This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
The current set-up seems rather crude, but we do have to deal with the general ambiguity around the "Fourteenth Doctor" at the moment. How should we be handling this? StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really much information surrounding Tennant as 14 available, bar a few leaked photos on Twitter of the 60th anniversary episodes filming (which may have been turned into articles and could be added as citations here if possible). We may just have to wait it out until November 23/whenever new information gets released which obviously isn't ideal, but it's the best we can do really XxLuckyCxX (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this officially the Fourteenth Doctor, or simply a "transitional appearance" while his regeneration stabilizes? The "Next Time" trailer even showed Ncuti Gatwa in it. This wouldn't be the first time that The Doctor has had a difficult regeneration, albeit not in this way. 24.246.14.216 (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any indication that Tennant is going to be called The Fourteenth Doctor. Unless we have some proper reference, I think this should be merged to Tenth Doctor. Nfitz (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it is suggested that this is indeed the case in this BBC media release; it will be interesting to see how that holds up. Perhaps someone should reference that, because I don't see it confirmed in any of the references on the page. That being said - do we really need an extra article for this? Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th president of the USA, and we don't do two articles for him, despite his second appearance. Nfitz (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, though with different rationale. If Tennant was getting even a single additional season I'd consider this warranted but if it's just a 3 episode reprisal it seems entirely reasonable to merge this into Tenth Doctor and leave a redirect. —Sirdog(talk) 03:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 22nd and 24th president are the same person; at this point in time, the Tenth and Fourteenth Doctors are different characters. -- Alex_21TALK10:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They may be referring to them by different names, but with the first special having aired now they are very clearly still the same character. Their personalities and Tennant’s portrayal are identical. So barring any major contradictions in the final 2 specials I can’t think of any reason why this shouldn’t be merged with Tenth Doctor after. ~~ DocNox (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technically all incarnations are the same character, they're all the Doctor. Regardless, this is still a separate incarnation with a completely separate production history, hence the separate article. That would be exactly the same as saying "They're the same character, so let's merge the 2023 specials article back into the Series 4 article". -- Alex_21TALK06:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me with the specials thing. In universe he’s a different incarnation, sure, but also… kinda not. But in the real world it’s the exact same character as the Tenth Doctor. Literally exactly the same except older. And Wikipedia is written from a real world perspective. There is no information in this article that could not easily be included in Ten’s. It’s just unnecessary. ~~ DocNox (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the same reasoning, they're all exactly the same character, every incarnation. The Eleventh Doctor is "the exact same character as" the Tenth Doctor, and "exactly the same except older", so why not merge all separate incarnation articles together? Regardless, he's a separate incarnation, characteristics and appearance irrelevant. It is indeed "written from a real world perspective", and as this character has a completely separate production history from the Tenth, that makes them separate. -- Alex_21TALK05:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are those things not relevant? This isn’t Whokipedia or whatever it’s called.
Yes, the production is different. That’s why we have separate production pages. I don’t believe we should merge those together as you previously suggested for some reason.
I think there’s already plenty of information to justify an individual Doctor page as well as most of the separate Doctor pages so I don’t really see a full merge as necessary. Because even though in-universe they’re all the same character… they’re really not. Because each actor gets to make it their own. It’s a different situation.
This particular situation was all about bringing back a previous actor that’s played the Doctor for an anniversary special, something Doctor Who does all the time. There just so happened to be a different in-universe gimmick as to why he’s back this time, but it’s still David Tennant’s Doctor in everything but name and it doesn’t need its own separate page. ~~ DocNox (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is perfectly precise. Secondary sources refer to him as a separate character, and Wikipedia (or whatever it's called) does not base our content on personal opinions. The other articles refers to the Tenth Doctor. This article refers to the Fourteenth Doctor. No source has called them the same character or incarnation. If this continues, it's really just a case of beating a dead horse and not liking it. -- Alex_21TALK10:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you merge this with the Tenth Doctor? that would be wrong. This incarnation is not the Tenth Doctor, he just has Ten's physical form again. He is the 14th Doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.58.150 (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Grover Cleveland comparison seems weak. He's just a real guy who was President twice. The Doctor is a fictional alien who can change their form and effectively become a whole new person and now has had the same one twice. Not the same at all. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable source? I thought this was all coming from RTD - who surely by his own confession is not a reliable source about future plots. Nfitz (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz The BBC Media Centre has release a press release stating he is the Fourteenth Doctor. Whether it is true or not in the end is irrelevant, per WP:VNT. It is sourced properly. -- Alex_21TALK08:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21 VNT however talks extensively about about WP:RELIABLE sources. A BBC media release about a TV show, is not only WP:BIASED and WP:PRIMARY but the information is quoted from RTD, which makes it an interview! That being said, I don't see any other course of action about the naming - I'm just pointing out that RTD has previously taken pride about providing false information about future plot points. Nfitz (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He has, yes. But assuming that this is the same case would be original research. The content and title are, as they stand, verifiable. -- Alex_21TALK13:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is somewhat fluid, or at least as viscous as a potentially 13 month wait can be, but most sources are dubbing Tennant2 the 14th (when they do use numbering) and until an official Bad Wolf/BBC press piece does clarify either way, I think it's worth keeping the page up. BitterGiant (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As this article has become protected it's impossible to add citation requests (not sure why as I'm clearly logged in), so suggesting we list them here, as some statements seem to be people putting their own interpretations onto what has very briefly almost without dialogue been seen on screen:
- "This character, portrayed by Tennant, was confirmed to be the Fourteenth Doctor"
- "with later clarification that Ncuti Gatwa would actually portray the Fifteenth Doctor."
I feel as though a fact like "Did You Know... David Tennant is the first actor to play two incarnations of the Doctor, being the Tenth and Fourteenth incarnations?" would be interesting (for the Did You Know Wikipedia section). I just thought of this, I am not sure how to go about making this or if it is a good idea. ButterCashier (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an intesting idea, but we should probably wait until his first episode is broadcast so we can be 100% sure he is the Fourteenth (and we are not being mislead). I would not though, that there is an argument that it is not 100% true in any case as 1) Sylvester McCoy technically played the Sixth Doctor in the first few seconds of Time and the Rani 2) In The Day of the Doctor it is heavily implied that the Curator played by Tom Baker is a future incarnation of the Doctor 3) According to the continuity established in The Time of the Doctor the Tenth Doctor was technically two different incarnations with the same face. So a way phrasing it to cover this might be important. Dunarc (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, article states that Tennant is the first actor to pay two doctors, but it was hinted at that Tom bakers return in the 50th was a new regeneration. This should be edited to reflect this uncertainty 50.76.140.45 (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor Who is a very complex franchise and I’m personally indifferent to the character officially being played by the same actor on this occasion for this specific incarnation but I think we could have a discussion as to whether to merge Tennant's first tenure (2005–2010) with his second, in particular, find how some reviewers felt about the 14th Doctor’s brief tenure. The 13th Doctor article mentions in the “reception” section about the reaction to the casting announcement. While I don’t know any sources for it, I do know some reviewers having mixed feelings on Tennant’s revealing to be the 14th Doctor, with some thinking that it was an “unnecessary” comeback in order to break the ice with Gatwa’s arrival due to Tennant being arguably one of the most popular Doctors, and how diverse the Chibnall era was among fans.
In fact, I think there’s a good argument in how 14 could be merged with 10, despite being two incarnations. 14 getting his old face back, regaining Donna as a companion and settling down can be seen as a redemption for how 10 faced his ending at the finish of his tenure. It could also, depending on any sources (reviewers and journalists) on how each tenure was viewed, brief Tennant’s comeback was. If it’s decided that the article is fine as a specific standalone, that’s okay by me. 92.17.192.24 (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the recent image from Wild Blue Yonder, which is a free to use image, does the infobox need to use the copyrighted, fair use image of Fourteen? Both communicate the same thing (With the only difference being the lack of Fourteen's coat, which is a rather minor detail) and are both equally clear, with the WBY one being particularly more clear due to illustrating more of the Doctor's body. There isn't much need for the fair use image, and I'd suggest we remove it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. Typically non-free content should only be used if there's no free alternative or if the free alternatives don't convey the same information that the non-free do. Neither of those situations are the case here. TheDoctorWho(talk)19:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FishLoveHam I've made the bulk of your suggested changes, though I've chosen not to perform a few for the following reasons:
-The DoctorDonna does not typically use a capitalized "the" to my knowledge, though correct me if I'm wrong on that.
-I did not change to "for promotion" to avoid repetition of "for" in the text, as the current way it is phrased relays the same information while being more professionally phrased.
-From what the source states, there seem to have been more than one informal discussions held between the trio, hence why I did not include "an."
-I did not do "60th-anniversary" since it is not formatted that way anywhere else in the article.
-I kept "had" on the Tom Baker sentence since it makes more sense to keep it there. Had allows the audience to understand that a returning Doctor has precedence in the series, whereas without it the sentence feels like random trivia.
Otherwise there's a lot of good catches in here (And a lot of typos added since I nominated this, geez). Thank you for the help with the multiple citations on Ref 30, as it looks much cleaner now (And I admittedly have no clue how it works). I've archived the sources per your suggestion, I previously hadn't since it wouldn't let me last time I tried to. Overall, the bulk should be addressed, but let me know if you have any more comments on anything in the article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the DoctorDonna, I made that bullet point and then decided against criticising it, I must've forgotten to remove it sorry lol. As for the others, they're not really that big of deals. Mostly I was worried about parts of the article being overly wordy, but your explanations all make sense so I'm willing to leave the article the way it is now. Thanks for your responses! FishLoveHam (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox image is quite bad, clearly cropped and from a particular specified episode in its description, unlike the images for every other numbered Doctor. That is inconsistent and should be altered. ButterCashier (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ButterCashier This is done because the image currently used in the character's infobox is a free to use image, and per Wikipedia guidelines, free to use images should be prioritized where possible. Given that this screenshot adequately communicates all necessary physical details about the Fourteenth Doctor, nothing is lost in using this picture in comparison to a promotional picture. I hope this answers your question adequately. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image is all right, serves its function, but is just inconsistent with all the others, and has the Doctor caught in a dramatic moment, rather than being more neutral. But this is not a huge problem. ButterCashier (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Original CC videoWP:NFCC is very clear that Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available (emphasis added), with constancy not considered at all, unfortunately. The original video is available on Commons and [YouTube], so if you can find a better frame and upload it to commons, then that could be used to replace the exciting image. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk15:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: He was: "The 29-year-old will become the 14th Time Lord on the popular science fiction show" -- Alex_21 TALK 12:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
· 
· 
