Jump to content

Talk:List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abzorbaloff

[edit]

The BBC have released a picture of the actual Abzorbalof [1]. However, the image is taken from Behind-the-scenes filming, and you can see crew members and cameras in the background. Should this image be used until the episode airs, or just keep the hand drawn image? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use that picture, or the one on DWO.--Keycard (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone for the BBC one; the DWO looks a bit fuzzy, and its just a cropped version of the Beeb one. SMURRAY|IN|CHESTER 18:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have another point - should the Abzorbaloff be under the Monsters and Aliens section, or the Villains section, as as far as it seems there is only one that the Doctor is to face, and we don't even know if he comes from a "race" as such... The_B 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not 100% sure he's a villain yet. It could be that that thing at the end of the trailer is the real villain, or something. I think that the Abz. is a villain, myself, but it's not yet been confirmed.--Keycard (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the episode has been aired, and it's quite clear to me it's a villain, so I'm moving it - the main reason being that "Abzorbaloff" isn't even it's real name as such (in the story anyway)The_B 20:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slitheen

[edit]

I think that the Slitheen was one of the creepiest aliens since the Gelth. Remember when Michey uses viniger to kill the Slitheen inspector. "Citizens of planet Earth , we are facing a cross-species war. But we know the ememy's weakness! You can all help in the war effort, so arm yourselves with jars of pickeled onions!" Darkwarlock999

The Pig Alien

[edit]

I know that pig alien in Wolrd War III was just a normal pig in a spacesuit made by the Slitheen, but I think we should really put it in the article as an alien, mentioning its real purpose. -- Evilgidgit 16:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notability

[edit]

These are the aliens I feel are non-notable and can be eliminated from the listing or merged/redirected to their respective story titles. Please discuss.

The others are either notable, popular, or have appeared in more than one media, or a combination of these. The listed aliens are the ones I think can be done away with, although I am aware that arguments can be made for retaining some of them in some form. Please, let us discuss this and establish some criteria for inclusion. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, that is practically getting rid of every monster on the article. I think it is best they stay in, not just revert them to their episode of appearance, it happens to often on Wikipedia in my opinion. Not to mention you got rid of my adding of the Platform One aliens. It took me four hours to do, and I find it very unfair. You can go ahead and delete half of the aliens, but it will make this aritcle look sadly unprofessional and not complete. That's all I'm saying. Think first before you take action. -- Evilgidgit 07:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fairness doesn't enter into it: it's a question of notability. And I'm not sure what you mean by "unprofessional". Surely listing every single alien species mentioned in the series makes it look overly fannish and therefore unprofessional in an encyclopedic sense? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should go for the approach of a short description (a few sentences, max 1 paragraph) of each monster or alien as per List of Doctor Who planets with minimal plot elements and spoilers. Tim! 08:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support something like this. The infoboxes also don't really contribute much in this regard (see, for example, List of Doctor Who spin-off companions for how this can look). Better to limit them to aliens that have their own articles. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the serials where monsters-of-the-week appear could have a section about the monsters-of-the-week apart from the recounting of the narrative? Morwen - Talk 19:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The infoboxes in many cases are just bloating the article when the monster has only appeared in one episode or serial. Morwen's idea would work quite well for ones like Abzorbaloff, with all the Blue Peter competition details being at Love & Monsters.Tim! 19:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the idea of moving the stuff from this page to the episode pages, but not destroying it. I know quite a bit is "non-notable", but it's a lot of good info, and I'd hoped this list would eventually be comprehensive. To see it deleted would make me feel very sad. Especialy when you consider the number of articles about pop singers, actors, video games etc. They're "fannish" as well! RobbieG 21:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem being if the list is to have all monsters, then the descriptions of each monster should be short, or we have a few "notable" monsters with fuller descriptions. The page is at the high end of recommended length at the moment. Tim! 21:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that I am not suggesting that the page be deleted, merely culled to a manageable size. Tim's solution is a good one; again, List of Doctor Who spin-off companions is a good example of the look I'm visualising: no infoboxes, small pictures, one paragraph descriptions, lots of pointers. I also like Morwen's idea of monsters-of-the-week in their own section on the story articles. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one keeps going round and round with the same people advocating heavy pruning every few months. Personally I've no problem with a fuller compendium but can see the merits of shorter summaries too. Where I feel strongly is that I feel a bit led up the garden path. Because the page was already established with the format of longer entries when I started writing for it, I contributed many of these articles on that basis. All of my articles are now proposed for deletion, but that's not surprising as I deliberately went for some less notable species as I hoped casual readers might find that more informative and inviting. If people were unhappy with the format of this page, they should have done something about it a lot sooner. There have been many "non-notable" species on this page for a long while. After all, as people suggest, the problem is volume more than anything else and that is a style issue that should have been sorted out near the start. If you want to prune, get on with it, rather than keep asking. Personally I'll be less inclined to contribute text to a page such as this in the future. Litefoot 05:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way, but there was no real intention to mislead anybody. The thing is, this page started out manageably, trying to compile together information on monsters which were really too insubstantial or minor to stand on their own. And then people started adding stuff - which was fine in the beginning, but with no firm criteria established, it started to go into kitchen sink territory, especially with plot information liberally sprinkled in, duplicating the story articles. The reason why I don't just cull it is because I want this to reflect consensus, and to certain degree I'm pissed off at having to be the bad guy all the time and take flack for hurt feelings for doing stuff that other people don't seem to want to do and yet tacitly approve of anyway. The fault is all around; we should have established clear boundaries, and this was not done. No one is trying to belittle your contributions: in fact, some of my own stuff is included in the above list. But the fact remains is that this page has gotten out of control, and feelings don't really enter into it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're a bad guy, and I appreciate your efforts, I just think this one should have been nipped more purposefully earlier. I agree the fault is all around, not just in your own role as moderator. And yes, I don't object to a serious edit. Maybe it could start with "kitchen sink territory" stuff in each entry and then there's be a much smaller page to make it easier to evaluate. I really don't mind what happens though, and I think my earlier missive may have appeared more disgruntled than I intended. Litefoot 06:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-placed "Forest of Cheem"?

[edit]

This species is native to our Earth, so they are not alien. Are they "monsters"? --Billpg 10:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on your definitions of the terms. The Forest of Cheem are 'monsters' in the sense that they are fictional animals, but they don't seem terribly monstrous - they just look like rather leafy humans! Likewise they are 'alien' to Earth as we know it - certainly, from our or Rose's point of view, they are 'alien' in that sense of the word - but it's hard to say beyond that. I mean, maybe there are people who could correct me here if I'm getting it wrong, but I thought the Forest came from Earth in the form of plain-old average trees and evolved an intelligence on another planet. Whatever the case, I don't think I'd be wrong in saying that if the Sisters of Plenitude and the New Humans are alien, so are the Forest. They are all descended from Earth beings, but they didn't evolve on Earth, as far as we know. RobbieG 12:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's made clear that although the Forest of Cheem may have ancestors that came from Earth - Jabe is a direct descendant of the Amazon rainforest - the three trees that appear are not actually from from Earth. After all, as the Doctor points out, the Earth is empty by 5.5/Apple/26; everyone's gone. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We know that Jabe & co. aren't from Earth, the question is whether the species evolved on Earth or elsewhere. If space travel is possible, then merely having Earth ancestors doesn't guarantee that a species evolved on Earth itself. What I'm wondering now is whether that makes them extraterrestrial beings in the truest sense of the lexeme or not. Clearly the ability to live away from Earth is no guarantee of this as the same can be said of human beings in Doctor Who. RobbieG 08:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not; the Silurians and the Sea Devils, certainly, are definitely not extraterrestrial in any sense. But I think we're covered with the "monster" label - the Forest certainly does appear in Justin Richard's Monsters and Aliens book, and while the Forest of Cheem do look reasonably humanoid and are not baddies in any sense, I think the kiddies would still class them as "monsters" in the same way as, say, the Menoptera and Optera are. Not to mention that the lead to this article mentions that the list includes some non-extraterrestrial races. "List of Doctor Who monsters, aliens and non-humans" or variations thereof seems a trifle unwieldy. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major races

[edit]

Shouldn't everything with a description linked to also have a short summary here? That's how template:main is usually employed.


Series Two Monsters

[edit]

User:Clockworkrobot here. See my user page by clicking on the link. It has articles of every single monster from this new series and various enemies like Father Angelo and the Bretherin.

Enough about that, I think that for the monsters article we could divide it into eras.

The sixties era page:

  • Daleks-Goes to the main article.
  • Voords
  • Sensorites
  • Zarbi
  • Other creatures of Vortis-Comes up as another part to the Zarbi article. Information about Menoptera, Venom Grub, etc.
  • Chumblies
  • Rills
  • Drahhvins? NOTE: Sorry if i've misplet it, i'm in a rush.
  • Monoids
  • Cybermen-Redirects to main article.
  • Fish people
  • Chamelion
  • Yeti-Redirects to main article.
  • Ice Warriors-Redirects to main article.
  • Weed creature
  • Quarks (possible to be put in robots)
  • Krotons (possible to be put in robots)


The seventies:

Various such as Auton, Sea Devil, Silurians, Sea Devils, Spiders, Wirrn, Mandrels, Zygons, Exxilons, Chronovores, Solonian Mutants, Kroll (villains?), Jagaroth etc.


The eighties:

The Mara (villain?), Sil (villain?), Terreleptils, Plasmatons, Cheetah people, Haemovores, Tractators etc.


The spin-off media:

I don't know any spin-off monsters. I do no:

  • Waterhive
  • Hy-Bractor
  • Quevvils


The 2000s:

Possible to be split 2005-2008, 2008-2010 (if series lasts that long)

  • Platform One aliens
  • Gelth
  • Slitheen-redirects to main page
  • Jagrafess (villain?)
  • Reapers
  • Empty Child (villain?)
  • Dalek Emperor-Dalek variants page?
  • Sycorax
  • Sisters of Plenitude
  • The Flesh
  • Werewolf
  • Krillitanes
  • Clockwork Robots (robot page?)
  • The Wire (villain?)
  • The Ood
  • The Beast (villain?)
  • Abzorbaloff/Victor Kennedy (villain?)
  • Chloe/Isolus (villain)
  • Living drawings (includes living pictures, scribble, Chloe's dad)
  • Ghosts (brief information about them).-Main information redirects to Cybermen.

Please contact back.

Oh- I would like to join your Wikipedia Doctor Who Project. The programme is wonderful and I am a huge fan.

We need to split this page up

[edit]

...as has been mentioned before, because even with as mush discrimination as useful the article is still too/very long. The only problem is, how would we split it up? Here are some ideas:

  • A-M, N-Z
  • By type (plant, reptilian, humanoid, misc, etc)
  • By Series (first Doctor, second Doctor, third Doctor, etc)(for ones that occur in more than one series, perhaps a different list, like "Doctor Who recurring aliens and monsters", perhaps?)
  • Or just don't split it up and leave the page very long.

So, which way do the main editors think would work best? ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 11:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slice it down some more would be my preference. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slice it down? In what way? ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 09:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of everything that is plot-related as opposed to actually lending context to characteristics of the race, or that can be transferred to the episode/story itself: Argolin and Foamasi are examples of this, and single-shot creatures like the Gelth or the Waterhive that can be merged with the story articles. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the process already begun of moving "single-shot creatures" out of this article and into story articles is an appropriate way to proceed. As original author of Foamasi, Argolin, and Macra am happy with that approach. --Litefoot 21:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea, but I still think that the page'll be too long. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 12:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Idea for splitting page up

[edit]

We could split the page up by four different sections:

  • A page for the 1960s.
  • A page for the 1970s.
  • A page for the 1980s.
  • A page for the 2000s.

Therefore we can add more articles in and have more room, restoring all the articles redirected to their episode such as Bandril-Timelash. Doing that cuts off information.

We could also merge Silurians and Sea Devils into one article, and do we really need a seperate article for werewolves?

Some monsters deserve their own pages such as:

  • Haemovores-There's a lot to write about them, not enough to fit in one category.
  • Creatures of New Earth-Would have articles on the Sisters of Plenitude, The Flesh, Chip.
  • Creatures of Vortis-Article to be merged with the Zarbi one. Features Menoptera, Venom Grub, Optera, Animus, Zarbi.

Please reply to User:Mr. Garrison

I personally think that the last two of Mr. Garrison's ideas are quite good (basically, that Doctor Who planets with lots of species on should have their own list). But, other people who watch this page - khaosworks, etc - what do you think? ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorising them with named articles for decades is not useful because people simply don't search for articles that way. And an article like "Creatures of New Earth" would be pointless duplication since all the available information is in New Earth itself, ditto with The Web Planet and the Haemovores, which can be incorporated into Vampire (Doctor Who). Creatures that appear in more than one story are more notable and merit their own articles, hence the separate articles for Sea Devil, Silurian, Werewolves and so on. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr. Garrison I think we should all take a vote on which monsters to include, I see your poits Khaosworks, people wouldn't search by decade. We could have up to 20 or so monsters listed since some, like Varga Plants aren't well-known. People will not want to read about these when other important creatures may not be listed. We should each nominate 5 monsters and the top 20 should be put on the page. Or we could create a seperate template which could go for Doctor Who Monsters stating pages of monsters with their own article, Doctor Who Monsters List A-M and finally N-Z.

Template:Doctor Who monsters

[edit]

Here is a brief idea for a template on Doctor Who monsters:

{{Doctor Who Monsters and Aliens}}

Mr. Garrison 18:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually quite a good idea. However, it reminds me of a (completely unrelated) point: How come Yeti is listed? It's technically a robot, not a living creature. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: Good point! Mr. Garrison 11:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Movellans are robots (androids, to be precise) as well, so why are they on there? There's actually probably quite a few robots listed here as monsters and aliens (Cybermen and Daleks don't count as they are actually cyborgs). ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 13:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, back to the template...

I've changed it to A-M and N-Z as per other alphabetically split lists. If there are any problems with that, just say. Or type. Typing is better, seeming as if you just say then I can't hear you. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 13:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New idea: {{Monsters, aliens and robots in Doctor Who}}

Hmm... I think that robots should be kept a seperate list, though. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 18:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've updated my first template: {{Doctor Who Monsters and Aliens}} Mr. Garrison 20:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Breaking up the page

[edit]

We really need to start splitting this page up, it is getting critical, I have made templates for monsters/aliens and robots/cyborgs. Could someone back me up on splitting the page up, Khaosworks, Ghelae? Mr. Garrison 20:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Right, now we should all decide on how to split the page up. Either:

  • A-M, N-Z
  • Page One, Page Two
  • 60s, 70s, 80s, 2000s, Other

Please leave comments below, then we can start splitting it up.

Well...
  1. Decades are bad (I'll think about why),
  2. Page numbers are a bad idea because it is not precise which page means what,
  3. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that A-M and N-Z are better. Also, alphabetically-named lists are found throughout Wikipedia, e.g. List of Star Wars races, etc.
~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Do we need aproval from others before we can start splitting the page up, what do you think Khaosworks? Decades, page one/two, A-M/N-Z? Mr. Garrison 14:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not entirely convinced that the page needs to be split up, myself. I've been waiting to see what others think. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should split it up into A-Dak, Dal-Lek, and Lel-Z. Hmmm...just kidding.DonQuixote 22:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monster articles within episodes

[edit]

I think I have a better idea. For the redirections to episode article such as Cheetah People-Survival. Survival could have a section put in it about Cheetah People.

Weevil?

[edit]

Do Torchwood only aliens get listed here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billpg (talk • contribs) 02:07, 23 October 2006.

Possibly, however a seperate list might need to be made, however the Torchwood aliens may be kept in this list until there's enough of them. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 07:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robots

[edit]

Looking through this list, I've found many actual robots, which are not technically monsters or aliens, such as:

So should these be moved to the List of Doctor Who robots? Or is there a reason to keep them on this page? ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, all of them should be moved, but before we do that, List of Doctor Who robots needs a redoing; the categorisation by Doctor is actually growing more unweildy and making it more obscure. If we can reformat that page to be more like this one, then moving Quarks and Gundans over wouldn't be as awkward. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That should really be discussed at that article's talk page rather than here, the list of robots is now a mess. Tim! 08:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures from Earth

[edit]

Haemavores, Sea Devils and Silurians originated from Earth, yet they are still listed as aliens.

By the way do we still have a problem with the length of this page? I think I have a few ideas on it.

Actually, Sea Devils et al. are the "monsters" mentioned in the title, not the aliens. Laïka 17:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, what are your ideas? ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page

[edit]

As mentioned above I agree the page is a bit long. I'm new to Wikipedia so excuse my ideas if they're not that good. I think that we should have a separate articles for old and new series because some people could be confused.

If we have a few new articles for monsters we could have less info on the page.
This is an example of what we use. No infoboxes and small picture:

--The Gelth--

The Gelth are a gaseous life form that appeared in the 2005 episode The Unquiet Dead. Their bodies were destroyed in the time war and they travelled to Earth via the rift. They then inhabited dead bodies from a Cardiff funeral parlour where the rift comes out. The Gelth are capable of flying at incredible speed and can also float.

I am using this as a test for the Sisters of Plenitude. Please do not edit the section. Xdt (talk · contribs)

You can't really ask people not to edit a page - use a sandbox if you want to test something. --Brian Olsen 18:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean while I'm typing it. Do what you want after just wait until it's finished please--which it is! Please take a look and see what you think. It could be a new format for the page I hope. Happy New Year everyone! Xdt (talk · contribs)
Personally, I still prefer the idea I gave on my talk page, which is that a smaller image size in the infoboxes will help make some of the infoboxes that are longer than the text so that they are the same size or smaller than the text and therefore make the page slightly shorter, and also, for species in which there are no pictures on Wikipedia, no infoboxes so there is more room for the text also shrinking the page down. If you get what I mean. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 10:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, maybe the infoboxes could be shrunken. I'm going to test it on my talk page. Yes, smaller images would also work. Any other views? This is my redesign:
{{Doctor Who race 2|
image=|
name=Empress of Racnoss|
type=Hybrid of human and arachnid|
affiliation=Racnoss Empire|
planet=Racnoss|
start=[[The Runaway Bride (Doctor Who) |The Runaway Bride]]|
}}

Xdt (talk · contribs)

I don't really think there's much of a reason for the text to be shrunk, just the images, as the text then appears out-of-size compared to the rest, but the size of the pics (as long as they're not tiny or gigantic) doesn't really matter so much. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 19:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but when you look at the normal template its very space. It's all very well having a nice bit of space, but when it takes up valuable room it becomes a problem. I hope you understand my reason for shrinking the text, it would be very much appreciated if you could do a bit of jiggery-pokery - that's supposed to be a technical term - and sort the template to how you think it should be. We could then discuss our views on it if that's okay. Xdt (talk · contribs)
I suppose it'd be okay if the text would shrunk, but I think the species name should stay the same size, just for clarity. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 10:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JamieNZ 22:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC) What about just turning this page into a list of links, with one-off creatures going to the story page and recurring ones going to individual pages. At the moment the page isn't really any one thing and appears to be a bit of a mix of both. The page could then be reformatted into a table, to improve the readability and scanability e.g.[reply]
Monster or Alien Appears in
Draconian Frontier in Space
Exxilon Death to the Daleks
The problem is then that some species might have too much detail for the episode page but not enough for a seperate article. I suppose we could just link to the page about the species on the Doctor Who Wikia, but that's proabably not the best idea, as the wiki is still quite incomplete. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 07:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice ideas, but all have both good and negative points. Maybe if we just gave a short description and just a short synopsis of the episode they're in. Like for the Carrionites you could say they show up in the 1500s and try to release their kind by Shakespeare's play Love's Labours Won. Xdt 11:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The problem is then that some species might have too much detail for the episode page but not enough for a seperate article." What about a details page for those exceptions? My main issue with the page as it is is that it is so hard to read, and has so much wasted space. You have to scroll forever to see most of the information. JamieNZ 20:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Judoon

[edit]

Please merge any relevant content from Judoon per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judoon. Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 07:59Z

I didn't see that page before it was deleted, but I suggest that we hold off adding anything about the Judoon to this page until the episode has aired. We know what they look like, but not much more than that. (In particular, I'd like to keep the speculation about whether they're connected to the Sontarans off of this page, as it's completely unencyclopedic.) What we do know about them can be kept at Smith and Jones (Doctor Who) for now. Anyone disagree? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but possibly use no images yet or any spoilers--for now at least. When the 2007 press release comes out we should be able to add a bit more. Xdt (talk · contribs)

I would just like to pose a question... are the judoon really a race? We only see the leaders face. They could be multiraces as they are "galactic police."

Apparently, they are a single race. All the helmets have the same shape, for example, and it would seem a bit stupid to a a rhino-head-shaped helmet for, say, a Plasmavore. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 13:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Would be good to have some confirmation on this.

Haemovores and Plasmavores

[edit]

I suspect it's merely confirming the absence of a connection that no one else thinks is there anyway, but it might be worth mentioning that plasma and haemoglobin are two very separate and different parts of the blood, suggesting that these two monsters, while similar in name and behaviour, aren't of the same species. But as I say, no one's said they are of the same species, but it might be worth including out of completeness. Kelvingreen 21:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sisters of Plentitude/Cat People

[edit]

I don't know which of these entries should exist (my preference is for Cat People, since Brannigan obviously isn't a Sister, but I accept they aren't actually called that), but I'm pretty sure it should be one or the other. Daibhid C 19:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, RTD simply calls them "Cats" in Doctor Who Confidential, and their kids are explicitly called "kittens" in-programme. Hmm... - NP Chilla 20:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say "Cats" or "Cat people" should be here, move "Sisters of Plenitude" to the List of Doctor Who villains page. --GracieLizzie 21:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Doctor says of the sister "she's a Cat" when he introduces Martha Jones to her in Gridlock, but I doubt that's a proper technical term, and he certainly doesn't refer to her as a Sister of Plenitude. Kelvingreen 21:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grace Lizzie. They're "cats", the Sisters are villains, even if one later reformed. We don't have a page for kinda-morally-ambiguous minor characters, at least not yet.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism and clean up

[edit]

some new entries need to be verified also i think someone possibly the same editor has vandalised the artical--Lerdthenerd 16:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Alien

[edit]

I belive there was an alien called the jargafess(not sure about the spelling) that required extreme cold to survive and would explode therwise. It was stationary and enslaved the human race except for his secratery who at the point of its death decided to resign. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.77.30.255 (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Jagrafess is in List of Doctor Who villains. I think it's there because we're only shown one Jagrafess, as opposed to the many Catss or Gelth or other races on this page --OZOO (vote saxon) 20:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeti

[edit]

I watched The Five Doctors and it had a Yeti in it attacking The 2nd doctor and Brigadier, but it says it only has featured in The Web of Fear. Does this count, or matter? I havn't edited it, as I don't know how and i'm not too bothered. 84.70.169.190 10:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Yeti also appeared in The Abominable Snowmen, and the Yetis in The Web of Fear were all robots, so they should be removed from this list (unless any real Yeti have actually appeared in Doctor Who and are notable enough to have something written about them). ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 12:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

[edit]

I've archived this page as per WP:SIZE, and tried to break the archives where there were natural gaps in the comments. I've left only the more recent material about the current series. Totnesmartin 19:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Greel

[edit]

Does he belong in this article? He's a human with a terminal illness rather than an actual monster. Mark H Wilkinson 16:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Plastic Man, Bloodlust and MiniWho

[edit]

I've just removed some recently added material[2][3][4] because, for the life of me, I can't find any trace of its existence outside a couple of recently created articles about new Who stories dubbed "MiniWho"[5][6]; to me it looks as if it's either fabricated or referring to fan-produced stories. If I'm wrong in this, then please replace the material. Mark H Wilkinson 09:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler

[edit]

Please put a spoiler warning on the Toclafane Dalek/Doctor thing. It's pretty much ruined the series for me.

It's been removed anyway. I'm not even sure if it was true, as I looked on the BBC website and found no pictures like the page said were there. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachnos

[edit]

is there a major print source for the name ‘Racnoss’? because the closed captioning spells it ‘Rachnos’, which makes a lot more sense for a race of spider people.

In the news stories on the official site it said that Sarah Parish was to play "the Empress of the Racnoss" (to be precise, here), and in Britain I'm sure that it used "Racnoss" instead of "Rachnos" as well. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 03:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well that should be easy enoguh to find out. the UK DVDs are out right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.230.146 (talk • contribs)
I'm personally quite wary of subtitles -- I've noticed too many errors (or, perhaps, deliberate differences in dialogue) over the years. What I have noticed is that this CBBC site[7] uses "Rachnoss" for the second picture in the gallery. But it's true that most mentions on the BBC site use "Racnoss", as does licensed merchandise, so I'm inclined to see this spelling as "official". Mark H Wilkinson 10:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toclafane name

[edit]

I'm moving this to "Spheres" because as the Doctor and Martha mention many times, this is what they are, and the Toclafane isn't their true name LuGiADude 17:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Sil the mentor.jpg

[edit]

Image:Sil the mentor.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

[edit]

List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens → List of Doctor Who alien species - More acurate title for what the page covers. StuartDD ( t • c ) 20:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

Shouldn't it just be moved to "List of Doctor Who species"? After all, not all races listed on this page are extraterrestrial. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but then you would get people putting in "Cows" ( seen in The Invasion)- which is just silly. StuartDD ( t • c ) 11:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"List of Doctor Who races" then? I don't see what could go wrong with that, unless somebody decides to add in an actual race in the list, or perhaps decides to add ethnic races... ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs

Closed poll, no consensus for move. StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Addition to toclafane

[edit]

Hi,

I was wondering why the Doctor responded so surprised when hearing of the Toclafane, so I started reading, I found this on the "Tardis - Doctor Who Wiki (.com wiki clone)

"Toclafane

The Toclafane were fairy tale monsters from Gallifrey, their name, like the Bogeymen on Earth, just made up.

In 2008, the Master claimed to have contacted the Toclafane (in reality a race of Human-based cyborgs) and, using a paradox machine linked to the Doctor's TARDIS, allowed the entire race to pour through to decimate the Human population and create a Time Lord Empire.

The Toclafane is based on the Disney character, Toclafane who looks similar although is a lot more friendly."

I think it would be good to add this information to the article.

Greetz! Robin.lemstra 20:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first two paragraphs are in the article, and the last bit is OR and doesn't belong here.--OZOO (What?) 21:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first two paragraphs aren't in the article.::

Fair use rationale for Image:Chanto.JPG

[edit]

Image:Chanto.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. It turns out that this image was copied from a wallpaper image from the BBC Doctor Who site. At the bottom of the page from which that wallpaper is linked, there's a notice which says "THE BBC MAKES THESE IMAGES AVAILABLE ONLY AS DESKTOP WALLPAPER FOR YOUR PC." So we can't use it here. If someone has the capacity to make an actual screenshot of Chantho, that would be great; but this image will have to go. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that most of the images here do not have a fair use rational. I have marked them to be deleted in 5 days if fair use rationals are not provided. 1 != 2 15:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auton

[edit]

Someone seems to have added some information for the Auton into the Auton section on this page. See here. Just wondering if we really need the information at all, because it would be discussed in both the Auton article itself and the Rose article. And besides, if we do keep it it needs to be edited for grammar. Comics (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it's gone again. —Tamfang (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toclafane

[edit]

Sorry, but "Doctor Who facts" has its information wrong about their name meaning "fool the fan" in French. Their name does not actually have a meaning in that language (I'm French, so I should know). Wedineinheck (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judoon

[edit]

Do the Judoon work for the Shadow Proclamation? --68.81.70.65 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ood should get their own article.

[edit]

Hello. I watched the Planet of the Ood episode and I believe the Ood should gain their own episode. I know they've only appeared in three episodes, but they have apparently become quite popular. Enough information has been given about them to create a decently large enough article. What do you think? (Note: I'm a friend of the Ood.) Evilgidgit (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Ood should have their own article - today's episode (Planet of the Ood) focused almost solely on them and their history and it would be beneficial if they had their own, more in-depth article. Whym (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. No doubt we'll be seeing more of the Ood in the future as well, as they have become quite synonomous with the Doctor Who Universe, and this would certainly merit an article of their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.135.143 (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weeping angels scariest creatures

[edit]

I'm pretty surprised to hear that the weeping angels have been voted the scariest monsters, because thay are not that scary. I mean, seriously, if I saw one, I'd just shimmy past it, not blinking. I can keep my eyes open for a long time. I think the Racnoss are scarier than those weeping angels. Sheesh!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.229.65 (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but this discusssion page is for article relevant info... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.135.143 (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

[edit]

I was watching a Doctor Who Confidential Cut Down segment where the David Tennant said that the Doctor would never call any creature a monster. So, having a list with "monster" in the name seems very wrong. To make the title even shorter, List of Doctor Who aliens would also work. Even Earth-based creatures which are not human or normal animals would be considered alien to humans. - LA @ 06:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree with using the term "alien" - however abnormal the creatures might be. "Species", "races" or something similar might work better. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 14:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a careful reading of Wikipedia:naming conventions with an eye to both the letter and spirit of the policy. We are reader-oriented. The good Doctor's meritoriously inclusive opinions notwithstanding, the existing title is the best yet suggested. Andrewa (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trickster's Brigade

[edit]

The Trickster's Brigade is NOT the name of an alien species, it is in fact the name of a varied group of aliens who follow the Trickster, a villain from The Sarah Jane Adventures. --Xero (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected name, changed to Time Beetle as per "In the Doctor Who Confidential episode accompanying "Turn Left", Russell T Davies stated that the production team refer to it as the Time Beetle". --Xero (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes needed?

[edit]

Are all these infoboxes really necessary? Because:

1) They take up undue space relative to the amount of information they present, bloating the article
2) They list as many "unknown"s as actual information
3) All the information they do have can easily be covered in the (short) accompanying paragraphs
4) They're breeding grounds for speculation and unsourced info

They should be gotten rid of. -- 98.223.226.249 (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bannakaffalatta

[edit]

When you search Wikipedia for "Bannakaffalatta", you get this page. When you search this page for "Bannakaffalatta", all you get is this:

Zocci 

   Further information: Bannakaffalatta

I'm very new here, but I don't think it's supposed to work like that. What should it be linked to?Sherrold (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a link to a redirect page that links back to this page. It should probably link to Voyage of the Damned. DonQuixote (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Deadly∀ssassin 21:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graske

[edit]

Since the graske will have, in about three days, racked up three appearances, do you think it's time for it to have its own article at Graske, instead of that weird disambiguation thing going on there? Thelb4 21:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

What happened to all the pictures? ----- Cuddly Panda (talk · contribs) review me! |my chatroom] 09:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


That's what I would like to know. Can the all the images be restored? Because they need to be. James Emtage (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the pictures PLEASE be restored? James Emtage (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PPPPPLLLLLLEEEEEEAAAAAAAASSSSSSEEEEEEE???!!!ATMarsden Whadda ya want? 19:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

why not merge the articles for this, SJA and TW mosters into one? ATMarsden Whadda ya want? 19:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're far too big already. This article is probably big enough to be split. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toclafane

[edit]

(Spoiler) I think this is mis-spelt. Should be Toclifain. (It's an anagram) 83.67.90.89 09:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)DavidA[reply]

We're currently using the spelling as given to us by the BBC. Why should yours be the correct version? Mark H Wilkinson 10:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is it supposed to be an anagram of?

I believe it's fictional?ATMarsdenTalk · {Semi-Retired} 16:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved without discussion

[edit]

Was there a discussion somewhere else to move this page? I don't necessarily object to the move (although I think the former title was fine), but it seems a bit sudden and arbitrary. (Not to mention that the creatures in Doctor Who are widely called "monsters" by reliable sources...) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "monster" is the correct/appropriate term here, then I don't oppose substituting the word "monster" for "creature". - jc37 16:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "creatures" is also used (two reference books by Justin Richards are titled Monsters and Villains and Creatures and Demons), but I think that "monsters" is a bit more common. What was the impetus behind the move? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of The Lazarus Creature

[edit]

The Lazarus Creature consists of a small amount of unsourced material and does not justify an article in its own right. It should be merged here. McWomble (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely - be WP:BOLD and speedy-merge right away. I'd do it myself if I had the time... TalkIslander 10:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vespiform/The Unicorn and the Wasp

[edit]
In the end the Vespiform is killed by Agatha Christie[citation needed], who drowns it in a lake.

Since there doesn't appear to be a valid reason for the {{Fact}} tag - as that's what happens (as anyone who's seen the episode can tell you) - I'm removing it.

Granted, the events of "The Unicorn and the Wasp" may not be the real reason for Agatha Christie's ten-day disappearance, but I don't think that's a valid reason for a {{fact}} tag in this context. (Now, if it were in the main article for Christie herself, then, yes, I could see it.)

--Special Operative MACAVITYDebrief me 17:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. - I also removed the {{unreferencedsection}} tag due to reference 13.)--Special Operative MACAVITY

Vashta Nerada

[edit]

"They are also seen to animate a body they have killed, and use this to attack." - I read these scenes as they were actually in the space-suit, and were moving that rather than animating the body. As a mere cowardly anonymous IP address I won't edit the piece myself, but does anyone else think we should reword this sentence? 80.192.70.102 (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree - seems that it's been changed already, though :). As for being a "mere cowardly anonymous IP adress", be bold! TalkIslander 15:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of being bold, who knew that Vashta Nerada meant "the shadows that melt the flesh" and what language is it from? ZanderSchubert (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned in the programme, by the Doctor, but i have no idea if it's actually true or not in reality, and if so what language it's in, or whether it was just used a plot device. TalkIslander 11:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was actually from a real-world language, since it was mentioned that Humans were unaware of the Vashta Nerada. It was probably from a Gallifreyan language, but if it was, it wasn't mentioned as being so. On the TARDIS Index File, somebody came up with one theory, but I don't know if that's true or not. It's the only theory I currently know of, however. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 14:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they're "microscopic" how can they be seen as specks in bright light? Swampy 124.179.92.243 (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cocklor

[edit]

This is a frequently recurring monster in the doctor who series who wich lives in doctor who's pants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.20.32.195 (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has yet to pull a death threat on him though, so.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.205.40 (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move request 2

[edit]
discussion re-opened
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: The result of the move request was page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures and aliens in Doctor Who → List of fictional creatures and aliens in Doctor Who — - Proposing the move per WP:LISTNAME, as this article is currently written in a list format. I think adding the word "fictional" helps to maintain that this article is not written from an in-universe perspective. I advocate removing humans from the list, as they are not a "creature" or "alien", but a real life species. --84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the talk page of WikiProject Doctor Who, to see if I can attract some feedback. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move request

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Moved to "List of creatures and aliens in Doctor Who". "Fictional" would clearly be redundant, but this is currently formatted as a list, thus WP:LISTNAME would seem to apply and advise the "List of" prefix (this is not a set index); and some commenters mentioned and voiced support for this. (Non-admin closure; there is a backlog). Cybercobra (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures and aliens in Doctor Who → List of fictional creatures and aliens in Doctor Who — Proposing the move per WP:LISTNAME, as this article is currently written in a list format. I think adding the word "fictional" helps to maintain that this article is not written from an in-universe perspective. I advocate removing humans from the list, as they are not a "creature" or "alien", but a real life species. --84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the talk page of WikiProject Doctor Who, to see if I can attract some feedback. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)—[reply]
  • Belated oppose This is unnecessary; creatures and aliens in a fictional work are per defenition "fictional". There is no need to point it out in the article's title. This article was recently moved to remove the "list of" part. Since there has been no input, I have reverted the move (which was executed way too soon). — Edokter • Talk • 21:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on, the requested move was listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves and was moved by an administrator. I put a notice on the talk page of WikiProject Doctor Who. While the use of the word "fictional" is of course debatable (although I think using it improves this article by helping to remove an in-universe tendancy that this page has, and this article would be better off by clearly stating that the creatures are fictional) the title you have reverted it to without debate is a clear violation of WP:LISTNAME. I am therefore requesting that this page be restored to the title it was moved to by request, and that a new move discussion be started if you have issues with that title. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly support that over the current title, which violates policy. I disagree that "fictional" is redundant however, could you explain your reasoning? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with brevity in the title. "Fictional" is superfluous as it is implied by "Doctor Who", and conceivably non-fictional ones might be included - see for example Mars in List of Doctor Who planets. And of course this fits in with titles of most other in-universe lists of characters etc, List of Doctor Who villains, List of Doctor Who items (not a great title), and so on and on. --93.96.136.249 (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Zombies

[edit]

Would the human corpses inhabited by the Gelth count as zombies? And if so, should zombies get their own section? dude1818 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, and no.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

should Weeping Angels get their own section now?

[edit]

considering they are going to appear again this season and because of their popularity as well, I think they probably should get their own section now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.115.176.197 (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When more information becomes available.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect request

[edit]

Went through the list and noticed the species of Time Lord is missing... is it not a species? If it is a species in the whoniverse, could you guys put a link to the wikipage. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.192.103 (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reorder of content

[edit]

I would recommend that canon and non-canon (including unknown canoniicity) entries on this page are separated. Ie. entries from the series are done in one section and those from other media in another. Obviously those that appear in both should appear in the series section but with a link to that section in the non-canon section. Further to this the entries in the 'series' section could be separated (in a similar way) into 'Original Series' and 'New Series' due to the large number of fans whose interest in the 'Original Series' is limited having not been born at the time it was shown as well as the large number of one off aliens in either series.This game would only be more real if a big spike shot out of the screen and skewered your head every time you crashed. (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Articles

[edit]

Does anyone else think that all the monsters should have thier own articles? SimpsonsFan08 talk contribs 19:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nahh, I don't think so. A lot of monsters really aren't significant enough, and only appear in a handful - if that - of episodes. Things like the Daleks, the Cybermen, the Ood etc. of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.81.150 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

now can the Weeping Angels get their own section now?

[edit]

they appeared on Doctor Who for more than one story and plus they have been getting as popular as other Doctor Who enemies who do have their own section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.115.176.226 (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They already have their own section. DonQuixote (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's suggesting that the Weeping Angels get their own page. Harry Blue5 (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Vampire (Doctor Who)

[edit]

I just merged the TV-related content from that article here per the AfD result. Trouble is, including all the non-televised entries would have made it too long, so I didn't merge these. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to merge them all without making the section very big? Alzarian16 (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've "been bold" and had a go, mostly by working on the principle that more detailed information about how vampires come into the books/audios/lolly sticks in question belongs on their own pages (I haven't checked thoroughly to see if it's always present, mind) because I think it is important that non-telly sources are recognised (they're elsewhere in the article, and thus doing otherwise in this one particular instance seems to me an issue under WP:WEIGHT in relation to the canonicity debate). Here is the diff of the final version of "Vampire (Doctor Who)" before the merge for the convenience of anyone wanting to improve it. --81.158.2.129 (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split article between the two continuities

[edit]

mixed in this article are races from both runs of the show, which seem so far to not share the same continuity. The races are written in a manner that it can be confussing for someone specifically only looking for races from one show or the other. It would seem resonable then to split the races between the two incarnations of the show, especially as many races are unique to one or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.94.72 (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't follow since they both share common races and at the same time each season or each Doctor or each era features its unique enemies, new series included. And it has been explicitly stated by the production team that the new show is a continuation of the old show, made even more concrete by the appearance of Elizabeth Sladen and Peter Davison. DonQuixote (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of Sarah Jane Smith in multiple episodes of the Tenth Doctor, the picture of the First Doctor on the Eleventh's library card, and that both the Tenth and the Eleventh have shown pictures of all the preceding Doctors seem to be solid indicators that the two sets of series are one continuity as fractured and confused it may be. The sealer of the deal however would be the meeting of the Fifth and Tenth Doctors in the "Time Crash" short which precedes the Titanic episode. LazarX (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weeping Angels

[edit]

I just watched the episode and it seemed from the doctor's conversation with Billy Shipton that each angel sends their victims to a specific time, not just to random times as the article suggests

22:18
Billy: How did I get here?
Doctor: Same way we did: Touch of an angel. Same one probably, since you ended up in the same year.

--Shadebug 12:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding here that I've edited the wording from "observed by any living creature" to "observed": the episode does not specify that the Angels must be observed by a living creature to become "quantum locked" -- just that they must be observed -- and in fact appears to treat the camera itself as an observer. I also rephrased the entry to remove repetition, and moved the reference to Schroedinger's Cat to parantheses by the first mention of "quantum locking" rather than the second. --Foetus In Fetu 01:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically the viewer can 'interact' with the episodes, and so the camera pan would be us, the viewer, observing the creature. Still, I don't exactly understand that. The angels get frozen as actuall statues when they see each other. Surely, as rock is not living, they can then move away?
Tricky. This is complicated by more than one thing. 1) Living things aren't necessarily special in quantum mechanics. Observation results from an interaction with another physical system. Whether this behaves as a measurement, projecting the system into one of many possible states, depends on the complexity of the larger system, and is bundled up with concepts of decoherence, and the von Neumann entropy of the greater system. 2) Even allowing for the necessity of observation by living things, in the episode, *Blink*, the Angels *were* motile, and presumably capable of some form of physical observation, when the TARDIS disappeared. They were frozen in the instant of observing one another. Were it possible for an individual Angel to become motile, it is allowable to assume that it could move, unimpaired by the presence of the non-motile Angels. Given that this is *not* observed, it seems reasonable to assume that all Angels are constantly tending towards motility, and therefore cannot move, as the more they tend towards motility, the more they are observing and observed, and thus frozen. 3) A reference is made in the article to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The process of quantum locking is in fact most reminiscent of the so-called Quantum Zeno effect (reference to *Blink* exists within that article). This effect is by no means taken to depend on the correctness of the Copenhagen interpretation. For that reason, I've changed the citation in the article to point to the QZE, rather than to the CI. Ché (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2 part special The End of Time, Rassilon refers to the two Time Lords who opposed his movement to break out of the time lock with "The weeping angels of old" who are seen on either side with their heads lowered and hands covering their eyes the same way the Weeping Angels are sometimes seen in other episodes. Does this imply that the origin of the Weeping Angels is that they were Time Lords who opposed Rassilon's rule or decisions at any point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.195.238 (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the Weeping Angels are the Time Lords who oppsed Rassilon's decision but more importantly the Time Lord who appears to Wilfred who the Dr. sees as well and seems to know. Who is she? Is she the first Weeping Angel and someone from either the Dr.'s family or perhaps even the Master's family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.111.22.58 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh/New Humans

[edit]

How do we know the Flesh seen in "The Rebel Flesh" and "The Almost People" is the same as that used to create the New Humans in "New Earth"? –anemoneprojectors– 14:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how they are at all. I went ahead and separated the two entries into 'New Humans' and 'Flesh'. The cats were making human clones of people in order to infect the clones with disease. They needed real humans to do this, not the sort-of copies that the Flesh seem to create. The only reason the cats called them the Flesh was because the New Humans were not given education of any kind and were only intended to be used for experimentation. As such, they only behaved as meat/flesh/bodies usually, but apparently somehow they were self-educating and able to speak, if only rudimentarily. -- Avanu (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've re-arranged the entries, putting the Gangers back to that title per the BBC Doctor Who website, and the "New Humans" (unless I'm much mistaken in no way properly named that to "Flesh". The two would need to be explicitly linked to connect them, either by a member of the production team in a WP:RS, or in a later episode. If this happens, brief info about Rebel Flesh/Almost People's Flesh can be added to the Flesh section, and the "not to be confused with Gangers" changed to "See also: Gangers". U-Mos (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Doctor_Who_creatures_and_aliens/Archive_2&oldid=1156077271"