Talk:History of Doctor Who

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Flowery" Titles[edit]

Reading through the article, I've been a bit confused and put off by the use of interesting-sounding titles that do not appear to be relevant to the material underneath. Other wikipedia articles have descriptive articles. --kikumbob (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to this, the flowery titles I am referring to are the sub-titles under The 1960s and 1970s sections: The Stranded Scientist, The bohemian wanderer, The cosmic hobo, and then the sub-title in The 2000's section: The Lonely God. I'd like to propose that these be changed to something more descriptive of the era that they are referring to.--kikumbob (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some are better then others "A younger Doctor" and "The television movie" are accurate and to the point, but "The Lonely God"? He might be lonely (if we ignore the horrible relationships with Rose), but certainly not a God. Feel free to rename the sections - "Be Bold". Stormcloud (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well unless somebody objects in the next few day's I'm going to rename all of the section heading. I'm particularly unhappy about the descriptions applied to the 6th, 9th and 10th doctors, but really they all need to change Stormcloud (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old talk[edit]

Note: both adviser and advisor are acceptable spellings. Changing that wasn't necessary. markm 11:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lambert had in fact strongly advised against using Nation's script by her direct superior Donald Wilson, but used the excuse that they had nothing else ready in order to produce it.

Shouldn't this be had in fact been strongly advised? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pilot[edit]

I think this is wrong:

Doctor Who predates Star Trek: The Original Series as one of the first TV series to be given two chances at producing a first episode. The very first episode of the series, "An Unearthly Child", had to be refilmed due to technical problems and errors made during the performance. During the days between the two tapings, changes were made to costuming, effects, performances, and the script.

I was always under the impression that a) taping pilot episodes as test runs (as the term meant, it was only later it came to mean a broadcast special to launch the series) was relatively common in those days; b) the pilot was always planned as not for transmission; c) the changes were naturally expected.

Does anyone know for sure? Timrollpickering 15:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe it was certainly the case that the pilot was made with the *possibility* that it might be transmitted, but with the knowledge that they would be allowed to re-do it if it proved not up to scratch. This proved to be the case, and after various elements were changed it was re-done as had always been allowed for. Angmering 17:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
According to the book Doctor Who, the Early Years, only a model and film footage was re-used from the first pilot. There were technical problems with cameras bumping into the scenery, and sound effects drowning out the actors' voices, but the characters of the Doctor and Susan were also redrawn. Reading between the lines, it would seem that the pilot was always intended for transmission, and it should have been of broadcastable quality. The book, by the way, is an excellent source. J. Bentham, Doctor Who, the Early Years ISBN 0 491 03612 4, P.94 onwards, for the pilot information.86.139.130.19 20:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bentham's book is many years old now and a lot of research into the early years has been done since by several different historians, taking advantage of the written archives being available. I recall the entry for the Pilot Episode in 1998's the Television Companion by Howe & Walker stated that it was a myth (each entry had a section for explicit myth busting) that the episode was intended for transmission, though that section of text hasn't been imported to the BBC article. What's the latest state of play? Timrollpickering (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error?[edit]

Something's gone wrong here: "Mere hours later, tabloid newspapers The Sun and the Daily Express ..."

Hours later from what, exactly? It's the beginning of its own paragraph, titled ==Departure==, and the content of the previous paragraph appears to refer to an article by CNN concerning the series. Did the Sun and Express publish their articles hours after the CNN article, or what? - Vague | Rant 06:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I'll try and fix it up. --khaosworks 10:30, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Out-of-date?[edit]

The link to the May 27th CNN/AP article seems to be broken, and I've searched the CNN website for an archive copy to no avail. Maybe someone here is a better searcher than I am. :) Or maybe we should hit the Internet Wayback website? --Jay (Histrion) 19:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these facts have now changed so this article should be rewritten - more up to date and better quality. -- 18:09, 2 August 2014.

Paul McGann[edit]

"McGann's Doctor was a combination of boyish glee and wonder at the universe with occasional flashes of an old soul in a young body,"

NPOV? Sickening? Definately Unencyclopaedic.

Descriptive, though. How would you describe the Eighth Doctor's personality? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US ratings[edit]

Although this is probably covered in Doctor Who in America, I wonder if there should be something added about the ratings for the 2005 series on Sci-Fi Channel? Apparently they've been slipping badly, with the critically acclaimed Dalek scoring quite low. This in apparent contrast to the high ratings the show received in the UK and Canada. 23skidoo 05:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings[edit]

I don't know. There are several mentions in this article of the series' rising and falling ratings. What I'd very much like to see is a line graph, annotated with who was the Doctor-at-the-time. Episode/serials/time on the x axis, ratings in millions (for initial screenings in the UK) on the y axis. I don't know where the statistics can be retrieved, but I trust they're out there, somewhere. --The Chairman (Shout me · Stalk me) 12:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logo history[edit]

I have merged Doctor Who logo into this article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who logo (2nd nomination). It may be appropriate to trim it considerably; I leave that to regular editors. Likewise, while valid concerns were raised about the overuse of fair-use images in that article, I am not at all sure that choosing which one may be appropriate is best to left to me. I have chosen to leave the most current, but have only commented out rather than removing the others. It should be quite easily switched around if one seems more appropriate in this context. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great new resources[edit]

Some wonderfully insightful material on the genesis of the show has been posted by the BBC in time for the 45th anniversary: [1] Should prove an excellent, and definitive, source for background details. Radagast (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all already used here from its appearance in The First Doctor Handbook. But you're right, it is very good stuff! Angmering (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

A vote for the title of the newest addition to the article. The candidates are

Taking Chances

A New Era

  • vote 1
  • vote 2
  • vote 3
  • vote 4
  • vote 5

As a title "Taking Chances" is meaningless. "A New Era" is far more relevant as it refers to both a new producer & a new Doctor, so very much a 'new era'. If there is a consensus for change then fair enough, but edit warring achieves nothing. magnius (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Chances is much more suited than 'A New Era', all of them are new eras. Taking Chances refers to the mixed reaction to the age of the New Doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.56.213 (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every new Doctor creates a mix reaction, there is nothing new about that, so it is meaningless to single out this transition as a taking a chance. Of the two options, "A New Era" is much more suited, but how about something as simple as "Stephen Moffat's Era" or something similar? magnius (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me..........but you're to blame. 92.11.56.213 (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was an encyclopedia article, not a list of flowery titles. How about using purely descriptive titles like other articles? Davhorn (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT START ANOTHER EDIT WAR "92.11.56.213" It will just result in protection being reapplied to the page. No-one seems to agree with your idea for a new title, so the old one stands until there is some kind of active discussion and agreement. If no agreement is reached, then I suggest we keep the title of "A New Era" magnius (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmmmmm. i see not one person has agreed with your title either.......92.13.74.151 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This style of titling un-encyclopedic. It's not up to editors of the Wikipedia to define what the Eras represent - the producers of the show do that. Our job is to document what they've decided. As stated above, unless anybody comes up with a good agrument for keeping the existing style of titles I'm going to change them. If not, *PLEASE* can we fix some of the more sickening ones. Stormcloud (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going fully color[edit]

While its common knowledge that the show began to be in color with the Third Doctor and Spearhead from Space, a number of serials continued to be in black and white. The Ambassadors of Death was partially color and partially black & white, and The Mind of Evil was entirely black and white. This may be simply the source material I'm watching, but I find that unlikely. I think the article would benefit from knowing when the show went entirely color. Freakytiki34 (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The show went fully colour with Spearhead from Space. The other ones you mentioned have had their original colour recordings wiped -- that's why we only have black & white film transfers. DonQuixote (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cushing[edit]

Why are the film versions of Doctor Who, specifically Peter Cushing (in Daleks – Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D.), not mentioned as incarnations of the good Doctor? — Loadmaster (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because he has nothing to do with the television version of the Doctor. Cushing's version has his own article here Dr. Who (Dalek films). MarnetteD | Talk 03:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, lightening storm is playing havoc with my editing at the moment. To give a fuller answer the continuity of the film version of the Dr has nothing to do with the continuity of the TV Dr and that is what this article is about. That is also why we have the two different articles. I suppose we could add either a hatnote or a see also section with a link to that article. Lets see if anyone else has any ideas about this. MarnetteD | Talk 03:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a short section, or an appropriate link, would suffice;. Users (like me) coming to this page to see all of the actors who portrayed the Doctor are currently left with the impression that there are only the actors from the TV series. It takes a little digging to find the movie versions and the other lead role actors. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have been BOLD and added a hatnote. I prefer these for an article this long as it saves having to wade through the whole page. Others may disagree and prefer a "See also" section. I just can't justify any mention in the article because, again, the film Doctor is from Earth and our time traveller/Time Lord/Gallifreyan is not. that is just my opinion and other comments are welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 18:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Big whoops. I have been posting as though we were at the Doctor (Doctor Who) article. My apologies for the error. Please note the wording in the second paragraph of the lede. "This article is specifically about the production history of the programme". Thus there is no need for any coverage of the films as they are a completely different entity. Nevertheless I have moved the hatnote into that second paragraph. MarnetteD | Talk 19:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season vs Series[edit]

As an American I am most familiar with the "individual seasons of a series" concept, but I am aware of the usual British conception of "series of a programme" (see, I even spelled it correctly); so it surprises me that the original run of Doctor Who is discussed here as "seasons". Was this the actual terminology used at the BBC or is this an improper "translation" to American terms that should be fixed? After all, this IS a British show so the strong national ties rule should apply. --Khajidha (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's used throughout the literature, improperly or otherwise. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Manual of style#Terminology. Also, there's a lot of old discussions archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who and talk:List of Doctor Who serials. DonQuixote (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I agree with the policy here, but I am sure that I don't want to wade through all those archives and discussions. Since this is the accepted usage for the Doctor Who project on Wikipedia I'll just accept it, note it as somewhat odd, and move on. Thanks for your quick reply. --Khajidha (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "policy". As with all else here at WikiP we use reliable sources. The BBC has used the term and virtually all of the books written about the show have used "season" when describing the Classic series. In a previous thread about this another editor found the term was used in BBC paperwork as far back as Hartnell's time though I forget which year it was. MarnetteD | Talk 15:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I had seen the "season" terminology in American sources, but I had just assumed that that was a rephrasing for American audiences. If British sources used it too, then my reservations are completely accounted for. --Khajidha (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casting of the First Doctor[edit]

From the article "After actors Hugh David (later a director on the series) and Geoffrey Bayldon had both turned down approaches to star in the series,"

However according to the BBC Doctor Who archives page The changing face of Doctor Who "Hugh David was the first actor lined up for the role of Doctor Who. But when Verity Lambert was appointed producer of the series, she felt that he was too young to play the old man she envisaged. "

So it would appear that rather than turning down the part, David was rejected by Lambert.

I'm not sure how to edit this to make sense. I did a bit of web searching and I found little to confirm that Geoffrey Bayldon was actually offered the part, other than a reference on a fan site that he casually claimed he had been offered the role, when interviewed about being cast as "an alternative 1st Doctor who never left Gallifrey." by Big Finish in 2003.

Rick (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have made a good catch R. You might want to post your concerns on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who or at least post a link there to this conversation so that you can get more input. MarnetteD | Talk 16:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twelfth Doctor[edit]

So, based on the final scene of the last episode of series 7, can we reasonably conclude that the 12th Doctor is John Hurt? Or is it possible that there is yet another incarnation of the Doctor before Hurt takes the role? — Loadmaster (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SPECULATION and WP:OR we can't assume anything. We only deal in what can be verified and, at the moment that is what we have seen onscreen. Lets remember that the Xmas special "The Next Doctor" had many people assuming that David Morrisey was going to be the 11th Dr. We can wait until things are revealed in November or at least until WP:RS come along to clarify things. Three things to note 1) "The Name of the Doctor" finished filming at least two months before Matt announced that he was leaving the show. 2) The changeover has been announced as being in the next Xmas special and 3) There has been no indication that Hurt is going to be in that special. MarnetteD | Talk 22:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but what are we to make of the on-screen words "Introducing John Hurt as The Doctor"? Even if he's not the 12th Doctor, this states that he is at least one of the Doctors (although it's not clear which one). Should Hurt be mentioned somewhere in the article, since he's mentioned by name on-screen? At present, there's no mention of him at all. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best to wait until November when enough information is revealed for us to write about it. DonQuixote (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now we know that John Hurt is the War Doctor, the "8½" Doctor, between the 8th and 9th Doctors. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctors Revisited[edit]

Where would it be best to mention the existence of "The Doctors Revisited" ? These are specials created to celebrate 50 years of Doctor Who by producing one special each month devoted to one Doctor. Thus, January 2013's special was all about the First Doctor, and so forth. The specials consist of a half hour documentary full of images, clips, and commentary by actors, writers, directors, producers, and fans. Some of the comments are from surviving cast members. After the short documentary comes a warm introduction of an episode (in the sense of a complete story line) starring that particular Doctor. This kind of thing may be different from what's listed in this article so far, but I can't find any article that mentions it either. This project is notable to the history of Doctor Who, so I hope someone can find a good place for it either here or elsewhere. jg (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Doctor Who (2013 specials)#50th anniversary. DonQuixote (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteenth Doctor?[edit]

A few days ago (June 16th) was announced that Jodie Whittaker will be playing the next rigeneration of the Doctor. I think this should be added to this page, with this article as a source. --Il Roco (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Dresken (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!!--Il Roco (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're called serials[edit]

From Dictionary.com anything published, broadcast, etc., in short installments at regular intervals, as a novel appearing in successive issues of a magazine.

Also, from Contemporary Documents The Watcher - Serial 'S', Episode 1. DonQuixote (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from Doctor Who: The Early Years by Jeremy Bentham pg 41 The Daleks: The Cusick Stories: Serial 'B'. From Doctor Who Magazine #222 pg 23 Doctor Who: Archive Feature -- Serial BBB, Doctor Who and the Silurians. DonQuixote (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WHO/MOS as well. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Doctor_Who&oldid=1207551699"