant. The benefit of an RfC is that it brings in uninvolved editors that often bring in different perspectives that would not always come up with the smaller pool of involved editors. Folks are here to comment on the thought of a redirect to whatever degree they see, and those thoughts don't need to be limited to only the scope that you want to see answered. Sometimes there are wider issues to address, and RfCs are good for bringing those to light. Best to let others respond to the RfC as they see it should be answered and assess consensus from there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Scott, thanks for making the table. I will point out though that it doesn't seem to me like we can make those decisions separately. It's more of a hierarchical question. Basically, it looks to me like the question posed in the columns needs to be answered first before the row question because the single disambiguation page and redirect to Dr. Who can't exist before then. By having a single disambiguation page, we're currently saying the multiple terms are ambiguous. We can't really say the search terms are ambiguous at one point, but then turn around and say they are distinct enough to just pick out "The Doctor" and only look for a primary topic/redirect within that subset. There's a logic issue in doing it that way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I vote we turn "The Doctor" in to a standalone disambig page. Eman 235 / talk  03:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see the section immediately above this one for that topic. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, while some "The Doctor"s are more well-known than others it's a very general term. Not specific enough to warrant this redirect.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  01:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE - This shouldn't be a discussion. This is an unmitigated waste of time and drawing resources, time and energy away from far more important tasks. Don't believe me, then check out WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages. (Note: At the time of this reply, User:Scalhotrod’s comment consisted entirely of “OPPOSE - This shouldn't be a discussion.” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Just like anyone else, I'm entitled to my opinion. I'm a Doctor Who fan, but not a fanatic or anything else, and still find this discussion droll and pointless.
 * 2) did not give  the same admonition, so be careful about your Talk page comments, as in [WP:NPA]]. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I never denied you your opinion, but an unqualified opinion can’t be all there is to a compelling argument. There was no personal attack here—I attacked the content (or lack thereof) of your post (and, as far as I’m aware, this was our first ever interaction). And yes, other stuff exists; but regardless of whether or not I belatedly reply to that other editor’s empty vote as well, my criticism of this one still applies (and equally applies to that one). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion is good. Without it, we would never gain any consensus. So how can this be a waste of time?  19:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally, I would agree, but this is minutia almost at its worst IMO. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It’s been redirected back and forth several times, AFAIK without discussion outside of edit summaries. It may be a minor issue, but it’s one that evidently has kept coming up because there was no clear consensus. So that seems to merit discussion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , because it's inane. -- CFCF  🍌 (email)
 * Why is it inane? Because the redirect obviously should be done, as some have said? Or because it obviously should not be done, as others have said? Or if it really doesn’t matter at all, why does it keep getting re-redirected? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doctors (2000 TV series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Doctor
A doctor is someone whom that🧑‍⚕️ has abilities to heal people or who comes with many possibilities A doctor can somewhow be refered to a musician 💃or pratitioner 41.116.132.13 (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes thats an intelligent answer 41.116.132.13 (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)