Talk:Whoniverse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

K9 Adventures

As a non-BBC production with no BBC-owned characters, I wouldn't be so quick to categorise it as "definitely the canon", at least not until it's actually been broadcast. Daibhid C 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as such I've ammended the article for the time being. We can only wait for the series really, whe have no way to tell if it will fit canon at the moment. --GracieLizzie 13:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

I find the description of the Whoniverse page too simplistic and general- there seems a reluctance to expand any of the more interesting aspects which are fundamental themes of the television programmes which Doctor Who is built upon.

I could not disagree more. The notion of what is interesting is subjective, therefore the article should be broad as Whoniverse encompasses anything. Specific information belongs in specific articles, which are linked where appropriate - in context. Too much detail disrupts the flow from point to point, which as I left it was logically flowing from the concept of order (and touching upon the Black/White Guardians) to theology (Beast, ghosts, "nothing"), enclosing more on Earth and the uniqueness of Earth itself in the Whoniverse.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of things to consider here. Firstly, whether any expansions are original research, which we have to keep to an absolute minimum. Secondly, whether the information is actually of interest to non-fans, i.e. is it too fancrufty for an article of this nature. Actually, as it is, Whoniverse is not as good as it should be, but not because it doesn't include information like the Daleks being more advanced than the Time Lords, but because the real-world connections are sparse. If Whoniverse is to be a really good article, it needs more grounding in the real world, not trivia about whose technology is better. The criticism about "reluctance to expand any of the more interesting aspects" is not particularly constructive because there's no mention on what these "more interesting aspects which are the fundamental themes" are. In any case, all Wikipedia articles are works in progress.

The About Time books do a much better job of explaining the themes and cultural history behind the series precisely because Miles and Woods contextualise them properly. Rob77's edits don't really answer the question begged at the end of it: "So what?" and being so specific to Daleks and Time Lords it has no impact on the "Whoniverse" at large. It's just not particularly interesting in the context of the article. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research- come off it, anyone who writes this is going to be a fan who has watched it. How the hell can anyone write it otherwise? And regarding technology- you are writing about a show which has run for 43 years with its central tenet that the lead character is an alien capable of travelling in time and space and yet you claim that it isn't relevant to a description of the Universe. The technology portrayed in the show has always been integral to it and most of the shows from the beginning focus upon thje potentially destructive aspects of, and misuse stemming from, advanced technology. As for so what- they are the two most powerful races in the universe who fought a major war- yet you don't think their possession of such technology is relevant? As I said to Zythe, you can contextualize all you want, but such a ham-fisted approach to editing is at best pedantic and at worse showing a fundamental ignorance about the universe that you are supposedly trying to describe. Rob 12:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can write about Doctor Who in a real-world context. Go read History of Doctor Who, for example. You still don't seem to understand that this is a general article, and should be describing it in general terms, not chronicle every little event that takes place. You might be happier contributing to the TARDIS Index file, which doesn't have such constraints on notability, original research and other pedantic Wikipedia policies. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read that article- it describes the production of its history of the TV prog- and its relevance to an article describing a fictional universe is precisely zero. Your point is? It seems to have absolutely no connection to the debate in hand. Notability- you are suggesting that the Dalek possession of advanced technology in the context of Doctor Who is not notable? HAve you actually watched the last series? Perhaps the possession of that technology resulted in the events of the last two episodes? Which resulted in the potential collapse of two universes? And in what sense is the description of events as portrayed in a television series original research pray? Rob 13:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You keep talking about "fundamental themes". How is the acquisition of a piece of technology a "fundamental theme"? And yes, Dalek possession of advanced technology is not notable in relation to an article about the general features of a fictional universe. The impact has not changed any of the "fundamental themes" or features of the universe a whit. This is not an article about current events in the Doctor Who universe. This is an article about what the Doctor Who universe is. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

By that rationale- all mention of races, such as humanity, should be removed from the article. Why is it acceptable for statements to remain in such as "humans by the 51st century have aquired time travel" but not to remark on the development of void ship technology. And you seem to be missing the point which has been made continually, namely that it is impossible to understand the nature of the universe which you are seeking to describe without comprehending the impact which the possession of advanced technology by certain species has upon that universe. I would have thought that the "fracturing of realities" as portrayed in the last series is an event of quite substantial importance in the history of the universe, as it has certainly never been shown previously in the television programme- and yet you dismiss any reference to it as "description of current events." DO you not think that an event of this magnitude is worthy of a mention, even in passing, rather than being dismissed out of hand as a "current event?"Rob 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And what would be the impact of Void Ship technology upon the universe? Absolutely nothing. Fracturing of realities? Lasted two episodes. Never shown previously in the television programme? So what?

The development of time travel by humans is in the context of talking about Earth's future as portrayed in the show, not as some key event. It could also stand to be contextualised further, or removed as well. This is not a history of the Doctor Who universe. This is an article about the general features of the universe. I can't make it any plainer. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If this article is just about the universe then how can it possibly be acceptable to leave in a statement about something which supposedly happens in the future, which may or may not ever be portrayed on screen (or altered indeed) but not to leave in an event which has already happened? The Universe cannot be understood without a comprehension of what goes on inside it and what impinges upon it. You seem to think you have carte blanche to dictate what goes into any article relating to Doctor Who, and yet you have failed, once again, to answer a perfectly simple question, namely how can you understand the nature of the universe without appreciating the impact of the technology portrayed on it. FOr a supposed fan you are remarkably blinkered about this matter. I have a great deal of respect for Zythe, whose approach is far more conciliatory and is an excellent contributor, yet you seem to think that anyone elses opinion on Doctor Who is not worth having expressed. Rob 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me try once again to explain this: there is nothing to show that the Daleks obtaining Void Ship technology has any lasting impact on the universe. So to devote an entire paragraph to it seems out of place in a general article. In fact, very little technology, if at all, as portrayed in the Doctor Who universe has any impact on the universe at large, given the nature and scope of the fictional universe. You're trying to impart this particular event, the Void Ship, with a significance that is unwarranted in an article of this nature. I note you haven't answered any of my questions, either, the most important being: "So What?"

Your respect for me is not really of concern. What I'm concerned about is sticking to Wikipedia policies of no original research, proper citation and verifiability. You're free to ask for further opinions if you want. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that a species has the ability to develop a void ship and its impact or otherwise, is a fundamental aspect of the universe you are describing. You ask So What- because its science fiction- science as a result is quite important. What is the point of Doctor Who, you might as well ask. The fact that such an event is possible in the universe, is notable in itself- it is illustrative of the nature of a fictional setting, and the races that populate it. The specific reference to the void ship is because it is an example of the impact science can have in a fictional universe in which advanced science is prominent, as it is in most science fiction settings. As for respect- it has to be earnt. Although for someone who isn't bothered about it, you seem to be very keen to try and impress people, from the way you are keen to list your supposed achievments on your user page. Zythe, the principle contributor to this article, and I have discussed possible aspects for expansion already. You are, of course, welcome to read and contribute. Rob 17:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"The specific reference to the void ship is because it is an example of the impact science can have in a fictional universe in which advanced science is prominent, as it is in most science fiction settings." There are many, many such examples in the Doctor Who universe of advanced science — this is not any more significant as any other to be singled out. That's what I mean by too specific for a general article. Why this example, out of countless others, is what is meant by "So what?". "The very fact that a species has the ability to develop a void ship and its impact or otherwise, is a fundamental aspect of the universe you are describing." That sentence doesn't even make sense; an ability that a species has is a fundamental aspect? What does that even mean?

You and Zythe go ahead and work it out. Expansions of articles are welcome as long as they stick to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. You're right in that respect has to be earned; I simply do not care whether I earn yours or not. You're not that important to me. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You have little chance of so doing, I can assure you of that, so it is good that you don't care. THe void ship is one example, and was selected, as I have already explained previously, to demonstrate that the Daleks have exceeded even the Timelords in technological achievment. The ability of species to develop technology is essential to the fictional setting of a series about science fiction.It wouldn't be much cop as a science fiction series if noone could make scientific advances, would it? Makes perfect sense, you just seem to have difficulty appreciating the point being made. Anyway, have fun with the composing. Rob 18:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

One might point out that there is no evidence that the Daleks developed the Void ship themselves. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, but on the available evidence, it appears a fair supposition to make. Without some such deduction, there is precious little point in writing an article of this nature.

I maintain that the reference to Void Ships is totally unnecessary, and may I add that the 51st century line is an adaption of a line someone else added - I am not fond of it. The article does lack information regarding the Daleks - although does not require very much at all, perhaps as they have been mentioned will be sufficient or maybe a paragraph on fame and notoriety might be needed, describing Whoniverse celebrities and historical events, such as the Face of Boe, Time War etc.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much to say about the specifics of the "Features" section, except to agree that it really should be kept to a minumum, with links to more details in the appropriate articles. The opening paragraph, "Overview" and "Inclusion" sections seem more encyclopedic to me - I would suggest these sections be expanded, and more secondary sources cited (per the guidelines on writing about fiction). --Brian Olsen 05:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Temporal disposition of encyclopedic compilation.

[I can get away with that kind of language, given the subject of the article. ;)]

"These elements were codifed and consolidated once the original television series ended"

This is inaccurate. People were compiling such information long before production of the original series ceased. Suggest: "Over the years, These elements were codifed and consolidated..."

Also the specific mention of VHS in the same paragraph is superfluous—as well as incomplete, as many formats (including Betamax, U-Matic, various open-reel video formats, and even film) are involved. (This is really part of the subject of recovering lost episodes, anyway, rather than compilation of encyclopædia—the latter being based upon the entire body of the series, rather than just the recovered lost material.) —überRegenbogen 01:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely certain, but 84.64.167.23 (talk · contribs) possibly made those additions. Since I'm not familiar with the spin-off media, I left it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Why oh why?

This is just a fan term right? So forgive me, why the frak is it being implemented accross several articles? MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the use of Whoniverse in article titles or info boxes The Rift (Whoniverse) and such either, but I don't think it unreasonable for there to be a Whoniverse article. As there is a Buffyverse article and other similar articles on wikipedia too. --GracieLizzie 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is reasonable.. but the term suffixed to articles is imo so not. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I can see why it's being done, though; someone thought that neither Rift (Doctor Who) or Rift (Torchwood) was appropriate for something that plays a significant part in both series. The same principle is behind article titles like Vampire (Buffyverse). Daibhid C 17:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And for John Sheppard (Stargate) despite him (almost) only appearing on Stargate Atlantis.--Codenamecuckoo 19:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me that the most appropriate formal alternative would be "Doctor Who universe" (and "Stargate universe" in the cuckoo's example). Ultimately, "Whoniverse" doesn't bother me terribly, as long as it's used consistently; though i do feel that pang of weirdness due to it being an arguably casual term. —überRegenbogen 01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Though the term came from fandom, it is being increasingly adopted by the mainstream press. Just how strong a hold it has will probably depend on how long the show is popular with mainstream audiences. But the fact that we can cite where the word has appeared in a headline and in a piece detailing the events of a charity otherwise totally unrelated to Doctor Who suggests that the term has a growing applicability. CzechOut 07:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Features" section

I keep rereading the "Features" section and keep coming away dissatisfied. It lacks focus, but I'm not sure how quite to fix it. It's almost like there needs to be a "before RTD" and "after RTD" section. Or, to keep things in the spirit of the fiction, a "before Time War" and "after Time War" section.

The section makes a big deal out of "humanoid and other bipedal aliens" in its first sentence, but I don't buy that for a second. One of the features of the Whoniverse, as apposed to the Star Trek universe, is the relatively higher proportion\ of non-humanoid species. Laying to one side the three non-humanoid species in "The Web Planet" alone, you really gotta work hard to call a Dalek either humanoid or bipedal.

I almost feel as though the second paragraph of the section, with modifications, should be the first.

The third paragraph, about Earth, is perhaps the strongest. However, it's criminal, somehow, that no mention is made of the critical importance of the date in the modern Whoniverse Earth; namely the criticality of Aliens of London in setting up for all three series that "contemporary Earth" means one year than the year of first-run broadcast in Britain. In other words, right now, it's 2008 across the Whoniverse. The effect of having Earthbound characters ancilliary to the companion is that we see each new episode happens at a later moment on Earth, and that there is a ripple effect which subsequently spreads to the spin-off shows.

Does anyone else think the section needs a major overhaul? CzechOut 08:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

By all means, improve it but I don't agree with the before and after subsections, we should treat the entire series as a whole with distinctions in production era given in references. So yeah, mention Daleks and Macra, find books that comment upon the Star Wars comparison. Definitely talk about the one year later setting, although that could be expanded into a whole paragraph if you can somehow integrate the UNIT dating stuff in there. :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:canons

Really not sure about including this in category:canons. An article about the Whoniverse is not the same thing as an article about Doctor Who canon. Yes, it's probably appropriate to have a section, as currently exists, which explains the relationship of the two, but they aren't the same thing, surely? Something can be written which is set within the Whoniverse but isn't canon. Fan fiction describing a threesome between Captain Jack, the Ninth Doctor and Rose Tyler takes place in the Whoniverse, but no one mistakes that for a canonical story. Removing from canon cat, but feel free to re-include if you can honestly justify it here. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 06:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What the heck? I've just noticed that Doctor Who canon redirects here. Why? They are intersecting ideas, but they are by no means the same thing. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Features section: revisiting the subject

I agree with the previous section; this section is an utter heap. I am not sure whether to do an overhaul or put it to the torch - it is that much of a dumpster fire. I think the part that I find most frustrating is the nowiki caveat at the beginning of the section:

"This entire section is intended to summarize the fictional universe's features effectively. It IS NOT for trivia, and massive expansion on specific themes. It is simply meant to serve as a broad overview of the universe in which Doctor Who is set, with appropriate citations/footnotes and inline references. It is also not intended for geeky fan jargon and arguments - it should be understandable to anyone who is not a fan of the series."

The frustrating part of this paragraph is that the editor who wrote it actually thought that this was was going to keep out the cruft and trivia. Clearly, it has failed to do so. No, the better way to deal with this, IMO, is to break it into a few parts. The early Whoniverse, which discusses - in real world context the structures of the setting, characters, mores and lifeforms, given the constraints of television, scientific understanding, special effects, etc. Following that should be that part of the Whoniverse introduced by the books and radio programs - where words became far more important than visual effects. After that, the modern Whoniverse, wherein the advances in virtually every field touched upon in early episodes can be lushly explored in the modern era. Lastly (or perhaps initially), attention should be paid to those aspects of the Whoniverse that are constant and virtually unchanging, like the tardis, the Shadow Proclamation and the like.
Each of these sections need to avoid the fictional uses of the Whoniverse, instead focusing on why the writers, etc. saw fit to introduce these aspects and how they evolved. Certainly, with the level of media attention and consumer popularity of the series, we are at no loss for published sources. And withut a source, it quite simply does not go in. To my reckoning, it is the only way that this article can remain encyclopedic and free of cruft.
Thoughts? - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait a few more days and then I'll deal with it. That way, no one can say they weren't warned. :) - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion and continuity?

These are all direct quotes from the BBC Charter([ http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/agreement.pdf] ):

1)The BBC must not charge any person, either directly or indirectly...

d) any other service that is ancillary to one or more programmes or items of content so included, and directly related to their contents.

(and later)

2) However "commercial services" do not include the following -

c)licensing or otherwise disposing of rights in anything created for the purposes of the BBC's public services.

Thus, anything which the BBC had either rented out or sold the rights of to a third party in order to generate money is NOT part of the "BBC Commercial Services" and certainly NOT part of the "BBC's public services". Since the BBC os set up primarily as a Public Service, such items exist outside the BBC property, and are thus "non-canon". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS

Someone has added a BLOG as a WP:RS. it's not even a blog by someone working for a reliable source, such as a Telegraph Blog, NYT blog. So what about these? [1], [2]. But then there's this: [3]. Note #12. 41.133.1.212 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

http://members.tripod.com/box_of_delights/6b.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.1.212 (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Canon citations

Perryman (2008), "Doctor Who and the Convergence of Media", Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14(1): 21–39 - article with plenty of material on 'canon' and 'continuity', to provide some more citations. Bondegezou (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You need an account there to read it.

Certain anachronisms

Had Sydney Newman or Verity Lambert heard talk of a "Whoniverse", they likely would have had no idea what that was even supposed to mean. The original creators/writers did not create a "fictional universe". They created fictional characters and fictional storylines. However, like all proper science fiction, it was set within the universe. Much of early Doctor Who was actually a thinly disguised children's educational show, where they learned about science and real historical figures. This would make no sense whatsoever if it was supposed to be set in a "fictional universe". In fact, in the 60's, 70' and early 80's, the very concept and idea of a BBC Drama show being set within a sealed, self-contained "fictional universe" would have been incomprehensible to pretty much all viewers. The "Fictional universe" idea came about with American comics. While the term "Doctor Who Universe" was used in the 80's, it was used to refer things like the DWAS, fan conventions, Doctor Who Magazine, DWB etc. The "Doctor Who Universe" was thus all the real-world activities and organisations of Doctor Who fandom. Peter Haining was part of the Doctor Who Universe. Vislor Turlough was not. It was only in the 1990's with the Virgin new Adventures, and their total revision of what Doctor Who was even supposed to be that the idea that Doctor Who took place in this "Whoniverse" began to take hold. It should also be noted that the later BBC novels Interference actually feature a bottle universe, where the Virgin Books and their "Whoniverse" adventures can take place, separate to the real universe that the rest of Doctor Who(including the tv show) take place. However, internet usage, as well as RTD's full belief in the "Whoniverse" with his relaunched show(2005) now make it "obvious" to younger fans that there was always such a thing. This is absolutely wrong. You can speak of a "Doctor Who Universe" for something like The Stolen Earth/Journey's End, but saying that Sydney Newman and Verity Lambert created a "fictional setting" or that the early writers such as Terry Nation "developed the Doctor Who Universe" is both anachronistic and ignorant. It's really only in the Sylvester Mccoy/Seventh Doctor Era that this term begins to be used in the way this article ludicrously claims was there from the beginning. Malcolm Hulke never wrote any Doctor Who stories set in a "fictional Doctor Who Universe". he wrote fictional stories with fictional characters that were set in the real world. It is completely and utterly wrong to state that anyone before the mid-to-late-80's ever had any part in creating a "fictional Doctor Who Universe". 41.132.178.85 (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Er, what?

Someone added a "citation needed" tag to a very relevant(and unsourced) piece of information. User:Mezigue had reinstated that tag, making some rather offensive comments in the edit summary. He/she has done this five times in the past 36 hours. What he/she has refused to do is provide a source as to why he/she continues to remove a valid tag. And yet, the article is now semi-protected using Mezique's unsourced version. So the lesson here is apparently "Feel free to remove tags asking for Reliable Sources, and feel free to do so multiple times in one day. The article will be protected WITHOUT the tags. Reliable Sources? Citations? Who needs them?" This is very disappointing, and totally illogical. 41.133.0.152 (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You add a "citation needed" tag after "fictional universe" and you expect it to stay? Mezigue (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And yet you failed to add a WP:RS. Can you provide a reason for that? All you've done is break the WP:3RR constantly remove a valid cn tag, without providing a RS? This topic was brought up on the discussion page, yet you completely ignored the discussion, and just relentlessly vandalised the article. Without explaining why, and actually making offensive comments in your edit sumamries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.179.212 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not make offensive comments. I wrote "har har" because I assumed it was a joke that someone is asking for sources that the Doctor Who universe is fictional. If you think you can make a point on Wikipedia incidentally by going around reverting all of a user's contributions and marking them as vandalism as you have been doing, you are quite mistaken. Mezigue (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with Mezigue - the tag was thoughtlessly placed. Deb (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue is the appropriate essay to point to. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you need to cite that the sky is blue and there are no Daleks flying in it. Mezigue (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Pleas epost your comments at the bottom of a section, otherwise it looks like you posted it earlier than you did, or people may not notice it atal. And once again you ignore rational discussion, and make unfunny jokes. Have you actually read the discussion? Do you have something to add, even if it's a refutation of what is being discussed? Do you have any WP:RS to back up your position? 41.132.179.212 (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No - I post my comments below the comments I am replying to. They are time-stamped so I don't see how confusion is possible. Mezigue (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's a page from a book:

[4]

Here's a review from a well-known and often referred to website of the audio "Human Resources": [5] Note the bit in the middle, I'll quote it here:

However, what really made Part 1 so enjoyable for me was the writer’s vibrant depiction of contemporary England. To rehearse a tired observation, Doctor Who is often at its zenith when present-day Earth is under threat from alien aggressors. Nevertheless, for this to work, the audience has to really believe that this world is their world. It has got to seem real, or the device falls flat.

And here's an oft-quoted bit from Malcolm Hulke(DWM #91) usually used to prove something else. However,

There was a peculiar relationship between the Master and the Doctor… you see the Doctor was the only person like him, at the time, in the whole universe, a renegade Time Lord and in a funny sort of way they were partners in crime.

Not "in the Whoniverse", "in the whole universe".

I am searching for a piece by Sydney Newman circa 1963 which stresses the importance of making Doctor Who realistic. Because it was originally a semi-educational show for children, with real physics and real historical figures. Not some US comic book fantasy garbage. The only thoughtlessness here is the tremendous OR and POV in removing a tag. You want to say that that Russell T. Davies or the Virgin Books line set Doctor Who in a "Whoniverse"? Fine, nobody is disputing that. However, the totality of Doctor Who was most definitely not set in some "fictional setting", and Sydney Newman, Verity Lambert and the rest of the actual creators never created a "fictional universE". They created fictional characters and storylines set in the real world. [6].

I suggest the original paragraph be rephrased. This is a proper discussion. Arrogantly removing valid tags with no discussion, and mocking other editors is not called for. Can you provide a Wp:RS that there was always supposed to be a "Whoniverse"? Can you provide a WP:RS that Sydney Newman or the any of the other original creators ever intended Doctor Who to take place in a "fictional setting"? No, that idea came much later, and even proponents of the "Whoniverse" such as Tat Wood admit that there are two conflicting takes, the "Whoniverse" and "The Real World with a few details smudged"(this is from one of the About Times, will search for exact phrase). There is also a rather bitter and disparaging essay about Continuity in About Time 6 where they tear into Attack of the Cybermen and the Saward era in general because the production team made the show to be set in the real world, rather than in some fictional universe. So again, do you have WP:RS to back up your reason for arrogantly removing a valid tag? 41.132.179.212 (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

More...

The article looks like it was written by a 12-year-old. The original meaning of "Doctor Who Universe" as used by the WP:RS from 1983 was only the real-world activities, fans, production etc. aspects, NOT some "Doctor Who fictional universe". It is tremendous OR and POV to state: Before the expansion of the Doctor Who fictional universe, the term "Whoniverse" referred to everything connected with the programme, both in-universe and behind-the-scene or the "Whoniverse" originally described both narrative intent and viewer reaction, plot and production, studio floor and convention hall. Wrong! It is only people who blithely go into these sorts of discussions or topics assuming(like User:Mezigue) that there was always a "Doctor Who Universe"(a so-called 'fictional setting') that would then say the term meant both meanings. It originally only meant the real-world aspects involving fandom, production etc. The usage that someone laughably compared to the sky being blue(it's grey right now btw) only came into usage much later. And it is tremendous OR, SYNTHESIS and worse to then claim that there was originally a double meaning. The term "Doctor Who Universe" in its original meaning(and the only meaning at the time) was about the production crew, fan conventions etc. Saying anything more is fabrication. It is also beyond pure OR to equate the terms "Doctor Who television series" and "Whoniverse" or "Doctor Who continuity" and "Whoniverse". This whole article reads like it was written by somebody who went in with an arrogant sense of superiority, and then twisted and distorted WP:RS from over the years to suit his/her POV viewpoint. The earlier usages of "Doctor Who Universe" that ARE Reliably Sourced do NOT refer to the term that this article spouses. There are NO RS whatsoever that Newman, Lambert etc. ever created a "fictional universe" or "kept developments of its fictional universe". The term "Whoniverse" in its modern meaning is a neologism, and the earlier sources do not refer to this term. Likewise, just because the term exists now does not mean that you can retroactively claim that Sydney Newman created and developed a Whoniverse back in the 60's! And some of the latter-day Sources that use "Doctor Who Universe" DO actually use the term in its original, non-"fictional setting" meaning! This article is a mess, and needs a major rewrite. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"So fix it". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the whole point of starting a discussion is so that everyone can make suggestions, and then the agreed on changes be made by consensus. While the term "Whoniverse" can be Reliably Sourced to its modern meaning, there is nothing at all to suggest that it has always existed, or even that the concept has always existed. Maybe something explaining how it is a modern term. I would like to say that it grew out of 1980's comic book fandom, but then I would need to find a RS. The other problem is that there are TWO "Doctor Who Universes", the one that this article refers to, and the original meaning, and it's probably wrong to conflate them. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's probably right to conflate them. Deb (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Why? Are you suggesting to have one umbrella article where both meanings are discussed? Or are you suggesting that we actually try and claim that two different concepts/ideas that happen to have the same name be treated as a single concept? 41.132.179.212 (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The article currently states that the word has been used for both the fictional universe and the real-life "scene" but that it is now mostly used for the former. There are a few sources in the article for that. If you think it is wrong, correct and source, but don't put a "citation needed" tag after "fictional universe" because that is just silly. The setting of a sci-fi show is fictional by definition. Mezigue (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS for that? Did you read the link from Doctor Courtney Brown I provided above? 41.132.179.212 (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Why? Does he say that Doctor Who is real? Mezigue (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your attempts at humour aren't helping at all. He obviously does not say that Doctor Who is real. But his comments are:

SNAPSHOT: It has long been known that science fiction often seeks to foretell future technological developments. But it is also true — although less often noted — that science fiction has often offered explicit commentaries on the political and social evolution of our societies. Fritz Lang’s biting critique of human society in his science fiction movie "Metropolis," and H.G. Well’s similarly powerful perspective on social and political development as portrayed in his novel "The Time Machine," are two such examples. This freshman seminar examines the role of science fiction as a powerful vehicle for social and political commentary, especially as it relates to the evolutionary tendencies of human societies.

EXTENDED VIEW: Science fiction is a literary genre of speculative fiction within which an author may extrapolate with respect to the evolution of our society. Unlike the fantasy genre that does require the author to connect an imaginary world with the real world, nearly all science fiction must in some way resonate with a reader’s understanding of current or potential problems of this world with little or no ambiguity. Thus, when the plot of a science fiction novel takes place in the future, it is clear that the author wishes the reader to imagine a possible future that could potentially evolve from the current world. The reason for doing this may be to show how an aspect of contemporary society which may seem of minor significance at present develops in the future into a horrific problem or dilemma. For this reason, science fiction is at its best when it depicts how our human societies may evolve — not just technologically — but socially and politically as well.

Science fiction commentary on social and political evolution is best identified through broad categories, many of which have long occupied the attention of social scientists. A number of such categories that are often (and sometimes profoundly) addressed by science fiction are listed below:

1. The struggle between collectivism and individualism 2. Population growth and environmentalism 3. Utopianism (portrayed through the lenses of anarchism, class struggle, pastoralism, Marxism and socialism) 4. Dystopianism (the flip-side of "utopianism") 5. The politics of gender 6. Artificial intelligence, slavery, and political reason 7. Bioengineering and the value of artificially created genetic strains among both humans and non-humans 8. Apocalypse and war 9. Corporatism, cyberpunk, and technological dependency 10. The struggle to control the evolutionary development of a civilization following the collapse of a previous social or political order (involving religious, political, economic, and technological themes)

This course introduces students to many of the political and social ideas listed above from the perspective of science fiction. Thus, this a course about politics, not science fiction. Science fiction is a vehicle that lends itself well to isolating the crucial elements inherent in the political and social debates which can be found in the above categories. This course is designed to enliven a greater understanding of the seriousness of such debates by allowing science fiction to guide the tone of the discussions. In many cases, this will occur through a careful examination of the extrapolations from our current human condition made by science fiction authors to futures in which problems only hinted at in contemporary society become major elements of social and political organization.

Again, you are confusing fictional characters and fictional storylines with a fictional universe. It is OR(and a complete misunderstanding of the fundamentals of science fiction) to assume that any fiction must be set in a "fictional universe". Nearly all science fiction features fictional characters existing in the real world. Indeed, for science fiction to work at all, it must take place in the same "universe" as the reader/watcher/listener. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Did he actually write "H.G. Well’s" [sic]? Deb (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "real world" as portrayed in Doctor Who is part of an "fictional universe" in the most obvious sense. The real "real world" has never had an organisation called UNIT or a prime minister called Harriet Jones. Deb (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. Russell T. davies clearly subscribes to the "Whoniverse" idea that Mezigue takes for granted. However, a)this is not the only definition of "Doctor Who Universe" b)this is not the original definition of "Doctor Who Universe" c)this definition of "Doctor Who Universe" is a recent one d)Science Fiction by its definition exists in the real world e)There is nothing at all to suggest that anyone at least up to the Eric Saward era was ever making a show set in a "fictional universe" f)the article uses the term "Whoniverse" to refer back to the origins of Doctor Who and states as fact that there was always a "fictional Doctor Who Universe", that the original showrunenrs intentionally created/expanded a "fictional Doctor Who Universe" and one editor has made multiple jokes about anyone who doesn't swallow that whole as fact. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing at all to suggest that anyone at least up to the Eric Saward era was ever making a show set in a "fictional universe". Yes there is: it is full of fictional planets and creatures. Mezigue (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You're kidding surely? You can't possibly be being serious. Just because there are fictional characters does not mean that the setting' has to be a "fictional universe". There are millions of shows with fictional characters and fictional businesses that are supposed to be set in reality. Because if they were set in some "fictional universe" the whole point of the show would be lost. Do you believe in a "CSI universe"? Or a "Fawlty Towers universe"? Or a "Modern Family universe"? Or a "Hell's Kitchen universe"? You seem to be deliberately ignoring the points that have been cited, and are just blithely sticking to a debunked position, based on...what exactly? 41.132.179.212 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of a difference between fictional planets and fictional people, don't you? Deb (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? 41.132.179.212 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are human beings and there are aliens. In the real universe, we don't know whether aliens exist. We know of the existence of many planets as well as knowing which of them are likely to support life. So any TV programme that shows people living on Mars (for example) is set in a universe which isn't the one we live in; even more so for any programme that shows humanoids living on planets with made-up names. Whereas a programme that includes a person called "John Smith" could be based on the known universe even if that particular individual called "John Smith" doesn't exist in real life. The universe as portrayed in, say, "Coronation Street", is not fictional because it makes frequent reference to real people such as the Queen, whereas the universe as represented in "Star Trek" is fictional because it includes references to historical events that never happened in the real universe (not to mention the parallel universes that often crop up in sci-fi).

Another aspect of this discussion is the intended meaning of the word "universe". In terms of Doctor Who, I tend to interpret it in the sense of "a field or sphere, as of thought or activity, regarded as a distinct, comprehensive system", rather than "All existing matter and space considered as a whole".

Sorry, but that is your POV. Which can not be verified. It's very interesting that you mention Star Trek existing in a "fictional universe". Tis was clearly never the intention of Gene Roddenberry. In fact, one Trekkie obsession points this out crystal clear. In an episode of TOS(set in the 23rd Century) it was revealed that the first space shuttle has been called "Enterprise". However, when NASA later announced the construction of the first space shuttle, they announced its name would be 'Constitution'. This was met with horror form millions of Trekkies, who petitioned(bombarded) NASA until the shuttle was renamed 'Enterprise'. This action would have made no sense whatsoever had it been Roddenberry's intention that Star Trek take place in a "fictional universe". Just as the continuity-heavy Attack of the Cybermen would have been unnecessary at all had it been the BBC's intention that either Attack or the earlier The Tenth Planet be set in some fictional "Whoniverse".... Real science-fiction does not necessarily mean Earth. Some of the best-loved and most respected SF involves other worlds or aliens. The point is that it is done in a realistic, believable, credible manner. Is anyone saying that Cybermen or Klingons actually exist? No, but they are races that conceivably could exist. And as Dr Brown's essay said, much of sf is making future predictions, or future warnings, based on what we know today. Thus something like 2001:A Space Odyssey, made in 1968. In 1968 it was High Sci-Fi, and entirely believable. Viewed today, it bears no resemblance to the 2001 we all lived through, but it was always supposed to be a realistic prediction of what 2001 could believable hold in store, albeit from a 1968 perspective. Just as something made today that predicts events in, say, 2030, would look believable today(if done properly), but hopelessly dated by 2050. Just because the Sc-Fi writers of the past didn't have 100% accuracy with their predictions of future events does not mean their works were intentionally set in "fictional universes". By the way the definition of "universe" is:

u·ni·verse [yoo-nuh-vurs] Show IPA noun 1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm. 2. the whole world, especially with reference to humanity: a truth known throughout the universe. 3. a world or sphere in which something exists or prevails: his private universe. 4. Also called universe of discourse. Logic. the aggregate of all the objects, attributes, and relations assumed or implied in a given discussion. 5. Also called universal set. Mathematics . the set of all elements under discussion for a given problem

In any case, nobody has provided a WP:RS that Doctor Who was originally conceived to be set in a "Doctor Who Universe". Just as WP:RS do' show that the original meaning of "Doctor Who Universe" was not what this article is about, and it is still strewn with problems. But the point is, it can be verified today that the term "Doctor Who Universe" is used by some people today in the sense that Mezigue and you are using it. The problems are that a)There is NOTHING that suggests the original Doctor Who(1963-1989) was ever set in this "fictional universe" and b)there is another, totally different, second meaning of "Doctor Who Universe", which is actually the original meaning, and many WP:RS using it in that sense have been used to try and prop up the "fictional universe" meaning. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This action would have made no sense whatsoever had it been Roddenberry's intention that Star Trek take place in a "fictional universe". Yes, clearly that would have made no sense! Thank god this embarrassing situation was avoided. Mezigue (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Your poor attempts at humour aren't helping this discussion at all. If you have nothing productive to add, then it may be best not to make those sort of comments at all. It is interesting that you have yet to provide a WP:RS, or indeed anything at all that isn't disruptive. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

But you can't pretend you have supplied a WP:RS for your comments. "Tis was clearly never the intention of Gene Roddenberry. In fact, one Trekkie obsession points this out crystal clear." If this is the best you can do in terms of verification, you can't really expect to be taken seriously when you talk about unprofessional edits and the need for references. Deb (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can't pretend you provided a reliable source when you talked about how Star Trek had things that never happened in history, and that must therefore mean Star Trek takes place in a "fictional universe". Since you made a source-free remark, I responded with the Enterprise/Constitution story, which illustrates the reality. You never provided a source for anything you said. I could provide sources for the Shuttle Enterprise tale, and then User:Mezigue was just plain rude and disruptive. And all you have managed to do is point out typos in my posts. You yourself have yet to provide anything even remotely resembling a WP:RS. But either way, this isn't about Star Trek. This is about the "Doctor Who Universe". And the facts remain:

1)There is NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING that ever suggests that Doctor Who, at any point during the 'Classic Series'(63-89) was ever set in a "fictional universe". I have asked and re-asked for anything to back up this position that the article now wrongly claims. All I've been met with are criticisms of typos and Mezigue's so-called "jokes".

2)The term "Doctor Who Universe" was coined to refer to the activities of fans, the production company, conventions etc. Many of the WP:RS make this clear. And yet, this article falsely claims that those sources support Mezigue's definition of "Doctor Who Universe". Which they must certainly do not.

3)There are actually WP:RS which use the term "Doctor Who Universe" in its modern-day term. And for this reason something like the article in that state should remain. However, a)it is a blatant falsehood to state that people like Newman ever had anything to do with a "fictional universe" and b)the RS that use the term in its original definition have NOTHING to do with this article.

4)You may complain about my lack of WP:RS, but that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that we have a rambling article that is mostly propped up by sources that have nothing to do with the article they are cited as sources for, and hot air and POV. Take a look at WP:BURDEN. If this article is not cleaned up, then it must get heavily edited/pruned to even begin to approach a standard that is acceptable for Wikipedia. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, one thing that I thought didn't need pointing out(I may very well have been wrong) is that this is not Wiktionary. This is not a place to list definitions of a word or term. It would be like having one article for "turkey" and then talking about both the country and the bird. And since the first paragraph uses the term exclusively to refer to the "fictional setting" of Doctor Who, that must therefore be the article's subject. Mention of the usage in its original definition may be interesting as a diversion, but it is not what the article is about. It's about the so-called "fictional setting", and sources that use the term in its original definition therefore can not be used to support this article's shaky foundation.

The other remarkable thing is that while the term is used in Mezigue's definition, does any source actually explain the definition? We may have sources referring to a "Whoniverse", but is there actually a WP:RS that explains the term? otherwise this entire article is WP:OR. Which added to the rather arrogant stitching together of unsourced material and POV pushing must take WP:SYNTHESIS to previously unplumbed depths.

Someone suggest that I "go for it" in terms of cleaning up this mess. I have tied to discuss this rationally. Mezigue's response was to make offensive "jokes". In the absence of properly sourced material using(and actually defining) the term "Whoniverse" as a "fictional setting of Doctor Who", then falsely claimed and/or unsourced parts of this article will start being removed, and as per WP:BURDEN they will not be allowed to be reinstated without proper WP:V WP:RS. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not made any "offensive jokes" ; I have used mild sarcasm. To recap, after your long rants about the words "Doctor Who universe" being misused in this article, you appear to have finally noticed that they are in fact not used at all. Good, that's progress. Now, as you point out the article is about the universe in which the show is set and uses the word Whoniverse to refer to it. The "original usage" section is probably needed in case some extremely pedantic editor (they exist!) might complain that this is not what the word means. So best not remove it. After that, you have not really made clear what it is you want changed about the article. Mezigue (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No. That is not what I said and you know it. I have repeated my position several times. If you refuse to actually answer what has been said, and attempt to put words in my mouth, then trying to discuss anything with you is pointless. Everything I have to say was explicitly stated in my previous post(s). Those points still stand, and your attempt at confusing the issue is irrelevant. What I said remains fact. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Started editing

I have now begun removing unsourced sections, WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS etc. More may well be removed. There 'are sources using "Whoniverse" in the sense that User:Mezigue espouses. Thus a properly Reliably Sourced article about the "fictional place" known as the "Whoniverse" can indeed be put together. The problems/concerns again are:

1)There is nothing at all to state that the "fictional Doctor Who Universe" was ever mentioned before 1992!

2)People conflating Haining's definition with Loccifier's meaning, and using "Doctor Who Universe"(original meaning) sources to support the "Whoniverse" meaning.

3)Long OR paragraphs that go on and on about the "Whoniverse" without a single proper WP:V WP:RS.

I am certainly very keen to discuss how the article should be reworded. I have asked this before and was met with "sarcasm", and criticism of a couple of typos I made. Specifically the very first paragraph. The first paragraph as it stands now wrongly(and without anything even remotely resembling a WP:RS) states that Doctor Who always existed in a "fictional setting". As we can see, before 1992 that was never stated. And after 1992 it is far from uniformly agreed upon. However, we can make an article about the beliefs of those who post-1992 do use the term "Doctor Who Universe" in its other meaning(ie. a "fictional universe"). It just needs rewording. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there an online Radio Times archive? I'm searching the web for WP:V/WP:RS"Whoniverse", but have only met with results such as [7] so far. Will continue looking...41.132.179.212 (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear [8]. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Found something [9]. here the quotes that mention "Whoniverse":

The Universal Databank is a creative exercise in retroactive continuity. In other words, I believe that it is impossible to make all the elements of the Whoniverse fit into a coherent continuity based simply on the information given on the show. Some creativity has to be brought into play.

That is the problem with fiction. Trying to encapsulate it in a book of this nature is like taking photographs of shadows. Not only is it a matter of point of view, but shadows also change. So the best advice to be given to those readers who brook little disagreement with their own views of how the fictional Whoniverse should be arranged, is: read no further, go write your own book.(NB:This appears to be the first actual WP:RS to support this article!)

If you disagreed with that, you'll positively despise this book. On the other hand, if you found "History of Mankind" enjoyable, you may equally derive some pleasure from exploring the mind-boggling expanse of the Whoniverse, which is ultimately the purpose of this work.

Doesn't mention "Whoniverse", but -- I have NOT included any material from the Missing Season, New Adventures, Missing Adventures, BBC Books, Stage Plays, Radio Plays and Comics (DWM and/or strips) because, frankly, I consider these "apocrypha" and not pure "canon";

-- I have NOT included material from the recent Eighth Doctor TV movie (even though I ought to have done so) because I've been too lazy to update this work for the Net; :-)

On the other hand, this also means that my own, personal interpetation of what transpired in the Whoniverse may differ from the works of other writers. To quote but two examples, the history of the Daleks presented here follows a chronology slightly different from that of John Peel. The history of the Cybermen equally conflicts with David Banks' version. Like archeologists studying the records of long-dead civilizations, it doesn't mean that any of us are wrong -- simply that we followed different sets of rules.

41.132.179.212 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

More rambling unsourced OR has been removed. I have also done something that nobody else in the years this article has existed ever thought to do...I have added a link to a BBC America page called "Your Guide to the Whoniverse". Perhaps that link can be sued to salvage this article, and make ti into something Wikipedia-worthy? I may start using information from that soon, as others seem more interested in being sarcastic. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this section Unlike the owners of other science fiction franchises, the BBC takes no position on which Doctor Who stories are definitive for future projects.[2][page needed] The show has no 'canon', and indeed, recent producers of the show have expressed distaste for the idea. actually relevant to the article? Someone stated rather strongly on this discussion page that "Doctor Who canon" and "Whoniverse" are two separate concepts. Certainly the source does not mention the "Whoniverse", it is merely a statement on canon. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)