Talk:First Doctor/Archive 1

That wasn't VANADALISM
That wasn't VANADALISM, First Doctor should have his own page not a redirect to William Hartnell and that has been done for the Seventh, Sixth, Fourth and Ninth Doctors so why not this one too?--84.12.150.235 13:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * We're currently working on the other Doctor articles (see User:Bjwebb/Doctor Articles) --Jawr256 13:25, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Susan's Departure
The article states that "Susan left the Doctor on 22nd century Earth (The Dalek Invasion of Earth)" but this doesn't seem to sit right with the way the story pans out. While it's true that Susan does leave the TARDIS crew in this story, she doesn't so much leave as get left behind.

I seem to recall the Doctor taking one of her shoes into the TARDIS to "repair" it, then high-tailing it off Earth before she can get in the ship.

Because of this, shouldn't the article state "the Doctor left Susan on 22nd century Earth (The Dalek Invasion of Earth)", to be more accurate? Zoe.r 03:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should. I tried to provide a bit more context so that it didn't look like he was just abandoning her on a whim! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks good, well done! I still can't believe he nicked one of her shoes, though.  That's just mean.
 * Zoe.r 11:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "The Doctor left Susan on 22nd century Earth without her shoes."--Aderack 11:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Tegan
If spin-off characters are listed here, why not Tegan Jovanka?71.254.4.208 06:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * John and Gillian appeared in numerous comic strips featuring the first Doctor. Tegan, on the other hand, appeared in precisely one story, and the entire purpose of that story was to bring together various Doctors and companions. It would be rude of me to mention that the only reason you added this here is because it was mentioned as an analogy on Talk:Tenth Doctor.--SB | T 06:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

filmed where?
This passage:


 * "Due to failing health, however, Hartnell could not participate in any of the regular filming, and his scenes were shot separately at Ealing Studios and his garden at home."

appears to contradict one of the notes provided on The Three Doctors page:


 * "Hartnell's scenes were filmed at BBC's Ealing Studios and not in a garage or a garden shed as fan myth would have it."

--203.6.205.131 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

five
cn the actor who played him in the five doctors come back and play him in the new series in a doctor crossover and when would it happen ~Last of the time lords


 * Richard Hurndall is also dead. Tim! 11:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry I didnt know |Last of the time lords

quoting
Wouldn't be nice to put up a quote of this doctor on the page. Here is one from The Massacre "Perhaps I should go home, back to my own planet. But I can't". You could do it for all the other doctors too. (Speaker180 (talk)) 20:18, 14 February 2008
 * It's a fun idea, but it doesn't really fit an encyclopedic tone. Articles should try to focus as much on real-world information as possible. That's one reason we're moving away from quotes as picture captions. --Brian Olsen (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Spin-Off Stuff
I got rid of that pointless list of all of the fanfictions he appeared in. It clogged up the page, and if we have to have one of those lists it should bloody well be about the television series rather than these glorified fanfics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmought (talk • contribs) 11:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverted for now - while the list may need cleanup, much of it appears to be official spin-off material (i.e. Big Finish audio etc.) and shouldn't be removed entirely. --Ckatz chat spy  19:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely the TV series is more official though? Why is there no list for telly episodes? Charmought —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.19.106 (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The First Doctor Who Film
It should mention somewhere that the First Doctor was also played by Peter Cushing. Susan also makes an appearance. The films have no canonicity but (unlike fanfic) should really be referred to somewhere. Wikipedia doesn't seem to mention it anywhere (or if it does I've missed it). Any objection to seeing this added? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's mentioned in one of the other articles (can't remember off-hand which). But I added a line to this article since Cushing's Dr Who, although not the First Doctor, is based on him. DonQuixote (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pilot clothes
Anyone able to find a picture of him in his pilot clothes? for historical purposes it would make a useful addition. --Killerofcruft (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's one in the An Unearthly Child article under the "Pilot episode" section. DonQuixote (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I added that picture to this article.-- BECK's 18:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Last Appearance
I personally believe that his appearance in TNOTD should be included. Yes, it was taken from archive footage, but it wasn't just archive footage of a previous story, it was edited to show a new interaction not yet seen. I believe this counts as a new appearance, whether old footage was used to create it or not. I won't edit the page though, as others will likely disagree and a general consensus should be reached beforehand. SnowyNight1234 (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Such flashbacks are usually mentioned in "Other appearances" and not the character infobox. DonQuixote (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Clara Oswald's appearance be considered canon?
The companion most notably known as Clara Oswald had one incarnation who clearly indicated to the 1st Doctor to use a Tardis that worked. Personally, I would not relegate it to "other appearances" as there was a specific contact made with the canonical doctor. I would personally include that in the official timeline summary. With Dr Who, though, plots create such time confusion that it becomes difficult to separate canon from speculation. Michaelopolis (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're speaking in terms of in-universe. Wikipedia is written in an out-of-universe style. Production-wise, it's "other appearances" because the actor has been dead since 1975. DonQuixote (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I did read the "Sources must be out-of-universe" and it helped a lot explain the methodologies Wikipedia uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelopolis (talk • contribs) 05:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In a similar vein, in the "Later appearances" section, it states: In "The Name of the Doctor", which combined stock footage of Hartnell with Carol-Ann Ford in CGI and newly shot footage, the First Doctor is depicted stealing [my emphasis] the TARDIS in its original form.


 * At least several times in the reboot era, I have heard various Doctors state that they borrowed the TARDIS. An example occurs during Amelia Pond's wedding reception when she grandly summons the Doctor by calling the TARDIS: "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue!" Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Protagonist"
This is WP:OR. See also: WP:PROTAGONIST. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's original research to describe the Doctor as the protagonist of Doctor Who? On the contrary, it is trivially verifiable information citable to a number of reliable sources. (It's such a basic fact that it seems absurd to pick one source at random, but how about TARDISbound: Navigating the Universes of Doctor Who by Piers D. Britton?)
 * Without directly commenting on the merit of the provision of MOS:FILM you link to, I will note that the applicable guideline, MOS:TV, recommends using labels such as "main character" and "antagonist". I can't for the life of me think why we wouldn't want to provide basic information about the role a character plays in a work. We should describe works from a real-world critical context, not an in-universe one.--Trystan (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * MOS-TV recommends the labels "Main characters" and "Recurring characters". I can't for the life of me see where it is recommending "antagonist", let alone "protagonist". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Main character" and "antagonist" are used in one of the examples. (WP:WAF also contains an example describing a character as a "main character".) The point is that it does recommend labelling characters in ways that describe their function in the narrative. As far as I can tell, the dislike of doing so is limited to MOS:FILM.--Trystan (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

John Guilor
reverted my edit where I placed that John Guilor portrayed the First Doctor in 2013 into the infobox. My justification for this is that Guilor is recording new material for use in a canon Doctor Who episode as the character. Why, therefore, shouldn't we count him as someone portraying the character? As far as I'm aware, this is somewhat unprecedented in the Doctor Who history - where a voice actor is used to allow the character to make a reprisal - it's not a simple case of stock footage, it is new material? We count Hurndall? The only difference is that Hurndall makes a physical appearance (but 'portrayal' means either) and he appears for longer (but I don't think length of appearance is a factor, surely?). I'm wanting to open this to discussion. -- Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Imagine+Wizard&project=en.wikipedia count]) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 20:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hurndall was on screen for most of the episode. Guilor was not on screen, and was heard for only a few seconds. This was not the first time that this content was removed; see, and not just by me: see by ;  by ; and  by . -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 'not on screen' - he still voice portrayed him. 'Portrayal' isn't limited to that of a physical one. The timing is a more substantial objection, but is there an actual guideline that we have that actually specifies it has to be a prolonged portrayal. After all, it makes it no less significant? One could argue that Hurndall shouldn't be there because he was only on-screen for a single special while other actors portraying individual incarnations of the Doctor span at least a season. Shouldn't thus Hurndall only be listed in the article and not the infobox? Also I'm not saying it's only you reverting this, I was just mentioning you in my OP because you were the one who reverted my edit. I'd sort of like other Wikipedians to weigh in their opinion? -- Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Imagine+Wizard&project=en.wikipedia count]) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 22:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You will want to read WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't include Edmund Warwick, or any of the other actors who "portrayed" the first Dr in a one-off situation, in the infobox. Nor do we include actors who voiced him in the various audio dramas. Hurndall, aside from his onscreen presence in The Five Doctors, was an important part of the 20th Anniversary celebration appearing in several promotional spots for the show. His appearance in that special is also covered in numerous book and documentaries in the years since. All of this justifies his inclusion in the infobox. You will also want to read WP:CONSENSUS since the number of times that this item has been removed indicate what the current consensus is. BTW, JG is mentioned in the section titled First Doctor and this is more than sufficient notice of his contribution to the episode. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 'any of the other actors who "portrayed" the first Dr in a one-off situation' - Hurndall portrays him on an 'one-off' situation? However what you said about him being part of the celebration- probs can't really argue with that logic much. -- Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Imagine+Wizard&project=en.wikipedia count]) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 23:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The Child in "Listen"
It is perfectly appropriate to mention this child in the body of the article. However, the first Doctor does not take on that name until much later in his life during his time at the Academy so the child is only portraying the person that becomes the first Doctor. I know that is splitting hairs a bit but that is only one objection I have to the "unknown" actor playing the child being mentioned in the infobox. Much like the thread about John Guilor above the inclusion in the infobox is problematic. For me this is very much like Edmund Warwick's doubling as Hartnell. ie he played the Doctor in reverse shots but that does not any more merit mention in the infobox than JG's voice work. In this case we never see the face of the boy nor is he presented as a full character. Indeed as the story is presented onscreen it is enigmatic as to who it actually is. Yes, I know that the BBC has confirmed it is meant to be the Doctor as a child and that is why I have no problem with the multiple mentions in the article. Should there be another episode in the future (though it would be about the past) with this same child actor (especially if a name is put to the person) then this could be revisited. Of course, this is one editors opinion and other input is welcome. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Young/Old in the lede
Does this strike anyone else as a bit fancrufty if not simply ageist?
 * "The First Doctor is the youngest incarnation of the Doctor, but has the most aged physical appearance, having grown old through a natural lifespan. Respectively, later incarnations would portray the Doctor with a younger appearance, though his natural age continues to rise."

To me there are a few problems with this. First, we already know he is the initial incarnation, so it already logically follows he is the youngest, so this is repetition. Second, to say he "has the most aged physical appearance" is either OR if it's based on a subjective interpretation of appearance (white hair versus dark hair, long hair versus short hair: Hartnell looks much younger without his wig on, etc.), or else it's based on the actual ages of the actors--in which case, Peter Capaldi, being the same age as Hartnell, can be said have as much of an aged physical appearance. Finally, the sentence "later incarnations would portray the Doctor with a younger appearance" is just badly written and ill-conceived, shifting focus, subject and tense in the next half ("though his natural age continues to rise"--what's the alternative?). Actors portrayed, not incarnations. And they did not "portray" a younger appearance, they were just progressively younger until Colin Baker took over from Peter Davison and then Sylvester McCoy from Colin Baker. Does the Doctor's main page go therefore go through a convoluted mess with a fancrufty graph of the Doctor's yo-yoing age? Well, almost. But this is something we need to discourage. I was going to leave this here and see what people thought about it but as I write this I think I will be bold and simply remove these two sentences. Perhaps someone will replace them with something better (e.g., Hartnell was replaced by a younger actor or something of the sort). As they are they add nothing to an article about the First Doctor. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct ZF. The bulk of this is WP:SYNTH. Even more pertinent is this is and in WP:INUNIVERSE description. Also, it no longer applies as Peter Capaldi was older than Hartnell (which is still an extraordinary fact) when his first scenes were filmed. Please feel free to alter the wording as you see fit. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 06:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops missed that you were, correctly, going to be bold. This is a mythology about each actor cast being younger. Even in the 60s/70s Pertwee was older than Troughton when he took on the role. Thanks for your catching this. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 06:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Lede 2: details, details

 * The First Doctor is the initial incarnation of the Doctor, the protagonist of the BBC science fiction television series Doctor Who. He was portrayed by the actor William Hartnell from 1963 to 1966. Hartnell reprised the role once, in the tenth anniversary story The Three Doctors (1973), although due to his ailing health the story was written so he would not have to appear very extensively. After Hartnell's death in 1975, actor Richard Hurndall stood in for him in the 20th anniversary story The Five Doctors (1983). Archival footage of Hartnell was used in the semi-centennial special "The Day of the Doctor", voiced-over in the latter by John Guilor.[1] A young version of the character appears in "Listen" (2014), portrayed by an uncredited child actor.[2]

If we let all of this stay in the lede, what is to prevent a well-meaning editor from filling it out with the various audio-dramas? Surely these details belong in the main body, not the opening paragraph. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Right, I've been bold again and cleaned it up. Most of it was already covered in the Later appearances section except for the 'Listen' reference, which I moved down there. I've also changed order a bit, since the docudrama is not in-universe, but is about the show. Lede looks considerably less cluttered now. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Personality
I don't have time to deal with this now but I've noticed the paragraph is written in past tense (against WP guidelines for writing about fiction) and seems to have the odd new series reference crept in such as the idea that the TARDIS was designed to be operated by six pilots. A First Doctor article has to deal with the show as presented during Hartnell's time in the show, anything else is WP:SYNTH. It is like saying someone listening for his second heartbeat and finding only one is somehow mistaken (two hearts not being established till 1970, in Spearhead from Space). ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)