Talk:The Doctor (Doctor Who)/Archive 1

Scream of the Shalka
Is the Scream of the Shalka doctor counted as the ninth doctor or is it Christopher Eccleston?


 * The producers have made it clear that Eccleston is the Ninth Doctor. The REG Doctor has been relegated to non-canonical status. -khaosworks 21:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lots of tweaking
Sorry about the string of edits... I was trying to make the article look better and kept coming up with more changes. -khaosworks 05:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization of "nth" Doctor
I noticed that throughout Wikipedia Dr. Who articles, the numerical adjective used to describe the various regenerations of the Doctor is capitalized (e.g. "Jon Pertwee played the Third Doctor"). This seems a bit odd, as it implies that the number is part of the character's name, when it isn't. One has never heard the character referred to in the program using this scheme (in "The Five Doctors", I don't recall anyone greeting the various Doctors by number). Furthermore, at least on television, I don't believe that it has been made clear whether William Hartnell portrayed the Doctor's first regeneration or not. So the first actor to potray the character may not, in fact, be portraying the Doctor's first regeneration. I'm not a scholar of the post-1989 books, so I perhaps there is more information about the Doctor that justifies the numbering scheme. We also have problems with Richard E. Grant. Maybe we could term him an "Anti-Doctor" (analogous to the Anti-Popes of the Middle Ages). We could use Roman numerals ("Patrick Troughton played the Doctor II"... doesn't exactly roll off the tongue). In any case, I would advocate using lower case, reserving capitals for the name of the character. The same goes for other Time Lords, such as Romana or the Master. However, I won't go willy-nilly making changes until I see some response here. Gwimpey 22:09, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * I confess I'm the one who has been using it (and changing it) consistently to Nth Doctor instead of nth Doctor, since that's the way it's most used by fans and in the magazines when distinguishing the various Doctors. It's not something that comes from on-screen usage. For me, using "sixth Doctor" instead of "Sixth Doctor" (for example) is less aesthetically pleasing, as it does not carry the idea that these are not just different actors playing the Doctor but distinct personalities as well. Colin Baker isn't just the sixth person to play the Doctor, or the sixth Doctor on screen, but he is the Sixth Doctor, if you get what I'm trying to say here.


 * Richard E. Grant has been referred to by general convention now as the REG Doctor or the Shalka Doctor. But I think as long as we note that he was intended to be the Ninth Doctor but is now relegated to non-canonical status, we're fine. Romana I and Romana II are also fan conventions that have been almost universaly used. The Master has never been distinguished by Master I and Master II, just the Ainley or the Delgado Master as the case may be. I know it's not consistent, but I feel we should reflect the consensus usage instead of imposing something artificial. -khaosworks 22:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * As for Hartnell and whether he was the First Doctor, although The Brain of Morbius implied there were incarnations before him, it was settled once and for all during the Fifth Doctor's era. Since in The Deadly Assassin it was firmly established that Time Lords are limited to twelve generations, in Mawdryn Undead the Doctor has to give up his remaining regenerations to cure Mawdryn's group, and we count eight of them. In The Five Doctors the First Doctor meets the Fifth and asks: "Regeneration?" The Fifth replies, "Fourth." The First exclaims: "Goodness me, so there are five of me now!" So that clinches it. -khaosworks 22:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Aha. If that's the consensus, I have no problem with that.  And you make a good point re: number of regenerations; I even remember the Hurdnall comment (First Doctor 2.0? :). Gwimpey 04:16, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Other Doctors
I notice khaosworks has updated this page to point readers to the main Doctor Who and Doctor Who spin-offs articles for information on other Doctors, but neither of those contains all other Doctors from other media.

Wouldn't it make sense to have a section here listing, at least briefly, all the actors to have portrayed the part, so they can be found all together? The list needn't contain much detail; each could be linked to the most appropriate article for more information (e.g. Peter Cushing's and Rowan Atkinson's personal entries, Big Finish Productions for the various Unbound Doctors, etc). Thoughts? - Guybrush 04:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Could you do up a draft here first? -khaosworks 07:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * This proposed revision seems to have fallen by the wayside. Unless anyone objects or wants to see a sandboxed version first, over the weekend I may transfer a large chunk of information from Doctor Who (in particular the Appearances portion) about other Doctors into a new section of this article, along with stuff from Doctor Who spin-offs. --khaosworks 17:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regenerations
So far, we've been linking the word regenerations to The Doctor (Doctor Who). I think that since now that the information on regenerations in the Time Lord article (Physical characteristics) has been beefed up, we should link non-Doctor regenerations over to that article - specifically Time Lord instead. If it's the Doctor's regenerations, of course, the link is still accurate. Unless there are any objections, I'll be doing that for the Master and Romana, and later on as and when I encounter them. --khaosworks 13:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see someone has changed the description of the Hartnell-Troughton regeneration from "rejuvenation" to "renewal". I was actually positive that rejuvenation was the correct term, but a quick Googlesearch, while failing to turn up the exact language used onscreen, reveals that renewal was used several times in production documents but doesn't find any mention of rejuvenation. Anyone know for sure what was said in Tenth Planet or Power of the Daleks?Binabik80 05:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I checked, and the term "renewed" and "renewal" is used in dialogue in Power of the Daleks. -khaosworks 05:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Since the regeneration from Troughton to Pertwee Pertwee to Baker, it has become common for the Doctor to experience a period of instability and partial amnesia following regeneration." Troughton's Doctor complained of not being able to remember crucial information throughout Power of the Daleks. Pertwee's Doctor in Spearhead from Space tells the Brig, "I've lost my memory, you see." So, the instability has been around since the first regeneration. proteus71 15:15, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * What if we just say, "The Doctor frequently experiences a period of instability and partial amnesia following regeneration."? That would avoid the problem entirely. —Josiah Rowe 15:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That works for me. -proteus71 19:08 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. —Josiah Rowe 19:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Eccleston quits
It's official: That didn't take long, however the press release suggests that we'll at least see the regeneration this time, most likely during the announced Christmas special. Maybe the Tenth Doctor will be Santa Claus? 23skidoo 04:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The" vs "the"
Is there any "official" source to confirm whether it is proper to refer to the character as "The Doctor" or "the Doctor"? I have seen it capitalized on many fan sites and in reference books, and in fact I believe capitalizing The to be proper based upon several statements made in the series over the years, in particular a comment from the Tom Baker era (I forget which episode) in which he says something like "I and THE Doctor. The definite article." I believe, as spoken, it implies a capital T. Thoughts? 23skidoo 14:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Grammatically, "The Doctor" is incorrect since the article is not a part of his proper name - when he says "the definite article" to Harry Sullivan in Robot, he is refering simply to "the" as a means of distinguishing himself from "a" doctor. The context was that Harry was trying to get the Doctor to rest by saying he was the doctor, and the Doctor retorts, "You may be a doctor, but I am THE Doctor, the definite article, you might say." That's not saying that it's a part of his name. It's not as if the people around him say, "Hello, The Doctor," - it's "Hello, Doctor." The Television Companion, the novels, Big Finish, Doctor Who Magazine, the Discontinuity Guide, the Handbooks, the DVD releases (and those are just the ones I have handy) all use "the Doctor". I have not seen a non-fan reference book that uses "The Doctor" (although there might be typographical errors). Ditto for the Master, the Rani, et al.--khaosworks 14:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I've seen some official publicity material from the BBC using The Doctor. Then again, the BBC also has a habit (recently reacquired, I see) of referring to the character as "Doctor Who", too. 23skidoo 15:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to throw another two cents into the discussion. There is no question that you are right about the grammer of the situation, khaosworks, but doesn't some of the confusion stem from the change in the end credits instituted by John Nathan-Turner, wherein they went from Doctor Who to The Doctor (with the T in 'The' capitalized). My understanding is that emphasizing the use of the term 'the Doctor' (I mean as a concept, not just as the character's title) was a pet project of his anyway. I also feel (without the requisite evidence) that it was one of the changes to the format of the show that he made that was embraced by the fans. It doesn't surprise me that it has been abandoned, 23skidoo, as the history of the show is replete with each production regime wanting to put there own stamp on the series. Often this has meant oblitering what the fans had become used to. The success, or lack of it, is one of the fun things that fans are left to debate over. MarnetteD | Talk 17:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * In the pre-Season 18 era, when the Doctor was credited as Doctor Who, it was a proper name. If you look at the credits in those stories, you'll notice Roger Delgado credited as "Master", not "The Master". When we switch to the JNT era, "Doctor Who" becomes "The Doctor" and "Master" becomes "The Master", switching from a proper name to a title. For what it's worth, JNT was at least consistent when it came to denoting how the characters were going to be credited. --khaosworks 17:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Doesn't anybody have a grammar & usage book handy? I'm at work now, but I'm pretty sure I have one at home. But if I'm not mistaken, it's "the Doctor", similar to "the Batman". When people speak to him they call him "Doctor", implying that "the" is not part of his name. In contrast, the Homestar Runner character "The Cheat" has "The" as part of it's name, as people say "The Cheat" even when addressing it directly.

Returning to this issue for a moment: Apostrophe recently changed the opening sentence from "The Doctor is the only known name..." to "The Doctor is the only known name..." I suppose that's more consistent with the article's title (and the valid point made by someone who didn't sign above me), but for some reason it seems less accurate. I suppose it's because the article begins in the nominative case, and whenever the character's name is used as the subject of a sentence the article is included ("The Doctor will save the day"). It's only in address (the vocative case, although English doesn't really have one) that the article is dropped ("Doctor, save me!"). I'm not sure if that's a valid argument or not, but my preference would be for the article to begin "The Doctor is...". Anyone have another opinion? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm going to change it back. My thinking is that whether you write "the Doctor" or "The Doctor" depends on rules of punctuation. Ultimately, his full title/name is "the Doctor", and that's how he was credited for 8 years, not as "Doctor". This doesn't mean his name is "The Doctor", I hasten to add. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree both with your interpretation of "the" vs. "The" and your edit to the page. I wasn't actually questioning the capitalization, but the bolding — I just put the comment here because it was (tangentially) related. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Age
I just added a section discussing the Doctor's age. I'm pretty certain his age is never mentioned on screen until the Tom Baker era when its said he's about 450 years old. Does anyone recall if the Hartnell-Troughton-Pertwee Doctors ever mentioned ages? I'm pretty certain the only other references to his age were 900 in "Revelation of the Daleks" and 937 in "Time and the Rani." And the BBC seems to have goofed by stating the Ninth Doctor is only 900 years old (unless the guy is lying about his age). Thoughts? 23skidoo 16:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Troughton said he was about 450 years old. Pertwee implied that he had a life that covered several thousand years (he may have been speaking of a time span he had seen rather than lived through). In the Baker era he was about 750 years old (Pyramids of Mars). By Time and the Rani he is 953 (not 937). In the books, he passed his 1000th birthday during his seventh incarnation and is about thirty years or so past that in the Eighth Doctor books - and in that one, he also physically lives through most of the 20th Century, bringing him to at least about 1,100. Publicity material has said 900 - the Doctor is going to say he's 900. Although the production designer for the TARDIS has said that the Doctor has "900 years experience" piloting the TARDIS, so take that for what it's worth. You might want to look at Wikiproject Doctor Who for some style guidelines. We'd like to keep the pages consistent in look so I don't want to seem like I'm always correcting the formating of your entries... it just seems rude. :) -khaosworks 16:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No worries. And I knew some of my numbers were shaky which is why I made sure to draw attention to the additions here and in the edit summary. Good fixes. Cheers. 23skidoo 22:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is one of those fun Dr Who debates, due to the fact that the continuity of it is so scrambled anyway. The spanner that I always like to throw in to the discussion is that there is no reason to suspect that the Doctor is referring to earth years of 365 days (at least I don't remember a story where he ties his age to this). Sci-Fi is replete with tales meant to break us out of our earthcentric view of life and I like to use the Doctor as one of them. I mention this only in the spirit of fun (i.e. does time spent in a chronic historesus (sp?) count towards a Time Lords overall age?). I'ld like to add that both of you, 23skidoo and khaosworks, do superb work on these pages. MarnetteD | Talk 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It might be added that in The Mind of Evil Pertwee began to say that he'd been a scientist for "thousands of...", although the unit of measurement is never stated. There really isn't much continuity in this aspect of the story, but it is a fun thing to try to nail down. -RSClark

Ka Faraq Gatri
What is the source of the Daleks' referral to the Doctor by this name? Ravenswood 00:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The novelisation of Remembrance of the Daleks by the scriptwriter Ben Aaronovitch, and taken up in the novels and comic strips (and I believe mentioned in the Big Finish audios). I'll source it. --khaosworks 01:04, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Time Lord Lifespan
I've just realised, through the latest edit of this page that the Doctor says in the War Games that Time Lord can Live Forever. However, I am sure I have heard Time Lords can only regenerate 12/13 times. What's going on? --bjwebb 14:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Immortality is not the same as invulnerability. "Time Lords can live forever, barring accidents." The longer you live, the chances of you dying in a mishap increase, unless you lock yourself up forever. There is no contradiction. --khaosworks 15:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * So is regeneration always instigated my an accident?
 * The First Doctor regenerated due to old age, his body had worn out. The Second Doctor was force to regenerate as a punishment from the Time Lords. The rest have been accidents/diseases/radiation etc. so farTim! (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And we don't know for certain why the First Doctor "wore out" either. Perhaps his body was simply weaker to start with and his subsequent regenerations were hardier. 23skidoo 19:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it was intended by Gerry Davis in The Tenth Planet that it was the energy drain from Mondas that was the problem, but it didn't come across clearly. --khaosworks 19:13, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't forget he'd also - probably by coincidence as far as the production team was concerned, but it's a nice little tie-in for us fans - been aged several decades, possibly centuries, by the Time Destructor on Kembel at the end of The Daleks' Master Plan. Angmering 11:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I seem to remember Romana regenerated out of her own free choice (and having some control over her regenerated appearance). Although it has been a very long time since I've watched any of those old episodes. Rje 01:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Changing Fashion and the Titanic reference
Hi, in your excellent article, you cite the photo of the Daniels Family of Southampton as evidence that the Ninth Doctor may occasionally change costume to 'blend in'. However, given the similarity of his garb in that photo to that of the Eighth Doctor, is it not quite possible that this was intended to show the point at which he 'regenerated' - especially as the 'Titanic' reference is then followed up in Episode 2 as well ("It wasn't half cold") ? User:Jamie B 22:36, 13 June 2005


 * It is possible, but there is no evidence to say that he went on the Titanic, especially since the Daniels didn't go on board. No evidence to say he didn't either, admittedly, so it's speculative. In addition, the photograph was taken before the Titanic's sailing. --khaosworks 21:41, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

End of Ninth Doctor Era
Do we know whether the Ninth Doctor will be in the Christmas special or not for certain. I am refering to the edit by an annonymous user who changed end of 2005 to 18th June 2005. --bjwebb 20:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * We don't. The only thing we know for certain is that Tennant will be in the Christmas Special. I'm reverting until we have a confirmation one way or the other. --khaosworks 20:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the season finale airs this weekend we should know soon, although I'm actually going to remove this article from my watchlist for the next couple weeks as we Canadian viewers won't see the finale for a couple weeks yet and I don't want to be spoiled (likewise regarding the resolution of the "bad wolf" storyline). 23skidoo 20:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images of Doctor regenerations
Maybe the images in the Brain of Morbius are incarnations of The Other as the Doctor was created from his genetic material by the looms. (Of course you have to count Lungbarrow as canon.) Any thoughts? --bjwebb 18:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think they're the Doctor. But could they all be the First Doctor? DavidFarmbrough 22 Jul 2005


 * Those images are not The Doctor. The first thing we see in the display is Morbius in his brain tank, followed Morbius as he was in the bust.  Only then do we see Tom Baker, so why would no more Morbiuses appear?  See more here

The Doctor's CV
Must be interesting filling out the details.

Title: Doctor

Name: (None)

Age: (several hundred years - of which x spent in present incarnation)

etc.

Affiliated with: None?
Isn't the Doctor "Affiliated with" the Humans? DavidFarmbrough 22 Jul 2005


 * Debatable. Ditto the Time Lords. Or anybody else. Actually, he's probably affiliated with the Universe, if anything. :) --khaosworks 13:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Doctor's parents (maybe)?
The novels, most recently The Gallifrey Chronicles, have given us glimpses of the Doctor's possible parents: the Englishwoman Penelope Gate (first seen in The Room With No Doors) and the Time Lord Ulysses (who may be Daniel Joyce from Vampire Science). Should they be included here, or somewhere (with the usual caveats about canonicity, of course)? --Josiah Rowe 18:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Daniel Joyce turns out to be Professor Chronotis in Unnatural History, not that rules him out I suppose. Let's not forget brother Irving either… Tim! (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Does he? I'd forgotten that.  Perhaps I should re-read it... —Josiah Rowe 20:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd more-or-less forgotten this conversation from about a month ago when I posted at Talk:Professor Chronotis. The same question stands: should Ulysses and Penelope (isn't that just too clever?) be included in this article, or somewhere else? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The Doctor and romance
I've added this section since the idea of the Doctor as a sexless creature is, IMO, quite notable. I've even worked in a very vague allusion to Ulysses and Penelope. I now unleash the hordes of Wikipedia editors on it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What number Doctor are we REALLY at (and how many more to go)?
Supposedly David Tennent is the Tenth doctor, but is it likely that he went 900 years without a regeneration, and then NINE regenerations in forty years? What was he doing for the first 900 years of his life to allow himself to stay so trouble-free - twiddling his thumbs?

In which case, maybe the Doc has now reached the end of his regenerations? Which brings me to my next point - why exactly are the Timelords limited to 12 regenerations? If that was a 'law' passed for population control, then presumably the deaths of the rest of them negates that ruling. Or perhaps its like in Highlander, and timelords absorb the power of their dead relatives (in which case the Doctor would have millions of regenerations left). Just seems a shame to have the Doc run out anytime soon.


 * There are several things to note here. One is that the last 40 years (or 27 years) are what we have seen of the Doctor, but they are not the only adventures he has had. See Doctor (Doctor Who) for that. Secondly, yes, it is firmly established that William Hartnell was the First Doctor, the original, and David Tennant is the Tenth; but see also Doctor (Doctor Who) for more on that. Thirdly, the 12 regeneration limit was first stated in The Deadly Assassin as a hard limit, not a law. The exact quote goes something like, "After 12 regenerations, nothing can prevent death," but see also Time Lord for possible exceptions. In any case, any writer worth his salt can get around the 12 regeneration limit. I myself can think of at least four (or five) distinct ways around it given the facts as established. I wouldn't worry too much. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do we actually have evidence that there were no Doctors between McGann and Eccleston? Algr 08:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, only Russell T. Davies' assertion that Christopher Eccleston is the Ninth Doctor. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor and romance reversions
I reverted the expansion - and I believe we've gone through this before - because I cannot think it can honestly be said that Sarah, Peri or Tegan were "openly shown" to be attracted to the Doctor. At best, there were only very, very subtle hints and even then I would hesitate tremendously to characterise it that way. Peri was only with the Fifth Doctor on screen for two stories, there was nothing with the Sixth Doctor, Tegan and the Fifth Doctor bickered all the time, and even Elisabeth Sladen is on record as saying that Sarah and the Doctor were "best friends" and never goes beyond that. In the commentary for the DVD of The Ark in Space Sladen goes to far as to comment about how they managed to make the chemistry non-sexual. Romana, yes (the most blatant example being in State of Decay where the Doctor tells her how wonderful she is), but the others, no.

I hasten to add that my objection here is not from a standpoint of a person who sees the Doctor as sexless (I have no problems with the various kisses, for example). I simply don't see it being strong enough in these cases to warrant such a phrasing. I would like very specific examples to be cited if this is to be argued. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. I can't say I've ever seen Sarah in particular having an attraction to the Doctor, but neither Tegan nor Peri show any sign. Grace does (although she's not a companion IMO), Romana may do and Rose and Jack possibly do, but that's it. --Whouk (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the argument for Doctor-companion romance in "classic" Who (excepting Romana) is tenuous. I added the comment about the production team playing up the characters' sexiness though, because it wasn't just the press that was responsible for that. JN-T in particular tried to have it both ways, putting the companions in skimpy costumes but forbidding Peter Davison to touch them onscreen. I suppose his thought was that it was OK to sexualize the companions as long as the Doctor never showed an interest in them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, because, as the cliché goes, they weren't for the Doctor to oogle, but for the Dads to keep watching after the sports results. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I happen to disagree and could probably come up with some examples if I had time. I remember there being some fan chatter over Timelash in which Peri appears to almost say "I love you" at one point to The Doctor (I was skeptical about that till I finally saw the episode and, yes it could be interpreted that way). The Romana relationship is defintely one up for debate, but I recall reading somewhere that Tom Baker stated there was something going on between the two characters; granted, he could be referring to his real-life relationship with Lalla Ward though I thought his comments dated back to Mary Tamm's tenure as Romana. The fact the Doctor had feelings for Jo Grant is explicitly indicated at the end of The Green Death when she departs to "marry some bloke she just met" (to borrow a phrase from the BBC retrospectives). That, and Romana, are the only examples I can think of in TOS where the Doctor seemed to display the attraction; in the other cases I saw it as being more or less just on behalf of the companions since the Doctor's character prevented anything else from occurring. 23skidoo 14:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Regenerating standing up?
Minor point - it's mentioned that Parting of the Ways was the first time the Doctor regenerated standing up. Are you sure he wasn't standing when the Time Lords regenerated him at the end of War Games? I haven't seen that episode in more than 10 years so I can't recall if he was sitting or standing at the time. 23skidoo 14:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We never did see him regenerate at all in The War Games, just Troughton receding into darkness as the faces swirled around him, and saying he was getting giddy. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I also recall him starting to make faces, as if his face was being altered. However that might also have been Troughton mugging. Of course if one subscribes to the Season 6B theory, this wasn't a lead-up to regeneration at all... 23skidoo 15:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

When regenerations meet
I'm going to be not-bold and make my suggestions here :-)


 * This has occurred three times to date on the television series (The Three Doctors, The Five Doctors and The Two Doctors), and numerous other times in various literary and audio spin-offs.

Should we list, canon or otherwise, The EastEnders Play here?


 * It has has been suggested in fanon that the Time Lords erased the Doctor's memory after such encounters, however in The Five Doctors, the Third Doctor accurately describes the appearance of his fourth incarnation (suggesting the two may have met in an unchronicled adventure).

I hadn't heard the theory that the Time Lords erased their memories. I always assumed the lesser effect of the BLE as applied to Time Lords in different incarnations was that the earlier incarnation lost his memory - rather than there being a big explosion. A much bigger problem is the predestination paradox in The Two Doctors because the Sixth Doctor rescues his earlier incarnation.

I thought the implication of that line in The Five Doctors was that Pertwee is interpreting what Sarah Jane is trying to describe, but I'd have to watch it again to check. &mdash;Whouk (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dimensions in Time doesn't really count, because the different incarnations of the Doctor do not actually cross paths, although the Fourth Doctor is able to send them a message. The erasure theory is just one that I remember being kicked around back in the day (I'd be surprised if a novel or Big Finish audio hasn't tried to address it but I'm less familiar with them), and the Third Doctor's exchange with Sarah Jane: "But, you changed." "All teeth and curls? Well, it hasn't happened ... yet." is a pretty explicit reference to the Fourth Doctor. I agree the predestination paradox should be noted as well. 23skidoo 12:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair point about DiT. I'll try to have a look at The Five Doctors later (I wanted to check a quote too). I vaguely remember Sarah Jane doing "teeth and curls" hand signals. &mdash;Whouk (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I've just checked - Sarah makes "teeth and curls" hands gestures, which the Doctor interprets. At least, that's the simplest explanation. &mdash;Whouk (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm...guess someone beat me to the discussion page...anywho, Sarah clear makes pantomine motions to her teeth and hair, prompting the 3rd Doctor to make the "teeth and curls" comment. Anything else--i.e. positing that the 4th and 3rd Doctors have met some time before--is fan speculation and when weighed against the onscreen evidence just doesn't belong in this article. DonQuixote 20:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What I'd like to know is how someone supposedly as intelligent as the Doctor would interpret someone pointing at her head as meaning "curls". For all we know, she might have meant "brunette" or "bald" for that matter. That said, the novelization does have Sarah, not the Doctor, saying the "teeth and curls" line which supports the rumor that Pertwee asked to be able to speak the line (though I'd like to know the source of that -- I'd never heard that trivia item before). In any event, it still needs to be acknowledged otherwise someone will just add it back later. I'm going to put back a modified version. 23skidoo 20:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Her actions are more demonstrative than just pointing at her head. And when it comes to interpreting it, it's not as if the Doctor hasn't at times shown a propensity for telepathy :-) &mdash;Whouk (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dicks says it on the DVD commentary, which is appropriately sourced in note 15 of The Five Doctors. I don't want to mention this in the main article, but in the Virgin New Adventures, particularly Christmas on a Rational Planet by Lawrence Miles, reference is made to a dangerous and disapproved of game called "Eighth Man Bound" that was played by young Time Lords on Gallifrey, where the player tries to see his possible future incarnations and running the risk of regeneration, death or random genetic rearrangement. The name "Eighth Man Bound" comes from the fact that the maximum number of incarnations any player has been able to see is eight (a record rumoured to have been equalled by a member of the Prydonian Academy, but the Doctor denies he'd have ever played such a reckless and irresponsible game, oh definitely not). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, it's a self-referential joke. Sarah pointing to her teeth and hair with the Doctor then commenting "teeth and bald", or whatever, isn't as funny as "teeth and curls". Besides, "teeth and curls" is a common English phrase, much more so than "teeth and bald", etc. DonQuixote 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Mirrors
Just a observation. (And spoiler alert for Christmas Invasion). I think it's unlikely the Doctor wouldn't have had access to a mirror inside the TARDIS because The Christmas Invasion has him checking out his "new look" in one. The idea of the Doctor checking himself out in a mirror while changing his outfits is something of a tradition in the series. One bit of fun speculation (which actually works) is that the Doctor could have recently had a haircut! ("Could have been worse -- look at the ears!") ;) 23skidoo 13:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Or spent some time in a monastic order that forbade objects of vanity like mirrors... in Lancashire. ;) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My assumption is that this isn't the first time he's seen himself - it's just that he's unsatisfied with how he looks, and keeps checking himself to see if he's getting used to it, or to find something good about it. (Just like you'd do after a bad haircut.) How's that? --Brian Olsen 00:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Renewal
Much of the specifics for the new "renewal" paragraph come from the Tomb of the Cybermen DVD -- in particular the running note feature present on most (if not all) classic-series DVDs. If someone wants to cite specifics (for instance the First Doctor's intended age versus the Second Doctor's revealed age), go right ahead.

As for the two exceptions to the general trend -- well. Both the Troughton-Pertwee and the Davison-Baker regenerations were kind of unusual. In all other cases, the pattern has been true. Also perhaps incidentally, Davies recently went on record about how he didn't think older Doctors were viable anymore -- though he framed it more as a demographics issue. --Aderack 03:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Doctor vs The Doctor
I've moved the article to The Doctor (Doctor Who), since our Time Lord is credited as "The Doctor" (ie including the article) in the new series. --Kwekubo 17:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back - see Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). The Doctor, as written, is never as "The Doctor" but always "the Doctor". We've discussed this before, here. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Blinovich and his limitations
Khaosworks recently removed a mention of Father's Day from the section on regenerations meeting. I don't think it needs to be in this article, but even though there was no visible energy discharge or explosion when the two Roses touched in Father's Day, Paul Cornell has made it clear that the "ZAP!" the Doctor warned Rose about was the BLE, and that it was the BLE energy discharge caused by Rose touching her baby self (sounds a bit icky!) which allowed the Reaper to enter the church. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The doctor and his lovelife
The discussion regarding the character of Doctor Who and his lack of sexuality, becoming controversy and then hinting at involvement with the character of Rose, does not refer to the slight flirtation with the characetr of Captain Jack and the references that both Doctor and Jack make to being 'not restricted' to one gender... I don't know how to put it without making it seem like a 'cry for time-traveller-gay-rights' :) - can someone else do this - please?! (Also - reference needs to be made to the episode where cassandra inhabits the odctor's body and how the sexuality and love aspects are played out) Crescent 23:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor's age
I haven't edited the main page to reflect the following observation as I don't have a copy of Vampire Science to hand: I recall that in Orman and Blum's book the Doctor gives his age as '3', i.e. the lifespan of his eighth incarnation so far. In the same conversation he gives the 1012 figure by adding up the lifespans of all his incarnations. Applying the same rule, 900 years could be the lifespan of the Ninth Doctor only, making him well over 2000 if we consider the books canon. Jsteph 06:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've heard this theory before, but it doesn't jibe with the 900 years of phone box travel, 900 years of time space, or (especially) his "Look at the ears" line which implies a recent regeneration, so I've never put much stock into it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think his regen into #9 was all that recent when Rose staretd. Looking back, the Doctor would have needed ample time as #9 to go back in time and appear in all those pictures that Clive/Mickey had on the "Who Is The Doctor?" website.  Notice Rose was nowhere in those photos. - EmiOfBrie 17:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So what if she doesn't appear in the photos she saw - she knows she didn't appear in them. For all we know, she was standing behind the camera/told the sketcher not to include her to avoid exacerbating the paradox - SoM 19:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And in any case, they all could have taken place between the time he leaves her at the end and then returns for her ("Did I mention it also travels in time?") at the end of Rose. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather put them before Rose altogether than try and force something in there - that's not a "gap" - look at his face throughout the scene, both B&A. No way is there more time elapsing between those scenes for the Doctor than Rose. - SoM 20:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is that the placement is not clear. It's like the unseen portions preceding The Face of Evil taking place in that moment where you see the TARDIS just fading out (and not even completely at that) in Robot. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not the Morbius Doctors again.
Wilipedia shouldn't cling to an interpretation of a scene that contradicts everything around it, while giving so much less weight to another explanation that makes perfect sense. The faces in the mind bending game are Morbius. It takes whole novels worth of retroactive continuity to find a way for them to be the Doctor. Only one line supports the "Morbius Doctors" interpretation, and it is coming from someone who's brain is being destroyed at the time. If the production team intended to IMPLY that their MIGHT be previous Doctors, then they did so as a red herring. They've certainly implied the Doctor's death enough times. I suggest pulling this from the Doctor (Doctor Who) article entirely, and just having it on the The Brain of Morbius page. Algr 17:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is that viewing that story alone, it absolutely looks as if the faces are the Doctor's. Morbius is shouting, "Back, back, to your beginning!" and the Doctor certainly appears to be losing the battle at that point.  Although later production teams contradicted it, it's clear that the intention of the Hinchcliffe/Holmes team was that these were the faces of earlier Doctors.  It's only in the context of later stories that this interpretation is problematic.  You've got to retcon either way: it's really just as much a retcon to say "the faces are Morbius's" as it is to say "they're the Doctor's, but not exactly (see Other (Doctor Who))".  True, it's much simpler to say "Morbius got it wrong" than to say "these are past lives of the Doctor's, but Hartnell was still the first" and come up with "before there was regeneration, there was reincarnation".  But given that licensed media have come up with these fanwanky ways to work around the series' contradictions, why not mention them?


 * As the article stands now, Wikipedia isn't clinging to any one interpretation: it's just presenting the (contradictory) evidence given on-screen and letting readers decide for themselves. I think it's an interesting discontinuity, and one that belongs in the article.  If you think it's given undue weight, we could add the alternate reading that the faces are Morbius's; however, I have to say that that reading is not supported by the scene itself.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * it absolutely looks as if the faces are the Doctor's.
 * It absolutely does not. The first face is Morbius's fish-bowl, the second is the statue we see of him.  Only then do we see any Doctors, so why would no further Morbiuses appear? Algr 17:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just did some research and determined that the face I took to be the defiant Tom Baker is actually Phillip Hinchcliffe. But this doesn't change the basic problems I point out at the start.  This is an obscure issue that only effects a single episode, (like the Doctor's sudden magic power with the tape in Ambassadors of Death.) and so shouldn't be highlighted in a general article about the Doctor.
 * Neither the "Morbius" or "Other" explanations permit those faces to be the Doctor. If Wikipedia DOESN'T endorse either explanation, then the scene makes no sense, and belongs under discontinuities, or out of this article entirely.  Algr 09:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The scene makes perfect sense - and is thus not a discontinuity - whichever of the following three hypotheses you accept. Either it's Morbius's faces or it's the Other's or it's the Doctor lying. All three theories, floated at one time or another in fandom, are consistent with the twelve regenerations concept. The only apparent discontinuity (and I do stress the adjective) is if we theorise that these are the Doctor's. It's not an obscure issue, certainly, since it's spawned literally years of debate and the concept of the Other introduced in the novels (not to mention The Infinity Doctors). And indeed, Wikipedia does not and cannot endorse either explanation, but simply explain that this scene has created controversy, why it has done so, and present all of these hypotheses in an equal manner. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've altered "implying" to "can be taken as implying", which appears to be what the point of contention here is, although not actually outright stated by anyone.  Morwen - Talk 11:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Morwen. I confess I don't know if that really is Algr's problem with it, but I'm perfectly fine with this rewording. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that fixes it. Thanks.  Algr 15:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Last Time Lord
See my comments on the Talk pages of Time War and S2 episode School Reunion about the point at which the Doctor became the last Time Lord: if there are more information fragments they could be brought together as a section on this page. Jackiespeel 21:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Suggestions of hanky panky"
Aside from the fact that this is highly unencyclopedic wording, what are the suggestions for this other than the epilogue of The Dying Days?--Keycard (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * None in the series; this was mostly (as stated) played up by the press and/or the production team (read: JNT). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories
I've moved all the categories to Category:Doctor Who Doctors, where I think all categories that apply to all his incarnations should be to avoid duplication. Categories that apply mostly to one regeneration (such as Fictional musicians for the Second Doctor and Fictional vegetarians for the Sixth should stay with their articles. That okay with everybody? Jonathan D. Parshall 08:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC) There is a good article about this in DWM, but I have no idea which one as I don't collect them. It lists past relationships or potiential off screen relationships the doctor has had including the first doctor's (unwilling?) marriage to Cameca in the Aztecs.

After the Twelfth Doctor
I recall coming across "somewhere" that one of the Doctors said that he can only have twelve reincarnations ("elementary cell regeneration technobabble" being the reason). What would happen to the series when that point is reached? The Tardis is a living organism - as the Doctor says in The Impossible Planet - would it die as well? Rose "absorbed" part of the Tardis' force in The Parting of the Ways which was then transferred to the Nineth Doctor which implies a form of symbiosis. Could the Tardis select a new partner - would it require a Gallifreyan? (Jack Harkness's ship appears to be a more conventional form of transport... in the sense that a time machine can be conventional) Jackiespeel 12:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Twelve regenerations; thirteen doctors in all. Discussed in the regenerations section to great detail. I wouldn't worry about the series all that much, and they'll cross that bridge when they come to it. I can come up with at least five different ways to continue it past the Thirteenth Doctor with minimal mental effort. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Give us a few there. GusF 17:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In The Five Doctors, the high counsel rather casually offers the Master a complete new set of regenerations in return for his cooperation. Anthony Ainley is actually the 14th Master, Eric Roberts is the 15th.  (Although stealing bodies this way probably isn't a good choice for the hero of a series.  Algr 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Eric Roberts be the 16th Master, with Gordon Tipple as the 15th? GusF 19:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

With the destruction of the other Time Lords things might change. Another possibility - the time travel group Jack Harkness parted company is given/acquires some of the technology etc involved/evolves into the successor group. Some things are best considered in advance (g) Jackiespeel 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumably when and if the series makes it to the 13th Doctor (which could be 20 years from now for all we know, if Tennant and his successors each stay for 5 seasons, for example), the writers will come up with some way for the Doctor to renew himself for another go-around. According to Trial of a Time-Lord, somewhere in between the 12th and 13th Doctors there is supposed to be an evil incarnation known as The Valeyard and he could stir up trouble. Although it's doubtful the heroic Doctor would steal bodies the way the Master did, I'm sure that with or without the Time Lords, he'll figure out an heroic way to keep himself alive. 23skidoo 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A few off the top of my head:

1) The Doctor is "more" than a Time Lord - suitably mysterious. 2) A younger Time Lord willingly gives up his body to the Doctor (The Keeper of Traken). 3) The biogenic molecules that make regeneration possible get a kick start. 4) Energies from the Eye of Harmony or the equivalent create a new regenerative cycle (as the Master tried to do twice). 5) The Doctor is reborn into a new body with a new set of regenerations (as the Other was). 6) Regenerations are transferred from someone else (Mawdryn Undead, the TVM). 7) The regeneration limit was not a physical one, and with Time Lords gone, it no longer applies. 8) The Doctor is regressed along his own timeline to become a younger William Hartnell like Troughton was originally intended to be (hence not requiring a Billy lookalike, and since regeneration is random, his subsequent incarnations don't have to look like the others either).


 * I could come up with more, if actually given time. As I said, these are just off the top of my head; the details are still fuzzy, but they can always be worked out with minimal effort, and besides, it's not as if the writers have always been too fussed about continuity anyway. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Or...they could do what Americans do with Superman every twenty years or so--reboot the character. :P  DonQuixote 04:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rebooting would be annoying as frell... DrWho42 04:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Lots of planets have a North!"
An anonymous editor recently removed this line from the section on the Doctor's accent(s) as too specific for an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure I disagree, but it's such a great line I'm slightly loath to lose it. What do other people think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is fantastistic, but where does it come from? Jefffire 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's from the episode Rose. Since this is a general article, it may be better just to note the line in the Ninth Doctor entry, where it is quoted verbatim. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's also in Aliens of London, isn't it? Or was it boomtown? Algr 18:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's World War Three — Rose repeats the line to Harriet Jones, MP (Flydale North). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cho-Je?
I see new entries have been added to the "Doctors" category. There are a lot of incarnations you should but couldn't add but my point is: Who is Cho Je?-Davros27


 * Assuming it's not a rhetorical question, he's the future projection of K'an-Po, same as the Watcher was a projection of the Fourth Doctor. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then why is it listed on incarnations of The Doctor then?-Davros27
 * Please sign your comments. I think this might be an error. I've never heard of Cho-Je being called an incarnation of the Doctor. I'll put the question on the template's talk page. 23skidoo 19:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor and Susan
I believe that it is said somewhere (in a book or an episode) that The Doctor and Susan(his Grand Daughter) are not blood-related but he just decided to call her his grand daughter. But please correct me if I am wrong.
 * Books? Doubtful. More likely one of many vague fan rumblings about the Doctor's early years, I think. I've heard it before, but as I recall, it was purely speculation on some fan's part -- granted, that could become book canon eventually, but you know what I mean. :)--SB | T 14:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor mentions being a father in Fear Her, so I think it's more than likely she's his granddaughter. I always felt such grumblings came from fans not wishing the Doctor to be a sexual figure.
 * Although the books exist in that often-cited "grey area of canon" because the BBC has never made a definitive ruling on the matter (unlike Paramount and Star Trek), and a few of the more recent books have suggested that Susan wasn't actually the granddaughter of the Doctor but rather a descendent of one of the Doctor's ancestors ... or something like that ... episodes broadcast on TV still trump everything else. The first 2 seasons plus the Five Doctors special categorically indicate (in dialogue) that Susan is the Doctor's granddaugher, so therefore she is. And as noted above (as well as in I believe Tomb of the Cybermen but I might be thinking of another episode) the fact the Doctor has offspring has been mentioned in passing but to date we've yet to meet any. I agree that there is a really large "fanon" element that wants to see the Doctor being completely asexual, but once again there really isn't much to be seen in televised episodes to suggest this is the case. Indeed, the Eccleston season, the TV movie (which like it or not is canon) and several moments in the classic series, suggest otherwise. 23skidoo 23:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * when the doctor mentions that he has had a daughter in Fear Her, he wasnt talking about Susan, but another girl named Miranda. Im not sure if she is a Time Lord or not but she appeared after gallifrey was destroyed and the doctor was living on earth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.Warr (talk • contribs).
 * Well, he definitely wasn't talking about Susan because Susan's his granddaughter, not daughter. For Miranda, see Miranda (Doctor Who). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Susan was the Doctor's adopted grandaughter. Her real grandfather was the Doctor's genetic forebearer, the Other. Also intrestingly Miranda's real father is the final incarnation of the Doctor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.42.167.168 (talk • contribs) 01:39, July 5, 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the Other or Miranda are canon considering the Eighth Doctor's revelation of being a half-human, and of course if Miranda could be a daughter, then why not Susan another granddaughter. Not to say the Doctor is a playboy, but well, he's been around a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki-newbie (talk • contribs) 07:32, July 5, 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether the Doctor is half-human (as the TV movie would have it) or not doesn't really affect the canonicity of Miranda or the Other either way. The novels have presented several possible options for Susan's origins: according to Lungbarrow she's the granddaughter of the Other, but according to Sometime Never... she's Miranda's daughter Zezanne.  (Just to be clear, Miranda was adopted by the Eighth Doctor but may be the genetic daughter of a future Doctor.  Got it?)  However, Sometime Never... was part of an elaborate storyarc in the Eighth Doctor novels which involved Gallifrey having been taken out of time, with the Doctor's origins apparently having been erased — the Zezanne business was part of an alternate origin for the Doctor which wouldn't require Gallifrey.  However, The Gallifrey Chronicles changed the premise slightly, making the alternate origin redundant, and although the new series also operates with a Gallifrey-less universe it seems more consistent with the version from The Gallifrey Chronicles (it was destroyed in time, and is just inaccessible because of a temporal event horizon) than the version from Sometime Never... (which, I gather, implies that it was removed from time so that it never existed, which would make the Doctor a paradox until his new origin is cut-and-pasted into the universe). (Whew!)


 * Anyway, I don't think that anyone official has confirmed whether in Fear Her the Doctor was talking about Susan's mother (or father), or Miranda (if they're not the same person), or another son or daughter. I think that it's more likely Susan's mother or father, simply because the Miranda/Zezanne business and the Other are too complicated and inaccessible for the television audience.


 * By the way, folks, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes, like this: ~ . It's helpful in conversations to see who said what. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

7th - 8th regeneration
I seem to remember the doctor being shot as he exited the TARDIS at the start of the episode and then regenerating in the morgue, not as a result of surgery as stated in the article. Someone corect me if i'm wrong i only watched the movie once and refuse towatch it again as i consider it a blasphemy.
 * You can read a aynopsis at Doctor Who (1996). The Seventh Doctor was shot, but he was still alive. He was brought to the hospital, operated on, and died on the operating table because Grace couldn't navigate his alien physiology. They even say that the bullet wounds weren't that serious. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I believe he was only ever shot in the shoulder and leg. There have been more fatal injuries on record!--71.139.18.66 10:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Mention in novel
I'm sure I recall seeing somewhere that the Doctor makes a cameo appearance in High Wizardry by Diane Duane: he's the "man at the bar" who helps the protagonist escape from her pursuers, and the description is apparently a dead ringer for the Fifth Doctor. There is much discussion on the forum at her fan-site but I haven't yet been able to track down any specific yeah-or-nay from Diane herself.

Correction: I was able to track down this reference…which is on the Errantry Concordance, DD's official site, at which articles may only be created with her approval. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

New photo
Should the main photo be replaced with the new one seen on the Tenth Doctor's page or not? GusF 18:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think so; I uploaded the new one for Ten's article as the character is at a lonely, melancholy point in the narrative, post-Series 2. The pic here, I think, should reflect him more generally (he's standing in for nine predecessors, as well), so I think it's fine as it is. Radagast 02:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

TARDIS assisting in regeneration
Hi, I've edited the page a couple of times to correct the article's claim that the Doctor regenerated outside of the TARDIS four times, and the list of special circumstances associated with these transitions. In fact he's done it five times, the fifth being Logopolis after the Doctor falls off the huge antenna. The special circumstance in this case would be merging with the Watcher. For some reason both of these edits have since been deleted and the article again features the inaccurate content. Is there something I'm missing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.6.224.49 (talk • contribs).
 * Yes. You're double counting - it's been only four times.
 * The Time Lords forcibly regenerating him in The War Games.
 * The push from Cho-Je in Planet of the Spiders.
 * The falling off from the tower and the subsequent recovery in the Zero Room (Logopolis and Castrovalva).
 * The television movie.


 * As I've tried to point out a few times in the edit summary, the Logopolis regeneration and the Castrovalva regeneration are the same one: he regenerated in the former story and recovered in the latter story, so it's already covered. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I just realized my mistake as well - sorry about the brainfart and thanks for your diligence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.6.224.49 (talk • contribs) 08:26, August 11, 2006 (UTC)

This may not be the correct place for this, but I'm wondering about the connection with Captain Jack -- in the first Torchwood episode, we find out that he has been rendered immortal after Rose brought him back to life in Parting of the Ways, which she could do because she had opened up the TARDIS and absorbed the Time Vortex. Obviously this must have something to do with how he was brought back? Or am I out on a limb here? If I'm not, should it be incorporated somehow? Saffran 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That does seem the most likely explanation for Jack's immortality, but I think that we can't really incorporate anything here until it's either been properly explained in the series proper, or commented on by a reliable source. In the case of Doctor Who, reliable sources might include newspaper columnists, Doctor Who Magazine, or comments on trusted forums from writers associated with the series.  If it's just fan speculation — even if it sounds probable — we can't really include it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who? reference
I don't remember which Hartnel episode (War Machines and Gunfighters come to mind) where he introduces himself as The Doctor to someone. This person says "Doctor Who?" and Hartnell says "yes...quite right" and then goes on. Just wondering if that should be mentioned in the Doctor Who? section of the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sabalon (talk • contribs) 16:33, August 30, 2006 (UTC)
 * For the reference, I think it was The Gunfight at the OK Corral. --Jashank 06:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Half-human" and the Telemovie
It's referred to as being a "key premise" in the telemovie. It's a throwaway line which may or may not be meant to be taken seriously, and is not referred to *ever again* in the telemovie, let alone anywhere else. If that's a key premise, then so's the bit about flying off the top of the Eiffel Tower in "City of Death". El Zoof 04:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's more than a throwaway line: the fact that the Doctor's retinal pattern is human is pretty central to the plot and the opening of the Eye of Harmony. That being said, the "key" adjective is too strong, and the paragraph not really necessary since the half-human thing is discussed below. I'm removing it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the important thing to note here is that I'm half-idiot (on my own side). I'd completely forgotten that bit about the Master referring to the Doctor as being half-human. —El Zoof (talk • contribs) 00:54, September 12, 2006 (UTC)

Current edit war
I'm going to revert one more time, and then leave it for others to handle. Essentially, the edits by or  or whichever identity he's decdiding to use at the time excise a large chunk of the article, shift footnoted information, screws up the organisation that has been settled on after much months of refinement among several editors, and winds up with bad punctuation, bad formating, and quite a sizeable chunk of POV and inelegant writing. On top of that, the new picture with the various regneratons is just plain ugly, and he use of the montage in the infobox is awkward. Not to put too fine a point on it, these are not improvements to the article and in fact, damage it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Admittedly this may simply be because I wrote said paragraph, but I find the removal of just about the only chunk of "real world" information there was in the whole article rather... odd. Heaven knows I can go into too much detail on occasion, but I can't believe that we don't want a bit of non-fanwank stuff in the piece somewhere. Angmering 06:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Regeneration photos
Since newbies should be able to see images that accurately represent each of the Doctor's onscreen regenerations, I think the image to the right should be used...



However, Terrance (Khaosworks), feels that this image is SO ugly that it needs to be deleted. Frankly, I don't know why. It's not unlike the one used on the main Doctor Who page, and it doesn't take up much room. Plus, it's visually interesting, for it shows how each of the Doctor's regenerations are different from each other... and even a little odd. I think such an image would probably spark off a newbie's curiousity.

While I don't care if this specific image is used or not, I DO think it'd be nice for people to glimpse all 8 regenerations in one image. Why not? So, until one offers up another collage, I think my version should stay.(Of course, anyone else who decided to make a collage would still have to use very similar images from each regeneration. So, perhaps Terrance just thinks that too many regeneration images next to each are ugly in general. I don't know.) Plus, I think the sections about the Doctor's age and romance could be a little shorter, and all of the sections dealing with the Doctor's changing face, attire, and regeneration, etc should be blended together and condensed as much as possible. BTW, Terrance, I'm a "she", not a "he". My name's Nina, and my writing is just fine. haha 66.167.250.23 00:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly ambivilent about the picture generally, although I'd question whether the article needs both a collage of all the Doctor's incarnations and one of all the regenerations. Personally I'd suggest that just the former would suffice. Angmering 00:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting. All I know is that my newbie friends have always seemed fascinated whenever I've shown them images of ALL of the Doctor's regenerations together. They ask me why the process wasn't the same each time... and what the circumstances were. They get curious. This curiosity alone should be reason enough to also include a collage of the Doctor's 8 regenerations. Mind you, I think we hardcore Whovians take for granted just how cool "regeneration" is. (I think the most visually interesting ones are Logopolis, Caves, and Parting) We hardcore fans don't need wikedpedia to know about Doctor Who, for it's all in our heads. For all we know, just seeing all of these images may be enough to get a newbie to buy an episode. You never know. Plus, regeneration is the reason WHY we have all of these Doctors in the first place. Why show just one when we can show all 8? :-)66.167.250.23 00:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to stay out of the "is it ugly" argument, but the order of the images is rather screwed up. You shouldn't use "clockwise" when dealing with columned images otherwise it really looks like they're out of order -- and in fact I didn't even notice the 9th Doctor regeneration at first... I was about complain that it was omitted. Just go left, right, left right, etc. That'll make it easier to follow. I do have a bit of an issue with the fact that the image could constitute a visual spoiler. What are the rules regarding such things? 23skidoo 00:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I've just noticed that this dispute has already violated the Three-Revert Rule. For anyone who doesn't know, the 3RR states a user cannot revert an edit more than three times within 24 hours (unless the edit being reverted is vandalism or libel). 23skidoo 00:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

While I was going to do L- R, L-R, I thought it'd be slightly harder to label. However, I guess one can simply say "upper left to right'. So, here's the L-R version...



Either one is fine with me. :-)Aquanostra9 01:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, I question the need for this collage to begin with. We are not here to advertise for the series, nor are we here to pique newbies' curiosity. We are here to provide information, so - what's it for? What information does it actually convey? We establish the Doctor regenerates, so why does each individual way he regenerates need to be illustrated? It's not as if it has any particular significance in the context of the series itself. In any case, most regeneration sequences are hard to show in static pictures, since you don't get the sense of the transition, which is probably the most significant part of the regeneration and the best reason, if any, to include an illustration of which. I would be more supportive of a sequence of still pictures showing, say, the Ninth Doctor regenerating into the Tenth or the Seventh changing into the Eighth rather than a close up of Hartnell's face, or a blurry superimposition of Tom over Jon's.
 * On another note, if you want to use my given name, please spell it correctly. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't been able to look over all the recent changes yet, but I will say that I too question the need to depict all the Doctor's regenerations. This may be a case where something is more suitable for the Doctor Who Wiki at Wikia than for Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about it being hard to show the transition (which, as you said, is very important, for it's a "process"). Personally, I think the process in Logopolis and Parting are probably the most visually interesting.(Logopolis is my favorite because the Watcher is so damn beautiful, creepy, and chrysalis-like... which is symbolically fitting. Of course, the 9th's Dr's phoenix-like imagery is symbolically fitting aswell... but less odd and creepy. I guess I just really love the Watcher, and would hate to see him visually left out whenever regeneration was discussed.

This is how I see it: The Doctor's regenerated 9 times (not once)... each one was "different"... that very FACT alone is worth something. Why were they different? (Fans can speculate about this for years.) This is interesting information which can be conveyed simply through one image. Why give the inaccurate impression to newbies that the regeneration looks the same each time? Why would they think otherwise IF they were just shown one image?

If you don't think it's important to convey this in one simple image, then why bother mentioning in detail about how each of the Doctor's accents have been different? Surely, the 'way' that the Doctor regenerates is just as relevant to to him and the circumstances. Just look at the Watcher.

Each regeneration reflects the aesthetics, technology, and ideals of the production team at the time. (How could they not?) For good or for bad, the series itself has changed over the years... change and creativity is its middle name...I feel this is summed up at the micro-level by these images.

BTW, I DO think we're here to advertise for the series to 'some degree'. Our 'love' for the show is what mainly motivates us to create and edit entries, and 'curiousity' about the show is what motivates a newbie to look up Doctor Who. The trick is to take our love for the show and filter it through to newbies in a factual manner in order to satisfy their curiousity.66.167.250.23 04:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Although each regeneration effect has been different, it has never been questioned in the story, nor has it had any effect on the story, so it's a production detail at best. Anything else, like speculating why, would be original research. The reason why accents and fashion details are notable is because people discuss them quite avidly whenever a new Doctor takes over. Nobody talks about how the regeneration effect is different.


 * One might mention that the effects are different in the text but certainly they don't all need to be illustrated. If (and I said this advisedly) people feel there is a need for an illustration of a regeneration, then pick one and do a series of stills. Any more would be excessive. The collage, as it stands, is objectionable because it's aesthetically unpleasing (the column layout doesn't sit well with the more horizontal alignment of the other pictures and I also have some issues with the exact stills chosen), but more importantly, it does not adequately illustrate the process of any regeneration. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the previous still of the 9th Dr's regeneration didn't adequately illustrate the regeneration 'process' either,... but everyone still kept it. So that alone isn't a good reason against this collage. Each photo in the collage is an accurate representation of each regeneration. I also think the vertical version works better with the text than a horizontal version. See?....



The reason why each version of the regeneration hasn't been questioned within the story (except for maybe the Watcher, or the 5th commenting how it felt different) is because no companion has ever seen the process more than once (and the Doctor doesn't watch himself regenerate)... but we've seen them all... and each version was indeed different. That's a relevant fact. After all,it's called the Doctor's regenerationS.

Besides, just because something hasn't been regularly questioned within a story doesn't mean that it's not cool to include or relevant to Doctor Who in general.(Look at the audios, books, and comics.)I think a newbie would find these images more interesting than reading about accents. Except for the 2005 and 1996 versions, the Doctor's accent has never been questioned, talked about, or had a true effect on the story.

(The people I know have talked more about the visual aspects of each regeneration than about the Doctor's accent. We consider them just as important, and cool to look at, as the different title sequences.)

Anyway, I said my peace, and I'm not doing anymore. So, you guys can either keep it, leave it, do your versions, or illustrate the process for just one. :-)66.167.250.23 06:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, since you're trying to illustrate a process, I think that one set of photos (probably consisting of three) illustrating one particular regeneration should be enough. DonQuixote 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Showing the process has always been fine with me. (Illustrate either the 4th Dr's regeneration or the 9th's.) However, newbies should also be told in the Regeneration section that each process has been different ( and it'd be nice to show them how they were different). So, a collage of all 8 should probably be used somewhere, or perhaps each Doctor's section could show his own process. 66.167.250.23 08:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It'll be less messy if each Doctor had his own rather than a single collage. DonQuixote 13:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's my own quickly put together one, which illustrates just the one regeneration. I think this is more informative (and more illustrative, therefore putting it squarely within a plausible fair use rationale) example of what a "regeneration" illustration should be like. Feel free to critique. If acceptable, this will also be put on Time Lord. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks okay. Perhaps find an image of CE not smiling. (Even though he did smile right beforehand, the Doctor's usually in pain, unconscious, or very weak right before he regenerates. The process is not an enjoyable one for him... and that should probably be conveyed. Maybe replace the upper righthand corner image. Then again, it's hard to find appropriate photos, so you have to work with what you have.)

Since these transition images are pretty similar, perhaps do the 4th Dr's regeneration, for that version has some great visual transitions from Tom to Watcher to Peter, and would illustrate the process quite well... probably even better. Then again, while Tom is more well known, the 9th's is the most recent.Aquanostra9 14:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I selected Eccleston to Tennant because it simply looks better than most of the other regenerations, with the possible exception of McCoy to McGann. As for the upper right image, that's the morphing shot, which is why it was specificallyh chosen; and as for Eccleston smiling... well, that's simply how it was, just before he exploded in light. I didn't want to choose an image from earlier on, since it wouldn't be accurate. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The bottom left looks more like the morphing shot to me. Plus, keep in mind that while a non-smiling pic may not be accurate to that regeneration, it'd more accurately show how the Doctor's usually messed up before he regenerates.

Anyway, I think the Watcher version looks the best (with the best transitions), for you really get the sense that the Dr's healing and transforming within that cocoon/chrysalis.Aquanostra9 14:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, take it from me, the upper left shot is the morph. From that point on, the only that really changes is the hair growing out.
 * The entire point of the way Davies carried out the Ninth to Tenth regeneration was to show the younger viewers that it wasn't as traumatic as it might seem, that it's a process of change. The Doctor's speech is as much to reassure the audience as it is Rose, so to go away from that intent doesn't sit well with me. Anyway, here's is a similar layout with the Fourth to Fifth from Castrovalva. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for trying the Logopolis version. However, I think it should probably look a little different... perhaps six images like your 9th dr version, or atleast zoom the 4 out a bit to show a little more of his body transforming, such as this...



But it's hard finding images. I just started looking in order to try my own version, but, so far, I couldn't find Davison's face, as you did. I wish my scanner was still working.

As for the 2005 version, whether that was the actual morphing shot or not, I don't think it looks right how Tennant has more hair in the upper right than in the lower left. But it's no biggie. Plus, I'm aware of RTD's intention (one which I never liked... yet atleast the visuals were nice), and I can appreciate you not wanting to stray from that.

I just don't like seeing the Doctor so happy and chummy right before he regenerates. While I understand that he found inner peace at that moment(and was trying to prepare Rose), I loved how the 1st and 4th Drs couldn't even be bothered to spoonfeed a damn thing. It was mysterious and traumatic. Screw the audience, the kids, and the companions! They should all be traumatized! haha Then again, that wouldn't fit in with RTD's chummy, touchy feely vision of the show. Don't mind me, I just don't like most of the New Series or RTD's take on certain things. But I try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Anyway, I have to leave for the next week. I'm sure whatever you guys pick will be a good illustration of "regeneration". Just also please consider letting people know that each regeneration was indeed different.Aquanostra9 16:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've uploaded a new version. What does everyone else think, though? My preference is for the Ninth to Tenth, myself. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor and evil
In the 7th Doctor book The Algebra of Ice, the anti-entropic "creatures" say he has little slivers of ice in his hearts, and "... little Doctor, you belong with us ...". Could someone work out a way to factor this into the page?--Jashank 05:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it really notable? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't think it is. I mean, every hero character (e.g. Superman) has at least one scene where the baddie says there's a little bit of evil in him.  DonQuixote 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Seventh Doctor regeneration
Just to explain the rationale for my change, the movie clearly indicates in dialogue that the gunshot went right through his shoulder causing "no damage" so says a nurse. The reason why he's on the operating table is the X-rays show an abnormality in his cardiovascular system; this is why Dr. Grace Holloway, a heart specialist is called in. She states to the Seventh Doctor that she is going to examine his heart, figure out the problem "And then I'm going to fix it." The Doctor tries to tell her he isn't human (which sorta contradicts what the 8th Doctor says to her later, but anyway...) but he's put under and Grace basically commits a bit of malpractice causing the Doctor to enter cardiac arrest and die. (So actually now that I've written this the actual cause of his death is a heart attack.) This makes Grace the only companion to actually "kill" the Doctor (although Doctors 5 and 9 regenerate as a direct consequence of trying to save their companions, of course). 23skidoo 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Doctors
I've been wondering if there should be a page with a title like Incarnations of the Doctor from spin-off media, detailing what little we know of the Anghelides Doctor, the Infinity Doctor, the Unbound Doctors, etc. Any thoughts? Daibhid C 18:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a great idea to me. We should have some info on these off-canon Doctors and I'm not comfertable putting in the main article.  I don't think I'm really wild about the proposed title, though I can't think of a better alternative. Jonathan D. Parshall 23:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Doctor actor's ages
Leaving aside the snitty accusation of vandalism, can someone explain why is this relevant or in need of a table? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Good article?
Is this article plusgood enough for the nomination? DrWho42 09:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It needs a lot more episode references, but I agree it is an A-class article that could be on the way to FA. Wiki-newbie 09:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)