FANDOM

Ask a question in the box below, or search using the box above.

As you enter your question, our massive, TARDIS-sized computers will search out other similar questions. So be sure to check the list that pops up before asking your question. Once you've decided that your question has not been asked before, push the not-so-threatening blue button below.

If you want to ask questions needing speculation or people's opinions, please do it in our Watercooler forum, not here. The main Q&A space is for questions with definitive factual answers. Thanks!

To avoid spoilers in the main Q&A section, please do to not post information about stories that have not been released in the UK, or ask for information about stories that have not yet aired there.

Seventh Doctor's calling card Edit

In Remembrance of the Daleks, the calling card left by the Doctor for the Daleks does have an inscription in Old High Gallifreyan. There is nothing in the episode to indicate what the inscription says. It is not in the centre, where the name would normally be. That position is occupied by a gold question mark. The assumption in the first paragraph that the card has "his name on it, written in old high Gallifreyan" is unsafe and shouldn't be presented as established fact. --78.146.178.194 20:11, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Grammar again Edit

The plural of "nom de plume" (name of pen) is "noms de plume" (names of pen), not "nom de plume's" (name of pen's) -- and that also has a "greengrocer's apostrophe" (i.e., a possessive when it ought to be a plural). Better stick to "pseudonym"/"pseudonyms" -- easier to get right and more general in meaning. --2.96.24.188 13:15, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

That one I don't think I added. I probably merged or reordered it from a previous edit. I generally wouldn't use the term nom de plume and more importantly I think that entire sentence is superfluous, but again thanks. You really ought to just create an account mate. == An Alex Cross Joint 19:40, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
No thanks. Then I'd get the blame! --78.146.183.1 21:19, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

A slew of minor changes needed Edit

Since the page is protected, I can't make any of these changes. Most of them are minor, but I'll list them all anyway:

  • "It hasn't been revealed in any episodes what his real name was, but River Song knew his name[1]." This makes it sound like River is the only person who ever knew it, which is definitely not true. It's plausible that she's the only person left who remembers it (and the non-TV media seem to confirm that), but that's not the same thing.
  • "In both The Armageddon Factor…" Story/episode/novel/etc. titles are supposed to be in quotes. Also, "noms de plume" means pseudonyms used for writing/publishing; this should probably be "noms de guerre", or, better, just "pseudonyms". And "The Oncoming Storm" should be capitalized, since it's used as a name. (If it's not, it doesn't belong here at all.)
  • "His name is something of utter importance…" This paragraph could use a bit of copy-editing. More importantly, it's a bit silly to give all of the hints, where you have to look at the Doctor's face, etc., without giving the direct evidence from the end of series 6 that the First Question, the question that must never be answered, is "Doctor Who?" Also, as written, this gives the impression that the secret of the Doctor's name is new to the new series, when in fact it was part of the Cartmel Masterplan, and bubbling away in the writers' subconscious even before that. It would probably help to mention, say, Lady Peinforte along with Madame du Pompadour.
  • "The people of the Gamma Forest…" The word "Doctor" is being explicitly referenced as a word, meaning it should be in quotes.
    • This has been deleted due to it being irrelevant minutae, dealing with the meaning of a word (doctor) to the people of the Gamma Forest rather than an actual nameStartrekandmore 22:51, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
      • That's fine. But since you apparently have access to edit this page, can you make the other changes as well? --12.249.226.210 01:14, March 20, 2012 (UTC)
  • "We know the Doctor choose his name." First, this should be "chose" (and same with the next sentence). More importantly, he probably _didn't_ choose his actual name (the one that's a big secret); what he chose was "The Doctor". If we're going to get into the novels at all, we should probably mention the Other briefly (although I'm not sure how to say anything relevant without getting into too much), and we should mention all of the stories that came out of the NAs (the Deca replacing their names with titles in homage to the Other, rebellious students in every generation replacing their names with something different). Finally, the last sentence is missing a period.
  • References: The first one should be in italics to match the next two. The third one is called "The Girl in the Fireplace", not "Behind". "NA" stands for "New Adventures", not "Novel Adventures". --12.249.226.210 01:34, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

From a duplicateEdit

This is copied and pasted from a duplicate of this question before it was redirected to this question:

This has been asked many times, so you may want to search for previous answers.
It's never been revealed on screen (or in any of the novels, comics, audios, etc.), and this is intentional; the writers want to preserve some mystery about the character.
In-universe, there are some people who know it: River Song, former companions Peri Brown and (from the novels) Sam Jones, the Doctor's family, the Master, and various Time Lords he knew in his youth. Some of them are now dead or otherwise inaccessible, but not all of them,There has been no canon name given to the Doctor. It's unlikely there ever will be.


It's never been said and it's unlikely it ever will. But it's been suggested that the Doctor doesn't hide his real name out of secrecy, just that he either doesn't like his name or it's too complicated for most people to pronounce easily.
Except that in other episodes it _has_ been suggested that he hides it out of secrecy. Go back and watch the Lady Peinforte, the Carionnites, or Reinette trying to get his name out of his mind, and how they react.

End of copy. Imamadmad (Contact me) 09:40, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

Copied from a really well-written duplicate: is anyone good at merging? Edit

I just came across What's the doctor's name, a duplicate of this question. Normally, I would just redirect and forget about it, but the answer on that question's page is really good, and should be merged with this one. However, I'm hopeless at merging, so if anybody else wants to give it a shot, here's the text from the other question. Also just good to have here as an archive.

Begin copied text:

Nobody knows the Doctor's name, because none of the writers have ever invented one for him. And they likely never will. Current show-runner Steven Moffat explained that any name they give him now would be anticlimactic, and take away from the mystery of the show without adding anything new, and many of his predecessors (and equivalents in other media, like the novel range editors) said the same thing. We do know that he calls himself "The Doctor", and sometimes "Theta Sigma" (an old Academy nickname, and possibly later an undercover name), and other aliases like "John Smith", but none of those are his real name.
In-universe, of course, the Doctor knows his name, and there may be a few others.
In the past, there were many Time Lords who knew it, but they're all dead now (although of course the Master has never been good at staying dead). Plus, a few of his companions knew it, but they may all be either dead or unable to remember it. (We know he told Peri Brown, but she couldn't pronounce it and could only remember the first syllable; in the novels he told Sam Jones, but she's dead; Donna likely got the knowledge while she was Doctor-Donna, but can no longer access any of those memories without her brain burning out.)
In fact, the only people we know of that know the Doctor's name are the Doctor himself and (probably) River Song. And it seems likely they're the only two, period—one of the New Series Adventures novels confirms that before he told River, nobody alive knew his name, but even if you ignore the novels, it's hard to think of anyone else who'd be likely to have that secret.
And his name is a very big secret. There have been hints going back to the classic series (e.g., Lady Peinforte in The Silver Nemesis), but series 6 made it as blatant as possible: the First Question, the question that can never be answered, the question that's the core of the Silence's beliefs, is "Doctor Who?"


It may be worth noting that the Doctor accidentally says his name in "Return of the Living Dad", after he has been drugged or something. Unfortunately, author Kate Orman unsportingly doesn't tell the reader what he actually says, although the character to whom he is speaking comments that it would be difficult to address an envelope with it (a reference to long Gallifreyan names such as Romanadvoratrelundar)

End copied text. Imamadmad (Contact me) 11:13, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

"Who knows the doctor's name"Edit

"Who knows the doctor's name" seems to have been merged in a way with "What is the Doctor's name" why? Kamila_064 talk 09:13, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the answer is mistaken Edit

I  have already made a link to this on another page on this wiki, but here is the same link again: http://aetw.org/omega/WHO.html Got that? Read it thoroughly. Click on the links and read those. Here's another page: http://animusisoldone.blogspot.com/2010/07/reasons-he-really-is-called-doctor-who.html During the 60's and 70's this was taken for granted. And it still was by many people during the 80's and 90's. The idea to suddenly make "the Doctor's name mysterious" came long after most of the stuff in the pages that I've linked to. This creates a huge continuity problem. Of course in "Name of the Doctor" the tomb does open after The Great Intelligence says "Doctor Who"...Master of Spiders (talk) 13:51, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

  • No one cares what they refer to the Doctor as off-screen. The Doctor in Star Trek Voyager in all official documents and credits in early production of the series was named Doctor Zimmerman. But the series didn't do so on screen. Steven Moffat just stated that the Doctor's real name is Mildred. Because he says so doesn't mean it is so. On screen the Doctor never answered to the name Doctor Who in the original days. To use another example, Night of the Doctor and Day of the Doctor identify John Hurt's character in the credits as "War Doctor" and the credits to the latter also list Billie Piper as playing Rose when it is explicitly stated in dialogue that she is not playing Rose Tyler, but the Moment's interface. The TARDIS Data Core rejects "non-narrative" information when it determines canonical data. And the material you've cited is textbook examples of this. Except for WOTAN, name me one occasion in 50 years of canonical on-screen Doctor Who, or even in the novels (novelisations don't count so Bill Strutton's Zarbi book doesn't override the TV episodes), where the Doctor is directly named "Doctor Who." You won't find any because he isn't. There is no continuity error. 23skidoo (talk) 17:11, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

This is not Tardis Data Core. I don't care one bit what TDC policy is. This wiki does use all official material and evidence, both in-universe and real-world. Moffat's "Mildred" comment was clearly a joke. However, the mountain of evidence referring to the character as 'Doctor Who' is valid. And as for your "novelisations don't count" comment....well that is your personal opinion, but not a valid viewpoint for editing this wiki.

In short, there is enormous evidence in valid, licensed Doctor Who, and in both in-universe and real-world, that states that his name is indeed 'Doctor Who'. Granted, there is also evidence that takes the "We don't know" line. However it is absolutely and utterly wrong(and contrary to the position of this wiki) to simply dismiss all that evidence out of hand because of some personal idea you may have, or because another wiki has a bizarre take on "when it determines canonical data". Master of Spiders (talk) 18:13, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

And of course on the famous Nationwide interview, Tom Baker himself stated that his character is called "Doctor Who".  Again, whatever TDC's policy may or may not be, we do count that as valid. Master of Spiders (talk) 18:17, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Even if the Doctor can conclusively be shown to have responded to the name "Doctor Who", that wouldn't make it his real, original name. We know a character who has frequently responded to the name "Jack Harkness" but we also know that this is not his real, original name.

"John Smith" (on library card), "Zeus", "Maximus Pettulian" & "Doctor Caligari" are all names known to have been used by the First Doctor. Adding the various names used by other incarnations would produce a very long list. The evidence shows that the Doctor uses & responds to a large variety of names. That's all it shows. It doesn't show that any of these names is the character's real, original name.

Master of Spiders is wrong to say that "novelisations don't count" is "not a valid viewpoint for editing this wiki". It's a completely valid viewpoint. It isn't, however, the only valid viewpoint. "TV only" is a valid viewpoint for editing this wiki. "TV & audios but no novels or novelisations" is another valid viewpoint for editing this wiki. There are many valid viewpoints for editing this wiki. That's why this wiki's policies include the statement that "on questions with controversial answers, ALL viewpoints must be expressed." --89.243.205.47 04:53, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

If "ALL viewpoints must be expressed" then how exactly is "novelisations don't count" valid? Because while there may be conflicting evidence in other media, ALL viewpoints must be expressed(including novelisations). I think you misunderstood what was actually being said.

And as ALL viewpoints must be expressed, then the documented real-world evidence by the people who actually created the show, the articles and promos in Radio Times(the BBC magazine), as well as the end credits, the in-universe dialogue etc. etc. While one may very well have a case that 'Doctor Who' may not be his original name, it is nonetheless the first name we the fans/public ever associated with him, and the first name that he used from our perspective. of coruse, there is nothing that explicitly states that it is not his original name. But either way, it is a name that has been used many times in associataion with the character, and the name that the original production notes, start credits, end credits, other characters, novels, annuals, newspaper articles, the actors themselves etc. etc. etc. have used when referring to the character. We can put a note stating that it is far from certain that this is his original name, but we must put a note stating that this is a name that has been used for decades both in-universe and real-world, the name the creators of the show used, and the first name that we the viewers were ever introduced to. Master of Spiders (talk) 06:41, July 2, 2014 (UTC) 

Out-of-context link Edit

User 197.88.60.232 has posted an external link out of context. I've removed it because it is out of context.

The link appears to be from a comic story but the story has not been identified.

The link was posted at the top of the answer, meaning that it's not in either the "Out-of-universe" section or the "In-of-universe" section.

If 197 believes that this link ought to be in the answer, he could & should have posted it in the "In-of-universe" section & have given it its proper context, something like:

In suct-and-such (comic story), as this frame shows <link>.

There are, of course, 3 problems with this course of action:

1. It shows only that the Doctor used the name "Dr. Who", not that it's his original name.
2. It would need to be balanced by references to at least some of the other names that the Doctor is known to have used.
3. It could be argued that all such references to names that the Doctor is known to have used are irrelevant to the question, which asks for his name & not for the aliases he has used.

As 197 admitted in his edit summary when restoring this out-of-context link, it is intended by him to present his own POV, without expressing any other viepoint, in direct contravention of this site's policies. See DWA:CONTRO, especiallu its concluding paragraph:

Note: on questions with controversial answers, ALL viewpoints must be expressed.

If 197 places this link in its proper context, it's open to him to point out that some fans believe that the name "Dr. Who" actually is the character's real name, while others believe that the character's real name remains unknown.

As an alternative to putting this link in the "In-of-universe" section, 197 could create a new section to deal with this controversy. That would have 2 principal advantages:

1. It would avoid cluttering the existing "In-of-universe" section.
2. It would draw more attention to the controversy, which would otherwise risk getting lost in the existing "In-of-universe" section. That section is already quite long. Giving the controversy its own section heading would make it less likely to be overlooked.

Merely placing the link at the top as an admitted expression of one POV, which 197 has done, is a breach of this site's policies. --89.243.200.14 09:33, January 10, 2016 (UTC)

It's from The Klepton Parasites, which you most likely already know.

There is an abundance of evidence that says that the Doctor's real name is 'Doctor Who', both in-universe, and in the real world. Just a tiny fraction of it is collected here: http://aetw.org/omega/WHO.html

The ONLY POV-pusher here is 89, who rigidly sticks to the inaccurate answer as it stands now, with all that "it's a big secret" and "nobody knows" misinformation.

It's not like 89 doesn't know this, and hasn't engaged in this exact discussion before. 89 KNOWS that the Doctor's name was always well-known, and that the Doctor has called himself 'Doctor Who', other characters have called him 'Doctor Who', and countless producers, writers, actors etc. who have worke don the show have called the character 'Doctor Who'.

However, 89 refuses to acknowledge this, and insist on the one-sided answer that says that "it's a big secret"! 197.88.60.232 10:44, January 10, 2016 (UTC)

  • Rule 1: The Doctor lies. Also if his name is "Doctor Who" it destroys the canon of The Name of the Doctor, and TV canon always supercedes printed canon and stuff said by producers, etc. off-screen. For example, Moffat recently said that the painting of Clara Oswald in Heaven Sent was painted by the Doctor himself. Which is great but it's not canon until it's mentioned on screen. And at some point a future writer might say otherwise, overriding what was said off screen. "Doctor Who" in this context carries the exact same weight as "Basil". And John Smith carries even more weight. I support 89 on this for what it's worth. 68.146.52.234 22:37, January 10, 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't.

Several officially licensed stories have him referring to himself as 'Doctor Who'. Are you taking the "only television episodes are canon" line? Because if you accept non-television stories as canonical, then it's unambiguous...his name IS "Doctor Who".

Next, numerous production listings, interviews with creators,writers, actors, as well as the actual end credits list the character as "Doctor Who" (or "Dr Who"). Now, i saw your comment elsewhere on this website, and the answer is "This isn't TDC. ALL valid information is valid here(duh!)". Sydney Newman called him 'Doctor Who'. Verity Lambert called him 'Doctor Who'. Barry Letts called him "Doctor Who". Even today everyone from Tom Baker to Sylvester McCoy to Russell T. Davies to Peter Capaldi calls the character "Doctor Who".

Lastly, the whole 'Name of the Doctor' thing. Well, again, if we come down on one side as "right", then we are dismissing other equally(at least) valid material. How would you deal with these answers;

'When were the UNIT stories set?', "Which character in Doctor Who was said to be the inspiration for Satan?", "Which aliens were responsible for creating life on Earth?", "What happened to the Master between Survival and The TV Movie?", "What ahppened to Ace after Survival?"

Now, in each of those cases, would you say that there's only ONE definitive answer for each question?

The fact is that that before the show even began...the character's name was and is 'Doctor Who'. That's how everyone from Sydney Newman etc. referred to him. Now, in more recent times, it's become the idea that "his name is a mystery" and "only people who aren't fans call him Doctor Who, REAL fans know better!". But the fact remains that his name was always supposed to be, and always was, 'Doctor Who, whether you like it or not.

Now, of course Steven Moffat has other ideas, BUT this page should not just ignore the decades when his name obviously was 'Doctor Who', just to support your POV. 197.88.60.232 06:38, January 11, 2016 (UTC)

His name is the Doctor, as far as many, many people are concerned, and there is plenty of evidence to prove this. He always insists that people call him the Doctor, "just the Doctor" ("Rose" et al.). The Doctor himself asked the question "Doctor who?" as one his first ever lines, back in "An Unearthly Child". It wasn't a correction of "Doctor Foreman" to "Doctor Who", it was a question. The Doctor's real name is also long and unpronounceable according to Peri, which "Doctor Who" is not. As much as many people don't like Peri (I actually thought she worked reasonably well as a contrast to Six), she wasn't that dumb. And we can't forget "The Name of the Doctor", no matter how much you may wish you could. These are just the examples I can think of off the top of my head, and I'm sure there are many more. See, so there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. That's why we should have a section explaining the controversy.

It is undeniable that the Doctor's name is unknown in-universe at least since the Time War, which makes our current in-universe answer correct (the out-of-universe part does need expanding however), but that doesn't definitely rule out the possibility that his name was still originally "Doctor Who", even though I don't subscribe to that theory. Help us start a section explaining the controversy via providing the relevant information and citations in a new section in the answer to demonstrate the pro-"His name is Doctor Who" stance and the rest of us will then touch it up with the evidence to the contrary, so we have a full, unbiased answer. So please 197, stop complaining about the problem and fix it in a productive manner, as was suggested already by 89 above. You seem to know the most about the pro-"His name is Doctor Who" position, so to make sure that position is adequately reflected, you should start it. Also, if anybody who is contrary to that stance were to start it, I have good reason to believe that further arguments will be provoked because the pro position will not conform to your standard, as it is difficult to try and prove a point of view one doesn't believe oneself. If you have links to any images to help your answer, either put them on this page and I can upload them for you or you can log in and do it yourself.

Also, first strike for making unnecessary personal attacks against 89 in your message. Your first strike should have come ages ago, but I'm starting now because I have reached a point where I am sick of dealing with all the unnecessary arguments you start. Three strikes at my discretion and you're out. And before you argue, 89 was calmly informing of a policy breach and so has not broken any personal attack rules, unlike yourself. The first part of your reaction to 68 was acceptable as it was a rebuttal to the point made (the second half starts to disintegrate into an attack again), but your reaction to 89 was not. Imamadmad  Contact me 02:19, January 12, 2016 (UTC)

His name is the Doctor, as far as many, many people are concerned, and there is plenty of evidence to prove this.

And his name is 'Doctor Who' as far as many, many people are concerned, and there is plenty of evidence to prove this. He always insists that people call him the Doctor, "just the Doctor" ("Rose" et al.). So? He prefers being called on thing, that doesn't mean his name ISN"T "Doctor Who", just that he prefers being called "just the Doctor". The Doctor himself asked the question "Doctor who?" as one his first ever lines, back in "An Unearthly Child". It wasn't a correction of "Doctor Foreman" to "Doctor Who", it was a question. Again, that is beside the point. When Ian called him "Doctor Foreman", he was confused, as that isn't his name. He wanted to know why Ian called him 'Foreman'. Again, that doesn't "prove" that his real name isn't "Doctor Who". The Doctor's real name is also long and unpronounceable according to Peri, which "Doctor Who" is not. And when/where did Peri say that? As much as many people don't like Peri (I actually thought she worked reasonably well as a contrast to Six), she wasn't that dumb. I love Peri, but can you provide a source for that claim? ';And we can't forget "The Name of the Doctor", no matter how much you may wish you could. These are just the examples I can think of off the top of my head, and I'm sure there are many more. See, so there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Again, it's like UNIT Dating. There is unambiguous evidence that say the UNIT stories take place in the 1980's. But then there's unambiguous evidence that says the UNIT stories take place in the mid-to-late 70's......

The problem here is that you and 89 have taken ONE side, and forced that as THE only correct answer.

That's why we should have a section explaining the controversy.

Then why haven't you helped make it? Why do you(and 89) blank anything that says as much? The answer as it stands now is not just one-sided, it's forcefully pushing something that is inaccurate. It is undeniable that the Doctor's name is unknown in-universe at least since the Time War, which makes our current in-universe answer correct See the UNIT Dating controversy again. In-universe for decades his name was known as 'Doctor Who'.

(the out-of-universe part does need expanding however), but that doesn't definitely rule out the possibility that his name was still originally "Doctor Who", even though I don't subscribe to that theory. There we have it. YOU "don't subscribe to that theory", therefore anyone posting anything that provides information for it is insulted and threatened by you. While those who blank any such information are coddled by you. Help us start a section explaining the controversy via providing the relevant information and citations in a new section in the answer to demonstrate the pro-"His name is Doctor Who" stance and the rest of us will then touch it up with the evidence to the contrary, so we have a full, unbiased answer. Well, maybe it would have been a nice idea to not be so hostile right off the bat then? There is overwhelming evidence for this, yet it keeps getting blanked, and when I tried adding it, you threatened me. How nice is that? I also noticed the way that I can add stuff for "the pro His name is Doctor Who stance", and then "the rest of us"(ie. you and 89) can "touch it up". Surely it would be better if everyone decided how to word it FIRST, before 89 "touched it up"(which precedent has shown means blanking).

So please 197, stop complaining about the problem and fix it in a productive manner, as was suggested already by 89 above. You seem to know the most about the pro-"His name is Doctor Who" position, so to make sure that position is adequately reflected, you should start it.

I provided a link to a site where someone knows far more about it than I do. But both you and 89 have chosen to ignore that entirely. Also, if anybody who is contrary to that stance were to start it, I have good reason to believe that further arguments will be provoked because the pro position will not conform to your standard, as it is difficult to try and prove a point of view one doesn't believe oneself. If you have links to any images to help your answer, either put them on this page and I can upload them for you or you can log in and do it yourself. I did provide an image, which someone else has kindly uploaded.

Also, first strike for making unnecessary personal attacks against 89 in your message. Your first strike should have come ages ago, but I'm starting now because I have reached a point where I am sick of dealing with all the unnecessary arguments you start. Three strikes at my discretion and you're out. And before you argue, 89 was calmly informing of a policy breach and so has not broken any personal attack rules, unlike yourself. The first part of your reaction to 68 was acceptable as it was a rebuttal to the point made (the second half starts to disintegrate into an attack again), but your reaction to 89 was not. Imamadmad  Contact me 02:19, January 12, 2016 (UTC)

What personal attacks? I'm not the one being threatening and hostile? 197.88.60.232 06:09, January 12, 2016 (UTC)

More Edit

This is from the Doctor Who Annual story Mission for Duh:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B6COX91EsoE/TojS0x4__5I/AAAAAAAABXc/u34Q6CFveBc/s1600/duh6.JPG

Here's what Peter Capaldi had to say when he landed the role to be Matt Smith's replacement:http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/peter-capaldi-interview-im-constantly-amazed-that-it-is-me-playing-this-role-i-think-im-doctor-who-9671323.html

Here's what original Producer Verity Lambert said in the 2004 DWM Special The Complete First Doctor:https://ia902508.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/3/items/Doctor_Who_Magazine_Special_Edition_07_-_The_Complete_First_Doctor_2004/Doctor%20Who%20Magazine%20Special%20Edition%2007%20-%20The%20Complete%20First%20Doctor%20(2004)_jp2.zip&file=Doctor%20Who%20Magazine%20Special%20Edition%2007%20-%20The%20Complete%20First%20Doctor%20(2004)_jp2/Doctor%20Who%20Magazine%20Special%20Edition%2007%20-%20The%20Complete%20First%20Doctor%20(2004)_0093.jp2&scale=4&rotate=0

Here's the link to the very in-depth site again: http://aetw.org/omega/WHO.html,

which also includes:https://picasaweb.google.com/116796948868121386770/DoctorWhoClippings02?noredirect=1 197.88.60.232 06:23, January 12, 2016 (UTC)

And of course, Imamadmad said: It is undeniable that the Doctor's name is unknown in-universe at least since the Time War

However: http://aetw.org/omega/images/Eccleston_Tennant.jpg 197.88.60.232 08:55, January 12, 2016 (UTC)

197: Instead of attacking others & complaining about the existing answer, do as Imamadmad has asked & add your info (with proper source citations), including your evidence that in universe "Dr. Who" is the Doctor's real name, not merely one of the many names he has used.

Why should you be the one to make the first move? Because, by your own account, it's not the first move. You're complaining that the opposing view is already present. If anyone were to create the section on the controversy by stating the "name unknown" view, that would be more of the same. It'd just repeat what's there already.

You're the one claiming to have something new to contribute, so get on with it! --89.243.205.32 11:18, January 12, 2016 (UTC)

Proposal Edit

The problem is that it was suggested that I add material to the answer as is.

Because the answer as is is one-sided, POV-pushing, and doesn't allow for any contrary answers.

From what I can see, certain people want the answer as is to remain, with an extra paragraph added at the end which says "Oh, and some people think..." But that's wrong.

The answer needs to be totally rewritten. But I get the feeling if I do that, then I'll be accused of vandalising the article....197.88.60.232 04:41, January 13, 2016 (UTC)

"The answer needs to be totally rewritten. But I get the feeling if I do that, then I'll be accused of vandalising the article.": There's an extremely obvious way to avoid that. It's a procedure I've used quite a number of times. The steps are these:

Take a copy of the existing answer & save it on the question's talk page, with its own section heading to say what it is. Nobody can reasonably accuse you of vandalising the article if the first thing you've done has been to preserve it intact.
Add a temporary section heading to the answer -- "Draft of revised answer (incomplete)".
Make your revisions in steps.
After each step, post a notice on the question's talk page -- & possibly on the "Contact an Admin" page, too -- asking for comments on what you've done in that step. (If you know of individual named, not IP, users who're likely to want to comment, use their talk pages to alert them to the notice on the question's talk page.) Invite criticism. Ask if the same thing could be said better -- fewer words, clearer language, whatever. Ask if more evidence is needed or if too much repetitive evidence has been given.
Where you need to express a view with which you disagree, either use the existing text (if suitable) or ask someone else to draft that part for you. As Imamadmad has said (& as I know from experience), it's well-nigh impossible to do justice to a view with which you're out of sympathy. It just doesn't work & there's no shame in admitting it.
Allow a reasonable time for responses. How long is reasonable can vary, depending on how available people are to comment. Usually, a few (2 or 3) days will be enough.
When you think you've finished, post notices saying so & (again) asking for comments. This time, allow at least a week for responses.
Once the finalised answer has been agreed, remove the temporary section heading from the answer.

You'll find an example of this approach at User talk:Imamadmad#What was the Time War?. In that case, though, the complications were caused by having a tangle of closely related questions that needed to be revised as a set. Here, the complications are caused by controversy. The situation is different, so the details of how you tackle it will be different. Anyway, my working methods suit me; they may not suit you.

The more you consult others & take the advice given, the less trouble there will be. Advice, though, isn't always good. If what's suggested seems likely to make the answer unclear or poorly phrased, say so.

If someone else tells you your text is unclear or poorly phrased, they're likely to be right. You know what you intended to communicate but you need someone else to check that you actually did communicate it. (That applies to everyone who writes, including me.)

All this consultation does make the process fairly protracted but it's far more important to get it right than to get it fast.

It took me a couple of months to do the Time War revision but the actual time spent working on the thing was much less. Most of the elapsed time was spent allowing time for others to comment. This kind of thing can be a bit of a chore but it's far less wearing than a series of ill-tempered arguments would be.

Good luck! --89.241.212.196 08:10, January 13, 2016 (UTC)

As no further action has been taken to attempt to start this answer, I will try and start it myself. If somebody wishes to complain that my additions do not provide justice to a certain position, please respond by improving the answer as opposed to arguing or adding intentionally out-of-context links to who-knows-where. Imamadmad  Contact me 22:57, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

I've done an initial brain-dump in the answer supporting both views, but I give no guarantees that what I wrote provided all the information, nor that it was well-written or unbiased. It is however a starting point from which the answer may grow. Imamadmad  Contact me 00:19, January 23, 2016 (UTC)

Original Answer (preserved intact) Edit

Out-of-universeEdit

Moffat on Doctor Who's Real Name - Comic-Con 2012, SDCC

Moffat on Doctor Who's Real Name - Comic-Con 2012, SDCC

Nobody knows the Doctor's name, because none of the writers have ever invented one for him. And they likely never will. Current show-runner Steven Moffat explained that any name they give him now would be anticlimactic, and take away from the mystery of the show without adding anything new, and many of his predecessors (and equivalents in other media, like the novel range editors) said the same thing (Moffat illustrates the ridiculousness of assigning a name to the Doctor in Doctor Who Magazine #475 where he jokingly says the Doctor's real name is Mildred). We do know that he calls himself "The Doctor", and sometimes "Theta Sigma" (an old Academy nickname, and possibly later an undercover name), and other aliases like "John Smith", but none of those are his real name.

Moffat has jokingly suggested that he knows the real name, such as at the 2012 San Diego Comic Con, but this is not to be taken seriously given he also claimed at the same event that William Hartnell told him the character's name when he was all of one year old.

In-universeEdit

In-universe, of course, the Doctor knows his name, and there may be a few others.

In the past, there were many Time Lords who knew it and, as we learned from "The Day of the Doctor" & "The Time of the Doctor", at least one surviving Time Lord on Gallifrey must still know it (otherwise, the Doctor's name couldn't be used to identify the correct universe to which to return the planet). Plus, a few of his companions knew it, but they may all be either dead or unable to remember it. (We know he told Peri Brown, but she couldn't pronounce it and could only remember the first syllable; in the novels he told Sam Jones, but she's dead; Donna likely got the knowledge while she was Doctor-Donna, but can no longer access any of those memories without her brain burning out. Clara becomes aware of it in "Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS" but loses the knowledge soon after.) It should be noted that possibly Clara actually does know his name, as she even masquerades as the Doctor briefly in "Death in Heaven".

In fact, the only people we know of that know the Doctor's name are the Doctor himself and River Song (she tells the Doctor his name in "Silence in the Library" and uses his real name to open the TARDIS in "The Name of the Doctor"). And it seems likely they're the only two, period—one of the New Series Adventures novels confirms that before he told River, nobody alive knew his name, but even if you ignore the novels, it's hard to think of anyone else who'd be likely to have that secret.

And his name is a very big secret. There have been hints going back to the classic series (e.g., Lady Peinforte in "Silver Nemesis"), but series 6 made it as blatant as possible: The First and Oldest Question, the question that's the core of the Silence's beliefs, the question that should never be answered, is "Doctor Who?" (because the answer would identify the universe to which Gallifrey belongs, allowing the planet to return, possibly re-igniting the Last Great Time War).

It may be worth noting that the Doctor accidentally says his name in "Return of the Living Dad" (novel), after he has been drugged or something. Unfortunately, author Kate Orman unsportingly doesn't tell the reader what he actually says, although the character to whom he is speaking comments that it would be difficult to address an envelope with it (a reference to long Gallifreyan names such as Romanadvoratrelundar)

And here's the thing.... Edit

So faced with a controversial answer to a seemingly simple question, we have been told that the answer as is was perfectly good, but it's alright to make "Sandbox" type edits to add extra information. And this is the problem, exactly why i'm not interested in this.

The answer as it stands still has the main space given to stuff like;

Nobody knows the Doctor's name, because none of the writers have ever invented one for him. And they likely never will.

And now, after that, we get "Dr. Who" Controversy , which begins;

One controversial extrapolation from the evidence provided is that the Doctor's name is literally "Doctor Who".

In each case, whether real-world or in-universe, a handful of times when the Doctor is actually called "Doctor Who", there is some 'rationalisation' or 'explanation' as to why this can't actually be his name. As is, the answer does exactly what I predicted it would do.....it says that the Doctor's name is unknown, and that nobody in the real world ever bothered naming him(which is a falsehood, as documentation from people like Sydney Newman(creator) and Verity Lambert(original producer) shows). After going on about this big 'secret', and about how maybe River and someone else may know, we then get the "Controversy" section, where it says that, yes, some in-universe stories and some real-world sources from the horse's mouth do indeed refer to the character as 'Doctor Who', but that that can't possibly be true, because Steven Moffat says that the Doctor's name is a secret, so there.

The article should actually start with what Sydney Newman, verity Lambert, and BBC documentation from 1963 onward said, as well as The Radio Times and other media. And the TV Comics. And World Distributors Annuals. And William Hartnell. And WOTAN. And the end credits from through the Troughton, Pertwee and Tom Baker years. And what Troughton, Pertwee, Tom Baker, Barry Letts and a host of others all agreed on, and what viewers always believed....

His name is indeed 'Doctor Who'.

Then it should move on to the controversy, explaining the 80's stories that call him just 'The Doctor', say his name is a secret, and build up to today where 'The Name of the Doctor' is unknown to all but a few, although many people, such as Peter Capaldi, still call him 'Doctor Who. 197.86.143.84 10:32, January 24, 2016 (UTC)

His name is "Doctor Who" in the same way that it is "The Doctor", "John Smith", and "Theta Sigma". Never has there been a comment that states that "Doctor Who"/"Dr. Who" is his original name, the name he was given at birth. Yes, he uses that name at some points. He also uses many other names at various points. We have no more evidence that "Doctor Who" is his original name than we have for "The Doctor", "John Smith", or "Theta Sigma" being his original name. Sure, many people out of universe have used the name "Doctor Who" to refer to the character. Many more have used "The Doctor". The vast, vast, vast majority of in-universe uses of the Doctor's name has been to call him "The Doctor", not "Doctor Who", and that's looking at all media from all eras. Yes, the name "Doctor Who" has appeared, and I can tell from the evidence that it is one of the names he goes by. I have not been presented with any evidence that it is his one true original name, and the answer to both The First Question and this question.

If you don't like my answer, fine, I assumed you wouldn't. That's exactly why both 89 and I suggested that you start the changes. When you did nothing, we took it upon ourselves to actually change things, and change things in a way to better accommodate your perspective. The answer is not yet complete, nor is it suggested anywhere that what is currently in the answer is what will eventually be left on the page. If you have a problem with it, stop attacking and start providing some constructive feedback, or even better, make some bloody changes yourself! If you want to restructure the article, then you should be the one to make a draft answer and submit it from review, just like I did with my first attempt at discussing the controversy. If you fear that we'll block your attempts to express your point of view, then make sure that you provide some solid, irrefutable, and preferably in-universe information that proves your point and nothing can be removed. I even used your evidence in the section I began on the controversy. Quite frankly, I find it all fairly weak evidence, but it's there on the page for the reader to make up their own minds. So, if you have proper proof that "Doctor Who" is his actual name and not just another in a long line of aliases, please, prove it to us by re-drafting the answer to show all the information. If you have any more information on any points, add it to the answer. Don't add it to this talk page. Add it to the answer. I'm not going to bother editing the article again or responding to this talk page until you've made some actual substantive change to the page itself, because I have enough other demands on my time that don't include listening to people complain about things and then do nothing to fix them. Imamadmad  Contact me 12:30, January 24, 2016 (UTC)

There is an abundance of evidence that the Doctor's name is indeed 'Doctor Who'

There is also no need for you to be rude and insulting to me.

As far as you using "my evidence"(bolded), But was used, but then explained away why it doesn't really 'count'.

In short, exactly what i said would happen...did. With the added bonus of you being rude to me.

And if I do change the answer, it will have to start with removing the answer as it is, and starting from scratch. Because the answer as it is is the very definition of one-sided Point-Of-View. 197.86.143.84 14:26, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

197: When you were asked to present your own view & the evidence supporting it, you gave spurious excuses for not doing so. When your excuses were shown to be spurious, you did exactly nothing for an entire week.

In the absence of any attempt by you to represent the view you claim to hold, Imamadmad made what she very clearly stated was "an initial brain-dump in the answer supporting both views, but I give no guarantees that what I wrote provided all the information, nor that it was well-written or unbiased." She invited you (or anyone else with an interest in doing so) to "respond by improving the answer". Thus far, you've made 1 edit so minor that calling it a token effort would risk exaggerating its scope. Very nearly the entirety of your effort has been devoted to abusing others & to making blatantly false accusations. You have fled from the opportunity to improve the answer.

Effort reflects motivation. By your own efforts, you have shown that your interest is in conducting a useless argument & that you have no wish whatever to make any actual improvement in the answer. --89.241.218.58 15:10, January 25, 2016 (UTC)