What about the year that never was? The people in the close vicinity remembered the year so obviously their pasts did not get erased, just everyone elses. That would add another year to the 10th doctors age.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk).
In regards to the 900 controversy, in Aliens of London, the Doctor states that 900 years is the amount of time he's been travelling for, not how old he is. Perhaps after this, he just used 900 years in reference to his life after leaving Gallifrey.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aliyoda (talk • contribs) .
- I Always assumed that it was just him (and the writer's) excuse to make up some age when in reality after the Time War and other things he had totally lost track. After all, he may think he has spent roughly 100 years in each incarnation (it could be much longer but memory does tend to blur if you don't recall it for a while), so after nine incarnations he decided that 900 a good number "for show" in a way. After that, in the time when Voyage of the Dead occurred, it was three yr=ars after the point in time where he said 900, so he thought it would make sense to take those into account. Anyways its just a theory--18.104.22.168 02:01, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
this article claims that the figure in the astronought suit who kills the doctor in the impossible astronought is a silence, but no other article or source suggests this. unless there is a source for this, it should be removed. if there is, it should be mentioned on the page for the eleventh doctor, and the silence, at the very least.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk).
Currently the article says that the Doctor was 953 when he regenerated from Colin Baker to Sylvester McCoy. However it also says this figure came from the Time and the Rani. Can we rely on that though?
There's no reason I can think of why the Rani would have set a code based on her age in Earth years. She's from Galifrey and was on Lakertya at the time. Even though I think we can safely assume that normally the years used refer to Earth years (as the Doctor's talking to a human and it seems logical that they'd be translated) in that case saying a code was 953 then adding it was his age doesn't really imply it was.126.96.36.199 10:01, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
- However narratively difficult the issue may be, it was stated as such on-screen. Therefore it's canonical and we're obliged to include it here. — Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 19:14, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
Age reference cut from scriptEdit
I recall reading that on at least 2 occasions either Davies or Moffat had written lines of dialogue in which the Doctor stated he couldn't remember his real age, but both had been cut before production. I'm trying to find out which scripts these were, but if anyone knows that should go into Behind the Scenes. 188.8.131.52 13:34, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
"The Doctor's" age. Edit
Just wondering if it had been set in canon anywhere exactly when in his lifetime he took the name "The Doctor", as perhaps it could be suggested that he now measures his age by that name, and doesn't include his life under his real name? --Jakk Frost talk to me 19:07, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
That could be right as he said 900 years of travelling in the tardis and the name the doctor might have been used only a short while before that so the above point could have some accuracy.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coop3 (talk • contribs) .
Maybe The Doctor has lost count. He says he is 1200 years old. Maybe he's as old as the universe itself. Maybe older. Maybe he's a gazillion years old. We shall never know for sure. 184.108.40.206talk to me 13:34, March 28, 2013 (UTC)
lol I don't think that the Doctor counts his age linearly... He loses track of the order of numbers so easily. It doesn't really matter how old he is, does it? Just like how it doesn't really matter what his name is in order to trust him... or does it matter? O_O
Can we not simplify all of this page? The page makes a controversy where there really isn't any. Edit
Earlier today I added a section that provides a timeline and reconciles the apparent contradiction.
Pardon me, but -- is there really any legitimate controversy here?
Except for a tiny number of mentions in the 6th and 7th doctor serials, (which no-one watched and even fewer people liked, sorry for being blunt), the Doctor's timeline is perfectly consistent.
Theory on the Doctors age that explains all the discrepancies, without brushing it off as unreliable numbers, years for another planet, etc.
In Vampire Science he states that he lost count and began once more since he first regenerated into 8. This would mean he lost track of how many years its been since he gave the 953 number as the 7th Doctor. This would mean that its been roughly 900 years since the 8th Doctor regenerated to the War Doctor and then to the 9th Doctor. He's at one point trapped on Orbis for 600 years, which would seem to support this making the 8th Doctor at least 600 into that regeneration.
When the 11th Doctor gives the number 1200ish when talking to his past self, it could either imply around 400 years (rounded up or down). He could also simply be able to tell the age difference roughly by timelord ability to seemingly sense age (which Romana demonstrated while the Doctor lacked.)
This means its been roughly 1200 years since the Doctor regenerated from 8 into 11. Add the minimum age of 953 before then and we have that the Doctor is no younger than at least 2,153 years old. 14thLord ☎ 08:46, November 28, 2013 (UTC)
- It's a nice theory, but theories aren't allowed anywhere on the wiki except at Howling:The Howling. Per Tardis:Discussion policy, talk pages are only for discussing the editing of articles. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 14:39, November 28, 2013 (UTC)
He doesn't know? Edit
How could he not know his own age? Even if he has personally lost track (which is possible) he's been travelling in the TARDIS the whole time - surely she has a record of how much time has passed... --Irrevenant ☎ 01:52, December 6, 2013 (UTC)
It looks like some people are attached to the idea that there's a controversy here. An entire section explaining that there *isn't* was removed on the theory that it was "speculation" and out-of-universe.
The entire page is OOU. And to call the timeline I put in "speculation" is just to express the belief that there should be a controversy about the Doctor's age.
None of the people who reverted the changes responded to the Talk topic I started about it.
I have therefore put the section back in.
- Your reasons for thinking your timeline is acceptable for the article is based on a lack of knowledge of several of our policies. I suggest you read the following: Tardis:Valid sources, Tardis:In-universe perspective, Tardis:Point of view and Forum:Timeline sections on pages.
- In addition, much of what you posted is based on assumptions you've made from Moffat's comments. This is the very definition of speculation. This material will continue to be removed as long as it violates our policies.
- I'm not sure what "talk topic" you're referring to. Is it on this talk page, or is it a forum page? Shambala108 ☎ 04:57, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
Ummm... No. I'm familiar with the policies. The claim of a violation is incorrect. The section is not more out-of-universe than the remainder of the page, and all of the sources are set forth earlier in the page. The page is a discussion of allegedly conflicting statements about the Doctor's age. *All* statements on the page that seek to explain the conflicting statements are 'speculative.' That's the nature of the subject matter.
And yes -- the talk topic IS on this page. Scroll up.
Nothing of what I posted comes from assumptions made from Moffat's comments. Moffat's comments are used to demonstrate a point. I.e., as evidence.
The page is currently structured to make it appear that there are rampant contradictory statements about the Doctor's age, when that is simply not the case. The *entire* controversy seems to come from two or three statements made in episodes in the final seasons of the classic run. Those episodes were made at a time when hardly anyone was watching the show and fewer people cared. The script editor was new, and wanted to take the show in a completely different story direction that would have ret-conned most of its history. But that did not happen, and the "master plan" did not get off the ground.
Nathan-Turner had been saying *very* publicly since the end of Peter Davison's run that he did not like the show, that the BBC would not let him leave, and that he would not mind if the show was cancelled. The "speculation," at the time, was that Colin Baker had been cast, and the show took the direction it did, because Nathan-Turner was trying to get the show cancelled. In that respect he was partially successful, and the U.S. public television stations that had been purchasing it from the BBC and rebroadcasting it ceased doing so after the 18-month hiatus.
If you think I'm mistaken, then point to *anything* in the revived series that makes use of *any* story elements from after the hiatus, or the first Colin Baker season. I count a single use of the world "Valeyard" in "The Name of the Doctor," and that's it.
The reality is that those seasons (and the TV movie for that matter) did not try to maintain continuity with the series to that time. The revival follows the original continuity, and ignores the aborted ret-cons and deviations in the 6-7-8 era.
There is no controversy in the show about the Doctor's age.
- This argument, while interesting, doesn't hold up.
- 1. Moffat's comments and opinions are out of universe until established on screen. He's a wonderful writer and showrunner, but his opinions are not the be-all and end-all of Doctor Who.
- 2. Even if that were not the case, Moffat has never made a statement that material from those years is not canon. His "implied" opinions are not really a reasonable basis for a definite statement on the matter.
- 3. Even if his "implied" opinions were sufficient, the inference that Moffat has dismissed these years doesn't hold water. Moffat has gone on record praising some stories from that era such as "Remembrance of the Daleks" (see http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2013/12/steven-moffat-remembrance-181213155117.html). Just because something is not explicitly mentioned does not mean that he doesn't consider it "canon". If (for example) seasons 3-5 weren't referenced should we just assume they didn't happen when it's convenient to do so?
- 4. Even if lack of references was enough to assume that Moffat had dismissed them from canon, references *do* exist. Most obviously, the existence of Doctors 6-8 has been verified many times ("The Eleventh Hour", "The Lodger", "The Name of the Doctor", "The Day of the Doctor"), although I don't think you're questioning that. The Valeyard was explicitly mentioned, although you dismissed that because it doesn't fit with your theory. Grace Holloway (8th Doctor) was seen in the archive in "The Day of the Doctor". (Although I don't know why you're bringing the 8th Doctor into it in the first place, since his age wasn't referenced in the movie and you'd already dismissed off-screen material.) Since the "lack of references" argument is only valid if outside comments and speculation are acceptable, Ace was alluded to in The Sarah Jane Adventures and was to have returned had the show not been cancelled. This means references have been dropped to every companion from the time period mentioned except for Melanie, who was only present in two seasons anyway. (Peri was seen in pictures in "The Day of the Doctor", but I'm assuming you already accept her as a 5th Doctor companion.) Even most of the audio-only 8th Doctor companions were referenced in "Night of the Doctor".
- Your argument is interesting, but your evidence is flimsy and contradicted by what we've seen on-screen. That said, I agree that "controversy" is a strong term (since no "controversy" is indicated by the actual text of the section), so I've changed the section title to "The 900 Discrepancy".--Cap'n Calhoun ☎ 22:32, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
The section-based design of this page is great for exploring the statements in detail... but it sure makes casual reference hard. I'd like to propose we construct sort of an abbreviated text-based easy-click timeline. Basically just numbers with dashes connecting them and each number would be a link to a section on the page.
I'd like to go about designing it here prior to adding it to the page though, so that we can make sure it's in good condition first, and get input on whether it belongs here or elsewhere and how to design it.
- 8: enter academy
- 45: leave primary school
- 90: visit Medusa Cascade
- 236: stole TARDIS
- 296: visit 64
- 450: regenerates to 2nd
- 500: regenerates to 3rd
- 748: regenerates to 4th
- 747 or 749 with Sarah Jane
- 750: with Leela
- 756 or 759 with Romana I
- 760: before assembling Key to Time
- 813: regenerates to 5th
- age of regen to 6th unclear
I'm going to stop here because I'm a bit confused about this 991 v 953 business.
What do you think so far? talk2ty 06:22, February 23, 2015 (UTC)
- We decided a while back, in Forum:Timeline sections on pages, that we would no longer allow any kinds of timelines on in-universe articles, as that would necessarily involve some speculation, and we don't allow speculation on article pages. When it comes to the Doctor's age, writers pretty much have done whatever they want, so it would take a lot of speculation to make any sense of it. I haven't taken a good look at this article in a while, but it probably needs a cleanup to get rid of assumptions made by other editors. Shambala108 ☎ 15:44, February 23, 2015 (UTC)