Talk:Whoniverse/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

usage - a few links

These might be of use in supporting one viewpoint or the other

• Matt Smith tweet using term - possibly including everything
• "Greek Myth in the 'Whoniverse' " Open University arts and history but might not be RS as PhD student.
• WHO's the Doctor? Sylvester McCoy BBC Ariel
• "Why the Doctor never dies" BBC blog
• The Sarah Jane Adventures BBC Writersroom blog Phil Ford
• "...you can keep updated on what’s going on in the Whoniverse... " doctorwhosavetheday website

GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The first one uses Haining's definition(which hurts more than helps this article), especially since it's by Matt Smith!

The second one uses it in the Loccifier meaning, but doesn't really give anything what the "Whoniverse" is.

The third one uses it in the Loccifier meaning, but just uses it in a throwaway sentence.

The fourth one is undeniably a blog, and is ambiguous about its usage anyway.

The fifth one is also a blog, but uses the Haining definition.

The sixth one uses the Haining definition.

Thus out of six links, three are undeniably the original Haining definition(unrelated to this article, except for the "Original Meaning" paragraph, and wouldn't that be odd if the original meaning bit far outweighed the subject of the article itself?), one is ambiguous, and the two that do use "Whoniverse" in this article's meaning don't really say anything about "Whoniverse". 41.132.179.212 (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You asked above if there was a fictional "CSI universe". I think the answer to that would have to be Yes, there is. Do you believe that the events of CSI actually took place? No? then it is a fictional universe. The Wikipedia page on Fictional universes defines them as a setting with elements that differ from the real world. Unless you believe that there are actually Daleks on a planet called Skaro, then the Whoniverse is a fictional universe. G S Palmer (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length. Some of the stuff(but far from all)

1)It is pure OR and POV what you say above.

2)There is nothing that says that Doctor Who was ever supposed to be set in a "fictional universe". In fact, the earliest usage of that is from 1992.

3)The material you reinstated has NO WP:RS. Thus it has to go. Please see WP:BURDEN. Otherwise, I'll quote:

The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

Did you do that? No. Therefore it can safely be removed, and anyone wishing to restore that long rambling mess of OR must provide proper WP:V WP:RS that state what they wish the "Features" paragraph to claim, otherwise they can not add the material. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It's also notable that the fictional universe article appears to be without proper WP:RS. In fact the entire first three paragraphs which lay out what a "fictional universe" is do not have a single source at all! And even if we accept that totally unsourced information as "fact", then we would still have to use complete WP:OR and WP:POV to try and connect that to Doctor Who. User: G S Palmer seems to believe that by writing a lengthy unsourced POV section, that that section then becomes its own self-promoting WP:RS. It doesn't. That lengthy "Features" section did not contain a single source for any of the information it claimed. Furthermore, it was mostly peoples' personal interpretations. As such, there is no place for it in a Wikipedia article. If anyone is able to find Reliably Sourced, verifiable information about "the features of the Whoniverse", then it can be added to the article. However, the section that was stitched together out of POV and OR with not a single Source to be found simply can not be allowed to exist in a Wikipedia article. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There has been no consensus to change this article, despite what you seem to think. In fact, by my count, most of the editors present seem to disagree with you. There has only been you talking very loud and using vast amounts of semi-related information to "back up" your point, as you did here, in an argument you finally lost. G S Palmer (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well the reason I "lost" that discussion was because even though I had an enormous amount of WP:RS, there were people who insisted that the information was WP:SYNTHESIS. In other words taking Reliably Sourced information, and building something out of it that none of the Sources actually state.

This article is far worse than just WP:SYNTHESIS This article has one WP:RS. Loccifier's Foreword to his 1992 book. There he describes the "Whoniverse" as a fictional place. he also states that this is just his take on things, that only the televisions episodes "count", and that he is full aware that others may disagree with him, and that he doesn't claim to be "right". Subsequently there are two articles(both from the past few years) that use "Whoniverse" in this sense in passing.

And remember, according to Wikipedia Policy, and this should not have to be repeated, all information requires WP:RS. WP:RS that can be WP:V. Anything that fails this can be removed and it is the WP:BURDEN of the person adding or restoring to WP:V the Sources. of course, in this case the "Features" paragraph(to name just one) had no Sources, Reliable or otherwise. It was a rambling wall of text that was purely the opinion of one person(or a small group of people). As it had literally nothing to support it, it had to be deleted. Just as any lengthy POV essay that is completely unsourced should be deleted. Again, please read(and re-read) WP:BURDEN. Material that is unsourced can be removed. Unsourced material can not be added or restored unless properly WP:RS. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Problem that will hopefully be resolved soon

User:G S Palmer has reverted the article back to an earlier state. The version that had long, rambling totally unsourced paragraphs and weasel words and he/she has even removed several WP:RS that User:GraemeLeggett and I added. Unfortunately, he/she has now reported me for "edit warring". If only he/she had discussed the issues properly on the talk page. Sadly, another well-meaning editor has reverted it back to the earlier sprawling mess again. Hopefully the article can be corrected, and people can try and make it something useful and acceptable for Wikipedia. User:G S Palmer failed to provide one source for the lengthy "Essay" section, and for some reason removed the various WP:RS that have been added recently. So, he/she removed newly added RS, and reinstated totally unsourced poorly-written information. And then, he/she reported me for being disruptive, which led to another editor restoring it to the unencyclopedic version again. Let's just hope this matter is properly resolved, and that people such as [[GraemeLeggett], me, and hopefully others can get back to trying to clean up this article. It's just a pity User:G S Palmer chose to ignore the discussion here, as well as all the work and effort that we have put into trying to improve the article. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

From now on we take the 'constructive' approach. I have reverted to the 'clean' version from which both of you can add sourced information. If additions are disputed, talk them out here. This is a better method then trying to clean up from an old, broken article. — Edokter (talk) — 20:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

From my point of view (as I see I was mentioned in the discussion on the noticeboard), I was happy to let the anon user make edits and wait to see if the article is improved by them. I had not yet looked at it by the time the matter was escalated. Deb (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Questions/Comments

I have not been on Wikipedia since the Edit War warning. However, I see others have made edits. I just have three questions/comments.

1)The original "citation needed" tag for "fictional setting" was a citation needed to show that Doctor Who was always set in a "fictional universe". Linking to the Wikipedia "fictional universe" article doesn't fulfill that. We can certainly find WP:RS that at least Russell T. Davies intended his Doctor Who and spin-offs to be set in the "Whoniverse". However, the article is deceptively phrased now, as it implies that Doctor Who was always set in this "Whoniverse".

2)Is this article about the "fictional setting" of the "Whoniverse" or the production/fans/convention "Whoniverse"? These are two separate concepts. Should they be treated as a single concept merely because they share a name?

3)'Canon'. Is this relevant to the "Whoniverse". Earlier on this discussion page someone stated that the "Whoniverse" and "Doctor Who canon" are not the same thing. We can find RS about Doctor Who and canon, but does that have any real significance to this article? 41.132.49.185 (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

1) No the article implies no such thing. Honestly, this is a problem that exists only in your head. It is a work of fiction with imaginary planets, ergo it's a fictional universe. Stop worrying about that.
2) It's about the fictional universe. The historic about the term was just intended to avoid ambiguity.
3) "Canon" is a fan obsession that is not very relevant. There is no Doctor Who "Canon" - there is a TV show with dubious continuity, and there is a a whole bunch of derived media that is sometimes alluded to in the show, sometimes contradicted, mostly ignored. Mezigue (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If it is about the fictional universe, then that section needs significant expansion. Some sections of the old article were fairly well sourced, though on re-reading them I have to agree with 41.132.49.185 when they said that it "looked like it was written by a 12 year old." Maybe a few of those sources could be used? G S Palmer (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not optimistic about this. I notice there was a deletion proposal way back in 2006 where the overwhelming opinion was to keep because the word is in wide use, but that the article needed expansion and improvement. I don't think an article about a topic like this can ever be anything other than synthesis unless a couple of books about the topic come out...Mezigue (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"Is this article about the "fictional setting" of the "Whoniverse" or the production/fans/convention "Whoniverse"?" All that actually has its own article, Doctor Who fandom, which is linked to in the article. G S Palmer (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

a)The article states Whoniverse, a portmanteau of the words "Who" and "universe", is a word used to describe the fictional setting of the television series Doctor Who, Torchwood, and The Sarah Jane Adventures, as well as other related stories. Now reading that, there is no "modern" or "since 1992" or "the Revived Series". So, it is implied that this has always been the way it is. Which is both just plain wrong and totally unsourced.

b)I see Mezigue is back, making the same unfounded claims. This has been discussed at length, and WP:RS provided to show his unsourced claim is wrong. Again, this can not just be dismissed out of hand with no sources, it needs to be done properly.

c)If there is a page for fandom, then this is the article about the "fictional universe" and only the "fictional universe". However, there are more WP:RS using "Whoniverse" in the Doctor Who fandom meaning, then use it in the "fictional setting" meaning.

d)Again, Canon and "Doctor Who Universe" are not the same thing, and using Sources, however Reliable, that refer only to Doctor Who's position or lack thereof on canon and never mention anything about the "Whoniverse" are not really relevant to this article. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's me. Hello! *Waves* It has not been discussed at length. Rather, you have been ranting at great length about problems that only exist in your mind and no one else sees. It's a fictional universe as in it's not the real world. This is all it means and there is no need for a source for that. Mezigue (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

First, I never ranted. Secondly, the concept that exists only in peoples' minds is' the "fictional universe". In fact the fictional universe article itself is a mess of unsourced material, WP:POV, WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Note that the Introduction containing three paragraphs of material detailing what a "fictional universe" is is completely unsourced. Next, even if what you say were true, the fact remains that you would need to WP:V it with WP:RS. And there is absolutely nothing at all that states that anyone who worked on Doctor Who from 1963-1989 ever mentioned a "fictional universe", even in passing. You must stop trying to transfer your understanding of Marvel/DC Comics to a 1960's BBC Family Drama television show. Note that this search http://ask.reference.com/web?s=t&q=fictional%20universe&l=dir&qsrc=2891&o=10616 features only the unsourced Wikipedia articles! So, it's a totally circular argument. Nothing here neither http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/spellcheck/all/?q=fictional+universe .

In short, there is no dictionary definition for a "fictional universe". Wikipedia has a totally unsourced fictional universe article, and there is not a single Source that states that anyone who worked on Doctor Who 1963-1989 ever mentioned a "fictional universe". They did mention a "Doctor Who Universe" but as we have seen...that meant the production crew, the fans, and the fan conventions. Which is exactly the same way that Matt Smith himself recently used the term "Whoniverse"! If you want something to stand, it would help if you had a single WP:RS. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't start this argument again. G S Palmer (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Which part of it? Mezigue was the one who made bold statements that he/she can not back up with RS. In fact, all things considered, and using Proper Wikipedia Policy the "Whoniverse"(fictional setting) is a concept created by Jean-Marc Loccifier, and first published in his 1992 book "The Universal Databank". In fact, everything after the words "Wikipedia Policy" should be how the article begins...41.132.49.185 (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In fact, reading through the WP:RS on the article, the only one that unambiguously uses it as a "fictional universe"/"fictional setting" is Loccifier. The others use it in the Haining sense. I found the link to the BBC America site. However a quick look sees the articles listed there are Why watch Doctor Who?, Doctor Who and the Reusable Actors(1-10), Every story from the Beginning. The Ultimate Companion Guide. How to dress like the Doctor and his Companions, What does a Companion mean to the Doctor?, Steven Moffat chats about the Doctor...in other words the original Haining definition! So the BBC(ok BBC America) are using "Whoniverse" in the Haining sense. Matt Smith himself recently used "Whoniverse" in the Haining sense. The Jessica Simpson link, the Peter Haining link(obviously), the Sarah Jane Adventures link, the Save the Day(an official BBC website) link all unambiguously use the term "Whoniverse" in the Haining definition. And two of those are official BBC websites. And one is by Matt Smith.

The other 3 are:

i)an interview with Russell T. Davies where he dismisses the idea of a canon, and never mentions anything about a Whoniverse in either definition.

2)A BBC Jersey article about a festival(ie. a convention-like event where fans gather) and only mentions As well as two of the best baddies in the Whoniverse there will be other major changes to this years event. This is ambiguous, and could possibly be interpreted either way, meaning it requires WP:POV and/or WP:OR.

3)The Loccifier link.

So, we have one irrelevant link, one ambiguous link, five Haining definitions(including one by Matt Smith and two by official BBC websites)....and only one "fictional setting" link, namely Loccifier.

So, after much discussion, editing, warnings, re-editing, searching, reading, surfing and more, the only WP:RS to have been found that refers to the "Whoniverse" as "the fictional setting of Doctor Who" is Loccifier's book(which dates from 1992). There is nothing else. We do have 5 or 6 links(including 2 official BBC website links, and one message from Matt Smith himself) for "Whoniverse" meaning Doctor Who fandom. Which already has its own article! 41.132.49.185 (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Mezigue: I don't want to sound harsh, but I think that we should ignore this user now per Wikipedia:Do not feed the trolls. They are obviously never going to back down and nothing is going to be gained by further arguments with them. G S Palmer (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have tried to make this rambling unsourced mess into something coherent and properly sourced. You have attempted to stop this cleaning up of a Wikipedia article ate every attempt, reinstating unsourced material, removing WP:RS, and falsely reporting me on the Administrators Noticeboard. Nothing I have said is untrue. The fact is, you know that I am right, I have provided WP:RS according to the very letter of Wikipedia Policy. All you have are your persistent "revert" edits and your own personal beliefs. BTW....http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fictional%20universe http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/british/?q=fictional+universe http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/american-english/?q=fictional+universe

Get that? The term is not part of the English language, either in British or American English. The terms "Doctor Who Universe" and "Whoniverse" can be Reliably Sourced, but there it refers to both Doctor Who fandom as well as the production of Doctor Who. But not, I repeat not, the "fictional universe".

The only WP:RS that uses the term "Whoniverse" in the sense that you insist is so well-known that it is equivalent to the knowledge that the sky is blue is Loccifier's book. Originally published in 1992. The one where he himself states 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.

So, one WP:RS(dating from 1992 from a person who never worked on the show) that states what you take to be common fact. Every other usage of "Whoniverse" is referring to Doctor Who fandom, as well as to the production of the show. And no dictionaries recognise the term "fictional universe". 41.132.49.185 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You live in a fictional universe if you think Doctor Who is real and therefore doesn't need an article about the fictional setting it takes place in.

And thanks for the info about the BBC Jersey article. Since there are no "baddies" in real life, (unless you are ultra paranoid), that is obviously in support of our argument. Would you be good enough to provide the link? :) G S Palmer (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

More WP:OR and more WP:POV. That's all you have. Nobody ever said that Doctor Who was real. What was stated, and is 100% true, is the fact that there is only one WP:RS to back up your position...the Foreword to Loccifier's book. That's it. Even if what you were saying happened to be true(which it is not), you would still need WP:V. Which you don't have....As far as the Jersey link, it's been on the article page all along. Which shows that you haven't actually read anything, and are just going by your personal feelings and WP:POV, and haven't done anything at all constructive. You've just blanket-reverted and complained while others are trying to tidy this article up. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

And of course http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2014/02/whoniverse-australia-cancelled.html where "Whoniverse" again is used in its original Haining definition. User:G S Palmer has now taken to bombarding the similarly unsourced List of science fiction universes article, adding "Whoniverse"(which had never been on that article before G S Palmer chose to suddenly add it after I pointed that out). I believe it is time to properly rewrite this article, using WP:RS and most importantly not using WP:OR, WP:POV or WP:SYNTHESIS and actually stating what it says in the WP:RS. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome to do so. So far all you have done is delete most of the existing content and conduct pointless arguments about the title itself and the nature of fiction on the talk page. Mezigue (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have started. As far as "delete most of the existing content", well none of it was sourced. I pointed this out more times than I can remember. And the only reason there were "pointless arguments" was because you refused to engage in the discussion at hand, made "sarcastic" "jokes", while G S Palmer never bothered to read anything before starting his/her blanket reversion of unsourced material and removal of WP:RS. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The headings "other usage" and "current usage" are used incorrectly

As has been demonstrated, Haining's usage dates from 1983. Loccifier's usage dates from 1992. Thus, nine years before Loccifier used the term in his definition, Haining used the term in his definition. Hence, haining's is the original usage.

Now, as for "other" and "current", hoo boy. We have found at least seven WP:RS all using the definition in the original Haining definition, and all dating from the last few years. Some of these are official BBC Websites, and one is by Matt Smith. On the other hand, the only usage of Loccifier's deifnition is by Loccifier himself, dating back to 1992, over twenty years ago. So which is the "current usage"? The one both an official BBC website and Matt Smith himself used in November 2013, or the one where we can find no WP:RS from after 1992? And which is the "other" usage? The one where we have found several WP:RS, or the one where after much hunting we can only find a single Source? 41.132.49.185 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Your version is no more accurate than the original text, which you called biased because it didn't refer to your beliefs. Unless you restore references to the current usage, and remove all text attempting to bias the reader against it, I will have to restore it to Edokter's clean version. G S Palmer (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have now done so. G S Palmer (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but your definition is the hopelessly biased one. Firstly your "current usage" section merely repeats information from the first paragraph. Secondly as already noted, there are multiple usages for the Haining definition from the last few months, while the only RS using the "fictional setting" definition dates from 1992! Therefore, going by the WP:RS, the current usage is the one used by the BBC, by fandom, by Matt Smith...the Haining definition. Your stating that a usage last RS to 1992 is the current one, while dismissing the one that has been reliably sourced from a current BBC website as not being the current usage is pure POV on your part. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore your claim about your hopelessly biased POV being "Edokter's clean version" is another fantasy that exists only in your own mind. The article must state what the WP:RS state, and must not be written from your own interpretation or beliefs. The facts are that, despite much searching and much bitterness on your part, the only WP:RS that uses "Whoniverse" in the "fictional setting" sense is Loccifier's book from 1992. This it was "first published" in 1992. I never said that Loccifier coined the term, only that The Universal Databank is the first time it was published which is 100% true. Next, nobody has been able to find a single WP:RS dating from after 1992 using the term in this definition. We have, however, been able to find several usages of the Haining definition(first published in 1983, again not necessarily its first usage), and at least one these WP:RS is a current official BBC website. Thus, the "Current usage" is the one used by all the WP:RS dating from the last couple of years, including an official BBC website, and that is the Haining definition. Your idea of a "current usage" is one where NOTHING can be sourced from after 1992! 41.132.49.185 (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

New citation need tag

Someone added a "citation needed" tag to the fact that the term "Whoniverse"(meaning "fictional setting of Doctor Who") was first published in 1992. But this is impossible? The way to verify this is to show that there are no published records of the term before 1992! How do you prove a negative? The fact is that this is the first published usage. The only way to dispute it would be to produce a published record of the term using this definition from before 1992. Perhaps it can be changed to "First recorded usage"? 41.132.49.185 (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Found a later usage of the term "Whonivsere"!

From "About Time 6:Season 22-26, The TV Movie", by Tat Wood(Mad Norwegian Press, ISBN: 978-0-9759446-5-3, 2007.:

The "correct" term for this rigidness is no longer "continuity" but "fanwank". And if people insisted on using terms like "Whoniverse", it might be said that they deserved to have stories like "Attack of the Cybermen" or "The Two Doctors" made for them, because nobody else does.

a)The book clearly states on the cover that it is "The Unauthorized Guide to Doctor Who".

b)The usage is still somewhat ambiguous as to the definition being used, however it does date from 2007, and negative as it may be, it's at least something. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible new RS

Since there are only two of us actually trying to find WP:RS to support this article, I found something. not sure about how(or when) it could be added...

"Timelink: The Unofficial and Unauthorised Guide to Doctor Who Continuity" by Jon Preddle. (Originally published in 2000, I am quoting from the revised 2011 edition ISBN: 1-84583-004-5, published by Telos Books).

Page 15:

RULE TWO: The Doctor Who universe is not our own.

For want of a better descriptor, the Doctor Who universe is not our Universe;it is only based on our own. That is where the common link ends. I prefer to think of it as a parallel Universe, in as much as the world seen in Inferno is a parallel of the Doctor's Universe(just as the multi-worlds seen in the US SF series Sliders mirror the Sliders' own Earth prime);both are alike but there are as many differences as there are similarities(see RULE THREE)(For an explanation for how the divergence between our Universe and the Doctor's could have happened, see the section on The N-Space Universe). And although Doctor Who features parallel realities from time to time, I prefer to consider that all stories are set within one single unified timeline, unless it is irrefutably stated to be an alternative reality or dimension.

RULE THREE:On-screen events always take precedence over those of reality.

An extension of RULE TWO this applies to the fact that historical events seen onscreen do not always apply to our own real history. In fact, true events seen in Marco Polo, The Crusade, The Mythmakers and The Gunfighters hardly conform to known historical fact. But for the parallel Doctor Who Universe these false historical events are its fact. I will now contradict myself here and say that as part of the Timelink analysis it has been necessary to make comparison with our own history, and in some places I have used the dates from our own history as a template for the Doctor Who version of the same event. This rule specifically applies to those stories set prior to 1963. Incidentally it is from 1965 onwards that the majority of Doctor Who stories are set, and from where most of the deviation from our own history occurs. Therefore, for those stories set later than 1963, I have used real life events as a fixed dating tool only as a last resort.

Ok, so he never mentions "Whoniverse", but this is what User:G S Palmer seems to claim as irrefutable fact. It should be noted that in addition to "Whoniverse" never being sued, he does say things like "I prefer to think of it", to say nothing that the only books that use this description are always "Unauthorised", while there is nothing from an official BBC source to back this up. Perhaps the lead paragraph should be changed to say something like "Fan viewpoint"?

BTW, others Preddle "RULES" include: "RULE ONE:Only TV Doctor Who is Canon" and "RULE FOUR:The intentions of the Production teams can not always be taken into account", where he states "I have used behind the scenes facts only as a last resort".

And the Introduction clearly states "This book contains thoughts ideas and theories about those nagging continuity problems that keep one awake at night. But why are my thoughts, ideas and theories any more worthy of these pages than anyone else's? If you like, what I have done is provide food for thought to enable you to make your own conclusions".

There you go. That is the difference between finding a WP:RS that can be used to add to the article, and just adding unsourced WP:OR. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If you would actually try to contribute to expanding the article as it stood, instead of blanking it and replacing it with a disclaimer, I would be more than happy to work with you, as I actually stated both on Edokter's talk page and on the talk page of one of your many IP's. G S Palmer (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"Canon" and "Whoniverse

These two terms are not equivalent. We can all find WP:RS where people who have worked on Doctor Who speak about Doctor Who and canon. However, unless they specifically refer to the "Whoniverse"(defined as 'the fictional setting of Doctor Who'), then these Sources are utterly irrelevant to this article. Please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS for why anything that mentions "Doctor Who Canon", but fails to mention "Whoniverse"('fictional setting'), simply can not be included or used to prop up this article. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is against you. Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you are now forbidden by Wikipedia Policy from attempting to further modify the page to fit your definition of the term, until such time as you manage to sway consensus in your favor. Failure to do so will result in being reported for edit warring. G S Palmer (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

No one argues that Whoniverse and "canon" mean the same. It does not follow that such sources cannot be used if they offer background information. You are just making up rules in your head. Mezigue (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no "consensus". There's GraemeLeggett and me trying to tidy this article up. And then there's G S Palmer and Mezigue trolling the article. 2 versus 2. Ideally there'd be 4(or more0 people working together to tidy it up properly. And for the millionth time.

Read WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:BURDEN. You have completely to fulfilled ANY of those criteria with your irritating POV-pushing. All you are doing is annoyingly reinstating totally unsourced, totally unverified nonsense that has nothing to do with the subject of the article. You haven't "boldly proactively reached consensus". All you have done is troll and keep reinstating the same garbage, despite User:Edokter telling you not to, and despite me and others pointing out Wikipedia Policy. Your edits must now be considered deliberate trolling, as despite everyone asking, then telling you to edit constructively, you persist in pushing your unsourced POV nonsense. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason no one has found any reliable sources is because we have been to busy trying to contain you. Furthermore, GraemeLeggett seems to have tried to keep a neutral tone, as opposed supporting you as you seem to think. G S Palmer (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would be wary if anyone claimed I was "on their side". An aspect of BRD is that at some point there needs to be a halt to the to-ing and fro-ing, and a discussion - which needs a healthy dose of AGF on all sides - to move the process onwards.

Now if the "whoniverse" is defined as that which pertains to the fictional aspects of Doctor Who and related material, then it makes sense to further describe the Whoniverse and what it includes or does not. That will tackle - at least in passing - how it is decided what does lie in the whoniverse. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems with current version:

Here are the problems that actively jump out at me from the current version of this article. I may add to this list.

• No space between "Whoniverse" and "a": "The Whoniverse(a portmanteau of the words "[Doctor] Who" and "universe")".
• These parenthesis: "a portmanteau of the words "[Doctor] Who" and "universe".
• The fact that Jean-Marc Lofficier is now the author of every Doctor Who novel ever published: "an idea concerning the BBC television show Doctor Who and its spin-offs published by Jean-Marc Lofficier".
• The fact that this is the only mention in the whole article that the concept of a Fictional universe gets: "The Universal Databank "presupposes that the Earth on which the Doctor's adventures take place (which is obviously not to be confused with our Earth) is a single world with a straightforward, linear history..."" (yet the term "Fictional universe" is still notably missing).
• This disclaimer: "Lofficier added that "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[1] He also stated that "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."'.
• The fact that there is no punctuation or closing quotation mark on the end of this sentence: "Lofficier added that "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[1]"
• The fact that the only section other than the introduction is this, giving a disproportionate amount of coverage to the "Other usage" section.
• No source for this piece of OR: "The terms "Doctor Who Universe" and "Whoniverse" were first used by Peter Haining in his 1983 book Doctor Who: A Celebration; Two Decades Through Time and Space."
• The un-encyclopedic nature of this sentence unless supported with a relevant quote: "Thus, the author enjoined his readers to believe that their own efforts were connected to those of the show-runners."
• No comma after "BBC journalists": "programme writers,[3], BBC journalists[4] and the BBC's American arm[5][6] the show's stars".
• No "as well as" in this transition: "...BBC's American arm[5][6] the show's stars such as Eleventh Doctor actor Matt Smith,[7] and Doctor Who fandom .[8]
• No link to BBC America's Wikipedia page here: "and the BBC's American arm".
• The fact that there is a space between the end of this sentence and its punctuation: "and Doctor Who fandom .[8]"
• The fact that a relevant See also section has been removed.
• The fact that this reference actually supports the usage as applied to the fictional universe: "^ Jessica Simpson to Enter the Whoniverse?, BBC America, 7 February 2007, archived from the original on 15 August 2007".

G S Palmer (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

1)Parenthesis, punctuation and spacing can be easily fixed.

2)Nobody says that Jean-Marc Lofficier wrote every Doctor Who book. What it clearly states is that the term "Whoniverse" was published by Lofficier, and that it relates to Doctor Who. It could be reworded. In fact, I have asked for others to suggest rewording for some time, but met no response.

3)For the billionth time...Wikipedia must have WP:RS and the information must be verifiableWP:V with what the source actually says. Not your WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:POV. So, Lofficier's source is the only one that actually speaks about that(although it never actually specifically mentions a "fictional universe"). I added some stuff from Preddle's book, and this could be added into the article. But again, if you want to write about a "fictional universe" you need sources that actually refer to a "fictional universe". You can't just create an entire article out of your own thoughts and POV.

4)The disclaimer is what Lofficier said. Maybe it can be surrounded in a different way. But, unlike your walls of text, it is something Verifiable from a Reliable Source.

5)Again, there are multiple WP:RS which use the term "Whoniverse" in the "other usage" term, while Lofficier's remains the only WP:RS that uses it in the "fictional setting" definition. As stated, Preddle's link, as well as the Tat Wood criticism mention can be added, but we can only add stuff if we can properly source it. Otherwise it's OR and/or POV.

6)Haining's usage can be changed to "Earliest recorded usage" or "Earliest published usage". Again, I actually brought this up earlier in the discussion, but was ignored. The point is that Haining's usage is the earliest known recorded usage, while Lofficier's 1992 usage is the earliest known recorded usage of the sense as in "fictional setting". Again, my query to find out if this could(and how it could) be reworded were ignored.

7)The 'Thus, the author enjoined...' line was from your preferred version of the article. Again, it would help to discuss how to better reword it it. And that is one of a few lines that has been in every version of the article to date, including your countless revisions/reverts.

8)The commas in the links were there, but were removed. It would be simple and easy to reinstate them.

9)A link to BBC America is a good idea and should be implemented.

10)The "See also" section was questionable and possibly POV. I'll leave that to the Edit Dispute Moderator(s) to decide. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

They are not "the earliest recorded usages". Well they may or may not be, but this is pseudo-scientific talk. They were just the earliest known to the handful of Wikipedia editors who came up with the previous version of the article. Mezigue (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything to prove that? Wikipedia relies on verified, reliable sources(I believe this may have been said before). Neither you nor I can say "But I know that..." or "I heard someone say...". If you can provide sources using the term earlier, then everyone here would love you to provide them/link to them/say what they are etc. If you can not, then you really have nothing to back up what you are saying. And as you have no Reliable Sources, then you can not provide any evidence to the contrary. Again, I have brought this up more than once before, but how about "earliest known recorded usage" or something similar? 41.132.49.185 (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the Jessica Simpson reference is clearly referring to entering the production of the television show Doctor Who, in other words....the Peter Haining version. Of course, she never actually appeared on the show. But "Jessica Simpson to enter the Whoniverse" means Jessica Simpson would be working alongside Russell T. Davies and David Tennant. Which is what the article then states...41.132.49.185 (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything to prove that? Er, *you* have to prove something you put in the text. I don't have to prove that it's wrong. Mezigue (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you need to prove that you have something earlier. Which you don't.41.132.49.185 (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. So anyone else needs reliable sources for anything they put in the article, while you can put anything you want and people need proofs that it isn't true before they remove it. You might want to familiarise yourself with the principles of Wikipedia (or indeed of logic) before you resume contributing. Mezigue (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No. I suggested that it could be reworded more than once, and asked for suggestions as to the possible new phrasing. Yet everyone ignored that. And the fact is, whatever I put in was stuff that could be Reliably Sourced. You are wanting to make edits/additions where you have no source at all. Again, the fact is that we have nothing prior to Lofficier's book in 1992. Saying "first published" offended someone. Now saying "Earliest known usage" offends someone. So, without using OR or POV, how would you suggest it should be rephrased? 41.132.49.185 (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The previous version of that section was pretty satisfactory - it just needed more precise quotes from the books cited. You have turned it into a complete mess. Mezigue (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The previous version was long, poorly written, totally unsourced mess that read like some 12-year-old fanboy's blog. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You must be joking. It was reasonably sourced and well-written. You have replaced it with a rambling section that is inaccurate and seems to argue that the word shouldn't be used here at all. And that is all there is currently to the article! I am reminded of that botched amateur restoration job on the portrait of Jesus in a Spanish church a little while ago. Mezigue (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It was not "reasonably well sourced". It was almost completely unsourced, and had walls of rambling, poorly written text that had no sources at all. The one or two sources it did have had nothing whatsoever to with the scope of this article. We could not work from that version, as that version was very little more than the opinionated scribblings of one person. Wikipedia is about Verifiability, Reliable Sources and No SYNTHESIS. Thus, your "reasonably well sourced" version failed on pretty much every front. Nobody is saying that the current version is perfect. However, it is far better than the previous version, it is Reliably Sourced, it says what the Sources actually say and it contains no OR, POV OR SYNTHESIS. Can it be improved and expanded? Absolutely! But it's a far better starting point than the unsourced blog-like drivel that was there before? 41.132.49.185 (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It does contain OR. « The terms "Doctor Who Universe" and "Whoniverse" were first used by Peter Haining » is original research. Mezigue (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, how would you rephrase it? It should be noted that I was not the one that wrote that. That is one of those things(like the "enjoindered" sentence) that has always been there through every version of the article. So, how would your prefer that sentence to be used? 41.132.49.185 (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes you were. [1] Do you even know what you are doing? Mezigue (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have to say "clearly" and "But "Jessica Simpson to enter the Whoniverse" means Jessica Simpson would be working alongside Russell T. Davies and David Tennant.", then it is Original research, and merely your opinion, therefore un-sourced. G S Palmer (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You're trying to create something out of nothing. And even if what you said were even remotely true(which it is not), 'you would still need to use far more WP:OR to use the Jessica Simpson link to twist it around to back up your "fictional setting" definition. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mezigue: Have you actually read any of their references?

• This one is fairly ambiguous, and could be interpreted either way. "Androvax first appeared in the previous season's Prisoner of the Judoon story which was itself connected with Dreamland (the wonderful thing about working in the Whoniverse is the opportunity to cross-reference shows like this)."
• This one is clearly at odds with what 41.132.49.185 is trying to say. It is clearly referring to the fictional universe. "two of the best baddies in the Whoniverse".
• This one is also clearly referring to the fictional as opposed to the real life, saying the actress will be in "scenes with David Tennant": meaning, on the show.
• This one is in support of their point.
• This one is also in support of their point,
• As is this one

So you see, out of just the ones they use to back up their point, two are in opposition to their point, one is ambiguous, and only three are supportive. I think we could use this as a basis to put the article back to how it was. And if they argue with that, then as they pointed out, that's just the way they read it and is pure WP:POV. As a side note, something like this happened over at Talk:Master (Doctor Who). They asserted that there was something in a book, I think it was Spearhead From Space, but when another user who had a copy checked it out they found no such thing.

P.S. 41.132.49.185, this is a note to Mezigue, so your response is not required or wanted. Please refrain from making a thousand-word response and over-complicating the discussion. Thank you! G S Palmer (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you claim you are talking to Mezigue, but then attack me, and add lies, as well as making various "41 is mistaken" sort of comments, as well as lots of "I thin..." statements. And this whole post is a reply to a question posed of Mezigue.(And your post contains lots of 'I think...' type comments, see WP:OR).

What the sources actually say:

1)"the wonderful thing about working in the Whoniverse is the opportunity to cross-reference shows like this)." You can't cross-reference anything working within a "fictional setting". However, someone working in the production of Doctor Who(as per Haining's original definition" does have the opportunity to cross-reference something. So, sorry, but the SJA link is the Haining definition, not the Lofficier one.

2)No it is not "clearly" referring to the "fictional universe". It is an article about a festival(ie. fan gathering, see Haining), and speaks of the event where two well-known species from the television show Doctor Who will be making appearances,As well as two of the best baddies in the Whoniverse there will be other major changes to this years event. Cyberman The biggest is the introduction of free standing room entry to the Arena - this is on a first come, first served basis but will allow people to come down on Battle day and watch the floats as they make their way around..." So the Cybermen and the Daleks are well-known aspects of (say it with me) the production of the BBC television show Doctor Who(Haining), and will be appearing at a fan event(Haining). It's also unlikely that characters who "exist only in a fictional universE" could appear at a real-world fan festival.

3)Again, you use the term "clearly referring to..." and yet "It's quite enough to hear Russell T. Davies admit he was gagging for Britney Spears to appear on Doctor Who, but are we ready for Breastica Simpson to jiggle her way through scenes with David Tennant?" Note that it mentions Jessica(well 'Breastica'!) Simpson and "scenes with David Tennant", not "scenes with the Tenth Doctor". David Tennant is an actor in "the real-world". Jessica Simpson is a singer/entertainer in "the real world". Jessica Simpson and David Tennant doing scenes together would be (repeat until you understand) part of the production of the BBC television show Doctor Who. Thus this is yet again a Haining definition of the term, that you are unsuccessfully trying to distort to satisfy your own personal feelings.

4-6)Thank you for at least admitting that much.

Remember that Haining's original definition referred to both the fans/fan conventions/activities as well as the men and women who make the show, and the physical process of making the show. In short(no I don't have a source for this sentence, it's just making a point so there can be no misunderstanding)...Peter Davison is part of the Whoniverse, the Fifth Doctor is not. At least until Lofficier tried to redefine the term. And the official BBC websites today still use the Haining definition. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few websites using it in the fictional sense, all from a quick Google search.

• 1
• BBC America,no less: 2
• An example of usage among the fans, along with a definition: 3
• Repost: 4
• Another example of usage among the fans: 5
• 6
• 7!
• Fan usage: 8
• [2]

I will add more as I find them. G S Palmer (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

1)Fansite, Fails WP:RS and WP:V.

2)Maybe. But you can't build an article around an internet quiz.

3)Tardis Data Core is most definitely not a WP:RS(in fact that opinionated mess looks suspiciously similar to the unsourced essay that you keep trying to revert to)

4)Another site that fails WP:RS laughably. And since it's identical to the BBC America link, it throws that page further under question.

5)A Youtube userpage that says This channel does not exist. Yeah, that'll pass WP:RS(sarcasm).

6)Not sure whether bleedingcool passes WP:RS. However, its usage(only in the Headline) is ambiguous, and it later speaks in-continuity of "the Universe", rather than "the Whoniverse", which would imply that the usage of "Whoniverse" is referring to in the production sense.

7)A Wiktionary article. Created about a year ago, with only 2 editors. Sorry, but that is not a WP:RS, not evenr emotely.

8)Another fan website...

Just so you know, the only one that maybe counts is the BBC America quiz page. You can find fans speaking of a "Whoniverse" on their blogs, or tweets, or written on a bathroom wall. But that isn't valid for writing a Wikipedia article. This has been brought up many times before, but please please please read(and then re-read) WP:RS and WP:V. Once you do so, and understand it, then you won't try and point to some badly-written fansite as something that can "prove" your position. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC) PS. Whoever wrote that last fansite has difficulty spelling simple words, and it was painful reading through that poorly written gibberish. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

[3]

[4] 41.132.49.185 (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

[5] etc. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I critique your sources, you critique mine. Instead of continuing to fight, let's work together once the article is open for editing, and then both sections can get fleshed out and sourced. Do you have any deep objection to the current usage section?

And I'm not sure how the blank YouTube channel got on there. My mistake. G S Palmer (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

My problem is with the actual wording of the section. It is not the current usage. It is a' current usage. As the BBC America links and the 'message from Matt Smith' show, the "Doctor Who fandom" usage is at least as much the/a current usage. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Scope and content

Since the intent is to build - if possible - a useful article under this article name, can I ask if we know what the scope of the article is and what sort of content we expect it to contain? If we have little more than "Whoniverse refers to [insert definition] " and it seems that there is insufficient content to build it up beyond a stub then it might as well be a wikitionary entry rather than an article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should work on building two well-sourced sections - one covering the "fandom and production" definition and one covering the "fictional universe" definition. However, if that proves impossible, (which I doubt), then the article should be merged with the Doctor Who main article. G S Palmer (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There is the Lofficier link. I added some stuff from Jon Preddle's book, as well as a criticism of the term from the Wood book, to the talk page. My concerns are that

a)People have conflated the Haining "Whoniverse" with the Lofficier "Whoniverse". That's like having an article for Julies Caesar which states that he lived 100 BC - 1878 AD and was both the Dictator of Rome and a first class cricket player for Surrey. It's two different things that happen to share a name.

b)While the "Whoniverse" may be notable, it is not universally regarded as "fact", and many fans reject the idea. And there is nothing from anyone like Sydney Newman, John Nathan-Turner, Robert Holmes, Verity Lambert, Terry Nation, Malcolm Hulke etc. speaking about a "Whoniverse". So while it may be a notable concept it is most certainly not true that Doctor Who was created to take place in a "Whoniverse", nor is it true that it is plain truth that everyone accepts the position today.

c)The mountains of OR in the old version, especially "Features", which put forward ideas that were both totally unsourced, as well as questionable.

So, it is certainly possible, using WP:RS to create a "Whoniverse"(fictional setting) article, but the wording needs to be looked at very carefully. As well as the fact that whatever someone feels, you can not simply write essays without any sources, and make it a Wikipedia article.

Lofficier's and Preddle's definitions set it out. Wood's counters it, and Haining's shows the "other usage". It would be very nice if someone could find more WP:RS to flesh out the article. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that the old article was a mess. But if we all work together, then we could hopefully make the new article into a vast improvement on it.

Also, for the definition of "Whoniverse (fictional setting)", we could just look up sources that describe the fictional Doctor Who universe, since in that definition they have been shown to be one and the same. G S Palmer (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is and should remain about the fictional setting. You can't have an article about two different concepts using the same name. On Wiktionary, yes, on Wikipedia no! But there is no need to rename it so long as the caveats remain in the article. Mezigue (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Then we need to start finding some sources to flesh it out. We can't just have the introduction paragraph and the Current Usage paragraphs if it's going to be about the fictional universe. G S Palmer (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, the article should be arranged somewhat like this: Introduction, Characteristics/Features, and Other Usage (a short section linking to Doctor Who fandom). Does that sound good? G S Palmer (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, busy with work atm. To answer, yes that sounds perfect, however, the problem is that the "Features" section needs to be properly sourced from RS, not just the rambling unsourced blog-like section that it was. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

For sources, maybe we could use "The Universal Databank" and "Ahistory: An Unauthorized History of the Doctor Who Universe". Does anybody have a copy of the latter, and if so, would it be useful? Also, we can always reuse sources from other Doctor Who articles that describe species/characters/creatures from the Whoniverse. Plus, while this website isn't reliable, we could look into some of the books listed here. G S Palmer (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And maybe the "Other usage" section should be called "Alternate usage"? Just a suggestion. G S Palmer (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A few sources for the "Features" section: 1, 2 and 9, 3 and 4, 5, 6 and 7, 8. G S Palmer (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that to use that, it requires WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTHESIS. If something talks about, as a hypothetical example, Skaro, but never mentions the "Whoniverse" the it would be OR to use that information in this article. Likewise, if something merely mentions species, a planet etc. then it is OR twice over to first interpret that information and then apply it to the "Whoniverse". 41.132.49.185 (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No absolutely not. Any acceptable source about Doctor Who can be used. The use of the word Whoniverse does not magically make it acceptable. Mezigue (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mezigue. There is no need to give an overly harsh interpretation to these Wikipedia guidelines. G S Palmer (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem I think you will find is trying to describe a fictional setting that is by its nature broad and diverse. Summarizing 50 years (800 episodes if you care to think of it in that way), before adding in Torchwood, SJA, Big Finish, New Adventures et al, that has been for the most part contributed to by many different writers, and (when it does refer back to itself) sometimes inconsistently. Selectively picking some parts and ignoring others while managing a sense of due proportion will not be easy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

But the problem with that are the old WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SYNTHESIS. Unless an article/feature/chapter/paragraph/quote actually says that it's talking about the "Whoniverse"(fictional setting), then we are violating at least one of those three to use information from that source in an article about the "Whoniverse"(fictional setting). There's the old "bucket" analogy. If I have a bucket, I can tell you I have a bucket, and show you a photo of me with the bucket. But I can't put that I have a bucket on Wikipedia, unless I can find a WP:RS saying "41 has a bucket". Anything we add to this article that doesn't actually mention the article's name, at least in passing, would be considered OR and/or SYNTHESIS. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. You are misunderstanding those principles. Mezigue (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Think about it this way. Say that the article for the first episode of Doctor Who (series 8) has finally gotten to the point where it has a title, plot, etc., and we're ready to write an article about it. Now, we want to say something like "Steven Moffat wrote this episode". However, the only reliable source for that is an article from back before the episode had an official title, and was just called "episode one". Does that mean we can't use that as a source, because it doesn't use the title of the episode? No! In this case we know that "episode one" is the same as the episode with a title. The same is true here: we know that "Whoniverse" refers to the fictional universe of Doctor Who; therefore, anything about that fictional universe can be used here, providing it is from a reliable source. G S Palmer (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The new introduction hardly reflects the consensus here, since it focuses on the word. It should read something like "The Whoniverse, a portmanteau of the words "Who" and "universe", is the fictional setting of the television series Doctor Who, Torchwood, and The Sarah Jane Adventures, as well as other related media. The word has also been used to describe the show's production and fanbase."

Done. G S Palmer (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

But unless the source mentions it is about the Whoniverse, it is OR and/or SYNTHESIS to use that information. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

First, there is no consensus here. Second, please read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:RS and WP:SYNTHESIS. i believe I may have asked you to do this before. Saying "We know..." something is not the way Wikipedia articles are made. Your recent edits were contrary to pretty much all of the Wikipedia Rules listed here. Again, if you are using OR or SYNTHESIS, then the material simply can not be included. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)