This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
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
A fact from Eleventh Doctor appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 January 2009, and was viewed approximately 7,300 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[List of Doctor Who villains#Kovarian|Madame Kovarian]]
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
Eleventh Doctor
It is now disputable you could argue David Tenant is the 11th. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.22.229.9 (
talk) 23:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Moffatt isn't King of Doctor Who he's just a writer. Frankly in my opinion it's utterly barmy to call Smith the 11th unless they wipe Hurt's Doctor out of existance at the end of the special. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.22.229.9 (
talk) 23:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)reply
It's a reliable source, rather than your opinion, which is how wikipedia is written.
Edgepedia (
talk) 23:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Writers determine the content of a show. As a result, the writers opinion trumps the fan's.
Justin.Parallax (
talk) 16:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)reply
opinion is opinion abd besides Smith is nit the eleventh incarnation of the main protagonist he may be the eleventh to call himself Doctor but not eleventh overall — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.22.197.148 (
talk) 21:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Regardless of your personal opinion on that, the creators of the show have said otherwise. Wikipedia works on verifiability, we can verify that this is the intention of the show's writers. I understand that your personal opinion differs, but that is original research, which has no place on wikipedia. Hope that explains a bit better.
Justin.Parallax (
talk) 19:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Here's a source suggesting renumbering
link. I'm not saying it is definitive, but I imagine we will have many reliable sources arguing both sides of this. How this will be resolved on wikipedia will prove, erm, interesting.
Retroactive continuity is a pain for those documenting an ongoing work, and throw time travel into the mix and the problems multiply. The writers' previous comments may have been to prevent spoilers, and may also change over time. We shall see.--
Mongreilf (
talk) 16:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)reply
We can describe the rectroactive continuity, but we don't have to go back and retroactively change all the articles to reflect the new continuity. We can describe both in terms of programme history.
DonQuixote (
talk) 17:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)reply
If it is decided (decided by a majority or consensus of reliable sources, not decided among Wikipedia's editors) that Capaldi's Doctor is the 13th Doctor, then the title of that article should probably be changed. If it is also decided that Ecclestone et al are bumped up a number, their article titles may also need changing.--
Mongreilf (
talk) 17:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The article already states that the Eleventh Doctor's final episode is the upcoming Time of the Doctor but it is not stated in the infobox. Are there any objections to putting it there now?
NorthernThunder (
talk) 01:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Actually, just putting this out there, his final appearance will be the first episode of Season 8, but we'll have to wait till that is confirmed in a reliable source (YouTube leaks are not).
ZarhanFastfire (
talk) 17:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Eleventh Doctor Preceded by David Tennant
As this article is about the fictional character, the Eleventh Doctor, it is simply incorrect for the infobox to state that the character was preceded by the actor, David Tenant. It's difficult to properly address a controversial change when it just gets re-added to the page rather than brought to the talk page to build consensus (please consider following
WP:BRD in the future), but I'll attempt to address the very brief rationale provided in the edit summaries below.
it is the actor who creates the character - It would be more correct to say that a character is created by the actor, show runner, writers, costumers, make-up artists, camera operators, and many other artists. A character is much broader than just the actor's portrayal, and may be depicted in multiple forms of media. Conflating a character with the actor portraying him makes the article read as overly fannish, like talking about Tom Cruise fighting aliens rather than whatever character he is portraying.
this follows the DW:MOS - I don't see this point addressed anywhere in
WP:WHO/MOS. That guide very appropriately says to put the actor first in a cast list, followed by the character name. But a character list is different from a cast list. Just as we don't say that the Eleventh Doctor's companions include Karren Gillan, we shouldn't say that he was succeeded by Peter Capaldi.
This article is about a fictional topic, and should be written from a real-world perspective. That is to say, we shouldn't step into the fictional universe and write from that perspective. A key part of that is keeping fictional portrayals distinct in treatment from the actors who portrayed them. Compare other fictional character infoboxes, e.g.,
Lennie Briscoe.--
Trystan (
talk) 14:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Writing from a real-world perspective, it's one character played by multiple actors who preceded and succeeded each other. As an example illustrating the point, Indiana Jones was played by Harrison Ford (adult), River Phoenix (teen) and Corey Carrier (child) in that order. If ever that article needs to be separated into the different incarnations (this part is purely hypothetical) then we would have something like:
Character: Indiana Jones (teen)
Portrayed by: River Phoenix
Preceded by: Harrison Ford (adult)
Succeeded by: Corey Carrier (child)
Makes perfect sense from a real-world perspective.
DonQuixote (
talk) 16:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)reply
The parameters of an infobox describe the subject of the infobox and article. The fictional character "Indiana Jones (teen)" was not preceded by "Harrison Ford (adult)". In that example, you are relying on the reader knowing that Harrison Ford is an actor, and that therefore the only sensible way to read the information is by assuming that the "Preceded by" parameter only makes sense if read as a description of the "Portrayed by" parameter, rather than of the subject of the infobox, as all other parameters are read. If I didn't know anything about the subject, I would interpret it as saying that Indiana Jones was a teenaged character played by River Phoenix, and that the main character in earlier works from the same series is an adult named Harrison Ford. Writing from a real-world perspective does not mean we confuse characters with the actors portraying them; it means we keep them distinct.
In the case of this article, the "Portrayed by" and "Preceded by" are in completely separate parts of the infobox, so it is even more unreasonable to expect the reader to understand that the latter refers specifically to the former, rather than to the subject of the article and infobox.--
Trystan (
talk) 16:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)reply
It's highly unlikely that anyone will read it like that (and only if they consider everything in terms of in-universe). It's a trivial concern.
DonQuixote (
talk) 17:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't think sloppy writing is ever too trivial to correct.--
Trystan (
talk) 17:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Er...as I have pointed out, it's not sloppy writing--it's writing from a real-world perspective.
DonQuixote (
talk) 17:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Raggedy Man/Doctor
An IP's edit to change the caption of an image from "Raggedy Man" to "Raggedy Doctor"
was reverted. Since the picture is from "The Eleventh Hour," which uses the phrase "Raggedy Doctor" and not "Raggedy Man", the former would make more sense to me for the caption. The phrase "Raggedy Man" doesn't show up until "The Big Bang".--
Trystan (
talk) 01:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Eleventh Doctor. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
Appearance Section > Suggest it be cut back or replaced altogether
The appearance section is quite long and detailed. And it's duplicating content already covered in episode pages.
My suggestion is to either:
remove the section altogether in favour of a list of cross-references to the season listing pages
include a brief synopsis of the seasons and specials with relevant x-references to the main pages. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gotheek (
talk •
contribs) 05:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)reply