Talk:Fourth Doctor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Hat
I noticed that this article makes no mention of the hat the Fourth Doctor sometimes wore. I have a small collection of unique hats, and I was curious as to what that type of hat is called. Well? What're you waiting for? I've sent you on a wiki-mission!--Agent Aquamarine 19:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Polls
In polls conducted by Doctor Who Magazine, Tom Baker has lost the "Best Doctor" category only twice: once to Sylvester McCoy (the Seventh Doctor) in 1990, and once to David Tennant (the Tenth Doctor) in 2006.[1]
From the overview. Two polls is evidently a small number, but how many polls have actually been conducted by Doctor Who Magazine? If it's all about proportion, that seems absolutely necessary for this statement. The Chairman 14:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "As of 2012"
66.114.66.43 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) changed "as of 2007" to "as of 2012" in the introductory paragraph. I initially reverted it as vandalism, which was an error — the IP contacted me on my talk page, with this reasoning:
- In order for someone to be a longer running Doctor than the 4th, they must first be a Doctor for 7 years. The earliest time at which this can happen is 2012, if the currect Doctor stays with the series that long. Regardless, 2012 is the earliest date at which this information can become outdated, so "as of 2012" is more accurate than "as of 2007". On this ground, I am going to revert the article back to the 2012 version.
I apologize for treating a good-faith edit as vandalism, however, I still think that using the 2007 date is more appropriate. The most important reason is grammar: the sentence says that the character is the longest-running. 2012 hasn't happened yet. Even though the IP's logic about when the fact could become outdated is sound, English grammar just doesn't permit a sentence to be structured that way.
The other reason I think we need to stick with the current date is that unless there's further explanation in the sentence, the 2012 version could be read as suggesting that come 2012 the Fourth Doctor will no longer be the longest-running. Of course, that's possible, if Tennant stays in the role that long, but we really shouldn't get into that because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So I've reverted back to the current date. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think you're right. The sentence as written is correct; the IP's idea is correct, but not the way it's phrased. Since the paragraph ends with "having been on the show for seven years" already, adding 2012 is essentially just adding, "Another actor would have to be the Doctor for more than seven years in order to serve longer." Which is simultaneously confusing and self-evident. --Brian Olsen 00:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] All by myself, Don't wanna be ... All by myself
- The Doctor then travels alone for the first time in many years, returning to a planet he had visited centuries before.
Surprised this hasn't raised discussion. In Face of Evil it's established he's visited Xoanon before, however placing it immediately prior to the second visit is unlikely and saying this is his only solo voyage for years is problematic. Fan conjecture has been that it occurs within Robot (when he ties up Harry) but it doesn't even have to be a solo visit. He travels alone during the Pertwee era (Green Death and Planet of the Spiders for instance), but unless he's programed the computer to regenerate as well we're looking for a Tom visit, presumably prior to Face of Evil on his personal time line. Although it is possible it occurs later (between Invasion of Time and Ribos Operation?) and his memories are atemporal and he's mad. Or it's paradoxical. In any case it should be more ambiguous or it begs this kind of speculation.MartinSFSA (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's kind of what I'm after; making the statement about broadcast evidence rather than biographical analysis verifies easily. Improve if you can! MartinSFSA (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
