This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	The Doctor is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 26, 2007 Peer review Reviewed January 21, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 10, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Doctor Who Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Fictional characters 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 Science Fiction Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, Doctor (Doctor Who) → The Doctor (Doctor Who) – Not moved after discussion of 14–22 July 2014 RM, Doctor (Doctor Who) → The Doctor (Doctor Who) – Moved after discussion of 20 April – 7 May 2015 MRV – Close endorsed after discussion of 7–15 May 2015

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

the supernatural section keeps getting removed with poor or false reasoning from DonQuixote and U-Mos. DonQuixote said its "orignal research implying what is written is false when it isnt. The episodes are linked, if you watch the episodes it is shown that it is not false. And U-mos said mentioning bi generation is more of a shift in Doctor who after the time war than the supernatural which if you look at the edit history I have explained why that's not the case. Blob02 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

don also said the format isn't wikipedia style when what has been removed was done in that format by someone else and not me Blob02 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it isnt ad far as i can see Blob02 (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• it is

Blob02 (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yours was even worse, I was trying to keep the stuff you kept because you won't stop adding it back; of course it was bad. And it's not wikipedia style, and you decline to keep reading about how it can be properly added and improved; I don't see how you would know it is in the correct style. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting to hear something that shows it's incorrect. It's a community therefore it's not solely up to the poster to correct mistakes. What was posted was 85 good if not 90. I don't desire to edit anymore dr who once this is back as I agree with everything previously. Blob02 (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And i didnt keep posting it originally. You have framed it that way. Somebody could of told me then why it was wrong instead they immorally just removed it. Blob02 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added this topic to talk to people in question, its not really anything to do with you drwhofan93 Blob02 (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, Wikipedia is a glorified term paper. Start with a direct quote from a reliable source and then paraphrase it. DonQuixote (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No quotes here: In other media, more has been revealed of the Doctor's early life. In the Past Doctor Adventures novel Divided Loyalties, the Doctor recalls his Academy years in a dream induced by the Celestial Toymaker. According to this, he was a member of an organisation called the Deca, ten brilliant Academy students campaigning for increased Time Lord intervention, alongside Mortimus (the Meddling Monk), Ushas (the Rani), Koschei (the Master), Magnus (the War Chief), Drax, a spy named Vansell, Millennia, Rallon and Jelpax. With this group, he learns about the Celestial Toymaker and travels to his realm in a type 18 TARDIS with Deca members Rallon and Millennia, who are killed. This leads to the Doctor's expulsion from the academy, condemned to five hundred years in Records and Traffic Control. - from the Doctor Wikipedia page Blob02 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literally a bare-bones summary of the works with no original interpretations. That is, plot summaries should be the blandest of blands (MOS:PLOT). Themes and analysis should be in its own section with the citation of appropriate secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, @Blob02, you have been told multiple times, across numerous talk pages and within edit summaries, exactly how and why this is an issue. Multiple attempts by myself and others at communication and rectification have been attempted, most recently to my knowledge at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who § Disruptive editing on The Doctor and The Fugitive Doctor. Your persistent refusal to heed guidelines and to engage with constructive feedback and your insistence to create yet more Talk Page sections is nothing but disruptive. I will not be again explaining the issues with the content and how to remediate it; you can refer to my previous comments and resources regarding the matter. Irltoad (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My last edit is the supernatural section, if it's not referenced properly, someone else can do it (which it is) because it is a team effort. I'm not going to waste my time learning how use Wikipedia properly when I'm not going to do another edit after this one. I think that's fair and reasonable. regardless of citation it is atleast 90% done. I cannot see how it is written differently to anything else on this article. The episodes mentioned are real and the events described are correct. This is my last comment unless invited to otherwise or if my edit is removed. Blob02 (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And undone yet again. User warned for edit warring. Meters (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again. This material has been removed by at least five different editors now, (me, user:DonQuixote, user:U-Mos, user:DoctorWhoFan91, and user:Irltoad). Meters (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how is it unsourced original research? None of it is my opinion. Someone please explain. But I suspect there is malice towards me and not actual editing. Why would meters just turn up? Blob02 (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported to the edit warring board by another editor. And please read WP:NPA. Meters (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OP indef'ed Meters (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a bunch of editing! I'd like to start by noting my respect for all editors at a time of change and I know it's easy for edits to cross and uncertainties to arise.

I note in ecs that Foehammer6558 is saying we need official confirmation before talking of Piper as the Doctor. I would remind them that Wikipedia follows secondary sources, not primary sources, as per WP:PRIMARY. We say what secondary sources say. We now have multiple secondary sources saying Piper is the Doctor, so that's what we say. It is against core Wikipedia policy to view our own interpretations of primary sources as being more important. Bondegezou (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indagate, may I also refer you to this discussion. We have secondary sources saying Piper is the Doctor. Bondegezou (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Evening News is not particularly reliable, need explicit confirmation that Piper is The Doctor. Indagate (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is reliably sourced from multiple outlets that Piper's character is unconfirmed at this time. So yes, we should follow secondary sources. That's what they say. U-Mos (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We likely need to centralize a discussion because Talk:Billie Piper#Sixteenth Doctor? also exists, and we need one place for everyone to make their intention clear. We do in fact have secondary sources saying that Piper is the Sixteenth Doctor ([1] and [2]), but we also have several that say it's unconfirmed ([3] and [4]), so we can't officially confirm one way or the other. My personal suggestion would be to invoke a neutral wording like I did at Draft:The Reality War (Billie Piper also returned to Doctor Who after last appearing in the 2013 fiftieth anniversary special, "The Day of the Doctor", when the Fifteenth Doctor regenerates into a character portrayed by her at the end of the episode. While Piper's official role remains undisclosed, with the closing credits merely reading "Introducing Billie Piper", some sources assumed her to be taking on the sixteenth incarnation of the titular character.) which reflects a thorough analysis of the sources available, without giving either one undue weight. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: regarding We likely need to centralize a discussion because Talk:Billie Piper#Sixteenth Doctor? also exists, and we need one place for everyone to make their intention clear. for transparency, I closed that discussion with a {{duplicate issue}} tag, pointing people here. Amendment: I have since done the same for Talk:Doctor Who series 15#Billie Piper May Not Be the 16th Doctor. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can go with this. We should say something, to reflect secondary source coverage. Where there is dispute in sources, we report that. Bondegezou (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a paragraph under Changing Faces similar to TheDoctorWho's text, although I've tried to avoid the more WP:OR-ish phrasing like "sources assumed". Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy this. All of the sources associated with Doctor Who (i.e: the show itself, the BBC, people involved with the show, etc...) have not confirmed that Billie Piper is the 16th Doctor, and indeed have explicitly not confirmed this. Even secondary sources do not assert this beyond the titles that they use for their news articles, which must be understood as somewhat misleading to entice people to click. ImmyChan (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph definitely says it explicitly outside of the headline ("Billie Piper will play the next Doctor Who following a dramatic reveal at the end of the latest series." and "She replaces Ncuti Gatwa, 32, as the Doctor, with the character regenerating during the finale on Saturday night.") as does PopVerse ("For those keeping track, the Sixteenth Doctor is the third role Billie Piper has played on the series"); however, given the other secondary sources that I linked above, I still believe that both should be reflected as neutrally as possible. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second the suggestion that this should be presented neutrally.

I always want to emphasise that if the secondary source is not reliable it then shouldn't be used. If every secondary source was used regardless of how credible it is Wikipedia would be a mess. Also people trust Wikipedia so if we echoed this unsubstantiated claim it could be bad. ImmyChan (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-Wikipedian looking at this from the outside, to me it would seem the viewer is intended to assume the 'new doctor' is Billie Piper. I think rather than waiting for confirmation from the BBC before presenting the article in this way, it would make more sense to assume that she is until such confirmation that she isn't. If that makes sense. Might sound a little originalresearchy, but I don't think so; I think it is reasonable to assume what happens on screen before our eyes is canon until presented otherwise. 2A02:8012:B642:0:6DD8:9F83:D110:9280 (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC press release includes quotes from Piper and Davies stating that who, what and why is a story still to be told. It would be absolutely remiss for any of us to disregard the ambiguity of these statements because of what some news outlets are reporting or our interpretations/assumptions. Wikipedia may use secondary sources but it is not acceptable to totally disregard clear as day primary sources for them. Panda815 (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Piper's wording in the press release that she's returning "one more time" combined with that she was not credited as The Doctor in the credits, does seem to imply that she is not the next regular Doctor (if there ever is one again). Who knows - perhaps this is all some strange Gallifreyan trick or weapon. Suggesting at this time that she's the next Doctor would appear to be original research. The current approach appears to be sensible, and avoids original research. Nfitz (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is backwards. An editor interpreting Piper's wording in the press release is classic WP:OR (and WP:PRIMARY). We follow what WP:SECONDARY source say. Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are mixed. Calling her the next Doctor is just as much original research. For all we know even the producers may have not yet determined her role. Nfitz (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VNT. We use what is verifiable, not necessarily what's "officially" true. This is the same with the Fourteenth Doctor; sources referred to Gatwa as Fourteen up until The Power of the Doctor, and therefore so did we, even if there was no official announcement on it.

It's interesting how this discussiong brings forth arguments of "we should only use official press releases", but when it comes to the naming of Season 2 (2025), we should avoid official sources at all cost and primarily use secondary sources. Just an observation. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wording at Draft:The Reality War is good. However, it's worth noting WP:COMMONSENSE and recognising that The Telegraph etc. are over/misinterpreting the press release info, which directly presents the character's identity as unknown. WP:VNT does not mean we have to give inferior works equal weight to accurate ones. U-Mos (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, yes. Official sources here outweigh secondary sources, in contrast to related discussions, where they do not. I do agree with leaving the status of the character as unknown at this point. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Official sources do not outweigh WP:SECONDARY sources. You can't just override basic Wikipedia principles with a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Bondegezou (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U-Mos, that looks like you interpreting the press release in order to conclude that secondary sources are incorrect. That's WP:OR. You are welcome to your views on what it all means, but take those views to a Dr Who discussion forum. Wikipedia follows secondary sources. Bondegezou (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's called actually looking at the sources we have. There's nothing to indicate that The Telegraph has any additional information other than the press release, which other major secondary sources reliably interpret as leaving the character Piper is playing as unknown. We should not add character information based on outlying sources - we would do that if there was a consensus of secondary sources naming Piper as the Sixteenth Doctor. There isn't. U-Mos (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that the Telegraph doesn't have any additional information other than the press release. The point of WP:OR is that we put our faith in secondary sources to do any interpreting, not individual editors. We are guided away from trying to interpret primary sources ourselves by WP:PRIMARY.

Secondary sources appear to me -- and we've probably read a different set of them, so I respect that you may have come to a different conclusion -- to be consistent in saying Gatwa has regenerated into Piper and Piper is playing the Doctor. There is less material specifically characterising her as the Sixteenth Doctor and I'm not pushing for us concluding that. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is ongoing discussion above about whether to describe Piper as the 16th Doctor, but it seems bonkers that large numbers of secondary sources are reporting on Piper and this article does not mention her name once. Can we not agree to say something? It doesn't have to be definitive, but can't we say "Gatwa appears to regenerate into Piper" or "Piper appears to be portraying the Doctor in some manner"? Put all the caveats you want about what the press release says or what it all means, but say something? Bondegezou (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add this in prose using wording such as that detailed above. I would be against this being in the lead for this article at this point, but it would fit in the "Actors" section. U-Mos (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added text to this effect in the "Actors" section. Bondegezou (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have now agreed some text in the Changing Faces section about Piper. Notwithstanding possible improvements to that, what else should we say where? Past consensus, which I entirely support, is that the article focuses on the series leads and I don't think we can describe Piper as a series lead at present, so I'm happy to leave Piper out of the montage pictures in the infobox and the main article, the main list under "Portrayed by" in the infobox, and the Actors table under Changing Faces. (Others may disagree, feel free to say so!)

However, given extensive media reporting about Piper and her status (albeit uncertain) as the current face, I think it would be appropriate to mention her in the lead section, in one sentence. (I don't think that violates WP:RECENTISM concerns.)

I also wonder about listing Piper under the "Other Actors" subsection of the "Portrayed by" in the infobox. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't currently know if she is playing the Doctor. Until we do, she should not be in the lead or the infobox. U-Mos (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What we know is determined by secondary sources. Many secondary sources report she is playing the Doctor. Do we need to go through what different secondary sources say more systematically? Bondegezou (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that we are identifying the end of Ncuti's term, and its clear that means there is a replacement, though I fully agree we should not be trying to claim Billie is the next Doctor with just the end of the episode and the cryptic discussion that's been made about it. Masem (t) 16:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be clear that Gatwa has gone. In avoiding saying much about Piper, the current text might leave one with the impression that the Doctor is still played by Gatwa. Bondegezou (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about listing her under the "Other Actors" subsection.

Billie Piper is introduced as the new "lead" of the show in a similar manner to her predecessors ("and introducing..."). As far as the credits are concerned, she is the new "Doctor Who" in the metaphysical sense and Russell T. Davies definitely introduces her as the new lead actress of the series and talks about her that way. The ambiguity is whether or not her incarnation assumes the "Doctor" moniker proper with RTD and Billie Piper herself refraining to refer to her character as "The Doctor" (though RTD has said in reference to Piper's casting that "after 62 years, the Doctor's adventures are only just beginning" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyvzy82l4no , kinda acknowledging her as the continuation of the "Doctor" character at the very least), which seems to tease a future twist.

The problem about the main page of the show is that it refers to the main cast as "The Doctor" and "The Companions" rather than as lead actors. Billie Piper is the lead actress and the face of the show, she is "Doctor Who" in the metaphysical sense but we don't know yet if she will be credited as "The Doctor" in future seasons of the show. 2A01:E0A:350:FE10:4986:36BF:F4FE:CF87 (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. What do you think about saying something in the lead? Bondegezou (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't yet know if there is going to be any more Doctor Who for the foreseeable future. Granted the sources that claim there are not are dubious and agenda skewed but they got it right about Gatwa having already filmed a regeneration sequence, so it is entirely possible that the Doctor turning into Rose is just the New Series' answer to the "Come On Ace We've Got Work To Do" speech. What is to be done if (1) that was the end of the show as the doom-mongers claim (2) it comes back many years later with a new Doctor and no immediate acknowledgement of how things got from A to B? Romomusicfan (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another good point. A next Dr Who story has not been made yet. It could say anything: it could star Piper as the 16th Doctor, it could retcon Piper's appearance, it could simply ignore it. What we should do, therefore, is represent what secondary sources say about "The Reality War". Bondegezou (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles explicitly say Gatwa regenerated into Piper.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} However, most acknowledge some uncertainty, with phrases like “If confirmed”^[1][7] or in other wording.^[4] Some articles discuss the uncertainty in depth.^[3][8][9] That, to me, suggests we could have wording like the following in the lead: “Gatwa appeared to regenerate into Billie Piper at the end of “The Reality War”, although Piper’s exact role has not been confirmed.” That succinctly explains the state of play to readers who come to the article wanting information. Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this: there is more evidence that the Fifteenth Doctor regenerated into a Rose Tyler lookalike than there is to confirm that Avon dies at the end of Blake's 7. At least this got shown onscreen.Romomusicfan (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why Tecteun being the Doctor's adoptive parent is being removed from the article? Third time asking now with no response. 2A00:23C8:2A82:AC01:282D:4072:D84:5283 (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, BRD - Someone changed it boldly, I reverted to status quo, next is talk. Not BRRD.

Second, the status quo was correct, as that listing is separate from the numbered incarnations. These non-numbered incarnations are a mix of "X Doctor" and "Y" type names as that is how they are referred. It would be incorrect to list them in the proffered manner, as then it looks like one should be called "Valeyard Doctor", and that is incorrect. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the status quo of Fugitive Doctor and War Doctor. In co-ordination with this, I think Valeyard should be amended to The Valeyard to align with the destination article title. As Shalka Doctor does not have an article, I don't think they should be listed here. U-Mos (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the order appears to currently be attempting a fictional chronology, and should be amended to chronological by first appearance: Valeyard, (Shalka), War, Fugitive. U-Mos (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]