Ok, it's from the Mail (quoting from The Mirror), but WHAT???!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...-Who-role.html

and possibly... Wow, that would be cool.

a/ Don't put spoilers in thread titles!
b/ Welcome to January's news!

Well I feel suitably foolish.

Though I am impressed by your ability to smack me down for a) blurting out a "spoiler" and b)for revealing old new (so widely know then?) at the same time.

That story is pretty much incorrect at every turn.
Matt won't be growing back his floppy hair or re-wearing his tweed.
Typical Daily Mail story - they show such contempt for their readers that they can't be bothered to check even the basic facts.
Awful, dreadful paper.

2 + 2 equals 5. Odious rag.

Mind you, agree with the "brilliance" line.

There is etiquette about keeping spoilers hidden from those who might want to avoid them.

There is also etiquette about repeating information (it's easy enough to search for).

Agree with your first point, however your second is maybe a bit unfair. The Mail story is dated today, and I currently don't see any other threads updated today on this subject so I understand why someone wouldn't feel the need to search on this occasion.

In other news, Matt Smith nominated for a BAFA no less! Good to hear

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1927195


I hear Tom Baker has been cast as the fourth Doctor

What?? He's a brickie isn't he? He'll be rubbish...

They'll be casting that vet next !

1. Is it really a spoiler to mention that an actor is going to do a quick cameo?

2. I didn't know about this - it's only old news if you already knew.

What's the etiquette on self appointed mods jumping down a fellow FM's throat for no good reason?

This whole 'spoiler alert' stuff is beginning to irritate me! This was not a spoiler to start with! People can be sooo uptight about the teeniest thing being said - whether it's relevant or not.
Personally - I LOVE spoilers, it gives me something to look forward to (as long as the ENDING isn't revealed).
"Spoilers" are around us all the time - unless you don't read newspapers, magazines, watch the news etc......
Spoilers can be fun - we can comment on it BEFORE we see it! And when it eventually happens....see what the outcome is!
(if you see what I mean )

quote from article - "want's to assure clara this new man is still doctor who"

It say's a lot that they can't even get the character's name right. His name is the doctor.

April 1st come too early?

Strange decision to bring him back. Could this be some weird contingency plan if Capaldi flops in the role? Have Matt Smith on stand by?

Strange why Matt Smith would want to return, even for a cameo.

Ray, did you not read the other posts on this thread?
It's simply not happening - the Daily Mail is wrong. There's contingency, nor any desire from Matt to return.

Well I assume everything on the net is accurate. How am I supposed to know?

Yes it is

That is why there is a dedicated spoiler thread

It's not jumping down people's throat to point out the forum rules!

Is this true or not?

If it is true it's obvious that Peter Capbaldi will be fired after one series. I hope not as he's my all-time fave Doctor.

What actually happens:

@ above: Yes, it would be considered a spoiler to openly reveal something that should be a surprise on the night.

I've already mentioned this in another thread two weeks ago!!

Plus, someone else said to me about putting spoilers in threads without using the spoiler tag first. Now I use the spoiler tag.

You guys are soooooo friendly

Did anyone see my post suggesting a stickie thread with some "guidelines" about posts, this could have helped prevent some of this .....

Whilst I think we can all cheerfully agree that the Daily Mail is a stinking midden of inaccuracy, illiteracy, and general ignorance, let us not indict the flimsy rag for the few things it gets right.

The character's name is Doctor Who (see the closing credits for every episode from An Unearthly Child to Part Four of Logopolis, and those for Christopher Eccleston's tenure as well). He is sometimes referred to as "the Doctor" (see all the other closing credits), but that isn't his name. If, say, you were called Doctor Alan Finlay, you might frequently be referred to as "the Doctor", but this doesn't make that description your name.

As Will Chandler acutely observes in The Visitation, "'Doctor' bain't a proper name".

well as far as I've alway's known 'doctor who' is the question, and main mystery of the show, a query about the true identity of the mysterious man known as the doctor. Regardless of what the credit's say (as I believe only he was only ever called such in the credit's to make it easier for the media, because when a character's name is the doctor, unless someone know's specifically what show your talking about they won't know what doctor you mean, whereas if you give them an easy phrase like doctor who it gives them a catchphrase)
I'll believe the doctor himself in every episode I've ever seen when he introduces himself as such. and obviously the production crew agree's with me as they fixed that horrendous listing in the credits once and for all from tennant onwards.