Talk:Whoniverse/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Problems

1)The article states that "he Whoniverse is the fictional setting of the television series Doctor Who, Torchwood, and The Sarah Jane Adventures, as well as other related media.

a)This states that Doctor Who is set in a "fictional setting"(No Source). It needs to say that the idea of a "Whoniverse"(fictional setting) is just that. An idea held by some fans but never actually espoused by the BBC themselves.

b)The Source referred to was published n 1992, and states that Lofficier considers only the tv show Doctor Who to count, dismissing spin-offs such as novels and comics. Of course Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures did not exist then. (Jon Preddle's stuff(on the discussion page) does include Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures, but he too says that "only tv counts"). Whatever you may personally think, Wikipedia must go by what the Sources say, not by what you personally believe.

2)The whole second paragraph beginning "The term is linked..." is of course unsourced, and is someone's personal belief, not a Wikipedia-standard paragraph.

3)"Whoniverse" and "canon" are not the same thing. You may as well cite sources about Doctor Who dinner plates. Why does this irrelevant sentence about "canon" keep getting reinstated? It is unrelated to the scope of this article.

4)The "Battle of Flowers" sentence uses the Haining definition.

5)Bleedingcool is not a WP:RS

6)The whole features section is made from whole cloth. Not one of those sources mentions anything about "Whoniverse". Its is both OR and deceptive to use those sources to build a section about something that none of them mentions.

7)The 'See Also' section links to 4 other articles. The planets article doesn't mention "Whoniverse"(in fact it says 'fictional or otherwise', which contradicts inclusion here). List of Doctor Who serials by setting also doesn't mention "Whoniverse". The "List of DWU creatures and aliens" is only that way because one editor here persistently forced that position on that article, and "List of fictional universes" is a totally unsourced mess.

8)Tardis Data Core is not a WP:RS.

9)The Categories. Going by the state of the article, neither Torchwood or Sarah Jane Adventures can be included, because the sources as they are don't mention them. "Fictional universes" is touchy, because again it is stating definitively that Doctor Who is "Set in a fictional universe". Maybe something about fandom ideas should also be added?

Remember the Golden Rules:

i)Sources must be WP:RS, not some fanboy website or Tardis Data Core.

2)The Sources must actually say they are referring to the article's title. Otherwise it's OR/SYNTHESIS.

3)If the Sources don't mention something, and especially if they say something to the contrary, then even if you believe it to be true, you can't add it. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't appear to take on board anything anyone tells you.

1) this article IS about the fictional setting. The word Whoniverse is used here and elsewhere to describe it, but you need to stop obsessing on this word. It is not a magic word and a source does not need to use it so long as it's about the subject at hand. 3) Universe and canon are not the same thing. Yes, that is perfectly obvious and no one argues otherwise. However this is on-topic and a necessary caveat to explain that consistency is not particularly practiced on the show. 4) not really, no. 5) it is simply linked to demonstrate widespread use of the word, so no problem. 6) and 7) see 1. Stop obsessing on the word. 9) It is set in a fictional universe. Everyone understands that except you. Finally you appear to have invented those Golden Rules, or at least number two. Everyone here is familiar with the guidelines you keep linking to again and again (see below). It does not appear that you really understand them, or how to construct/structure an article. You have now reverted the article to your version which states unverified "facts" about when the term was first use. Mezigue (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have listed the official Wikipedia Policies below, since you refuse to read them and follow what they say. In fact "Whoniverse" is a "magic word" in this case. If the article doesn't say it's about the Whoniverse, then we can't include any information from it. Simple as that.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is about Reliable Sources. Not your friend's fan site, or my blog etc. If it's not a Reliable Source, we can't include any information from it. Simple as that.

And your bit "everyone understands it is set in a fictional universe". First, there is nothing from the BBC to say as much. Second, the only RS is Lofficier(an unofficial guidebook). In his Foreword he himself states that he is using "Retroactive continuity", and also states that this is his personal take, and that others may come to other conclusions. However, the thing is, even if you were right(which you aren't), you would still need to WP:V it.

So, yet again....This article needs Reliable Sources(not Bleedingcool or Whoviangurrl or anything like that) which actually refer to the "Whoniverse". And then the article can only state what is stated in those Reliable Sources which refer to the Whoniverse. And if someone in one of those articles states that something is his personal take, or his opinion, then the article must state that as well. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Writing things in bold does not make them true. Everyone is familiar with those rules and principles. It is you who interpret them in bizarre ways to conjure up problems that are not there. There are no "golden rules", there are no "magic words". Stop making things needlessly difficult and stop trying to impose your problematic version. Mezigue (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not my problematic version. Does it still require work? Of course. However, it would be best to use a properly Sourced version, and add/edit it with proper RS, rather than just adding mountains of totally unsourced OR material. Or worse, adding material from RS that never mention the subject of the article at all, and falsely claiming that they are sourcing the article when they are not.

And my putting something in bold doesn't make it true. I made it bold so hopefully you would read it(since you seem to ignore most other stuff). What makes it true is that it is what is in the Wikipedia Policies(listed below). It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what G S Palmer thinks. What matters is that we follow Wikipedia Policy(the Three Golden Rules). And no other policy or guideline can overrule these Three Golden Rules. That is all I am trying to do. Yet in your willful dismissal of the very core Policies of Wikipedia, you are trying to portray me as the disruptive one. The thing is, of the three of us, I am the only one actually following proper Wikipedia Policy. While the two of you simply add whatever you like, without sourcing it, or adding material that where the Source never mentions anything at all about the subject of the article. So please: Use WP:RS, Do NOT add something that the Source itself does not say, Do NOT add someone's opinion(which they themselves refer to as much) as though it is fact, and do NOT keep adding paragraphs where there is nothing to back it up. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't read, here are some Wikipedia Policies:

A) WP:SYNTHESIS :

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."

B)WP:OR :

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.) The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed. "

C) WP:V :

"In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. "

D) WP:POV :

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus.

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. " 41.135.9.230 (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not synthesis to find sources which state that Doctor Who takes place in the "Whoniverse", then use sources about Doctor Who to flesh out an article.

Show me some OR. Really. The only example I can find is this, from your version: "Thus, the author enjoined his readers to believe that their own efforts were connected to those of the show-runners." (Which isn't very encyclopedic anyway.)

WP:V? Really? Almost every source in this article comes from the BBC, which, in case you didn't know, is the creator of Doctor Who.

Once again, the version rife with POV is your version. An article where the introduction is virtually a disclaimer attempting to discredit the "fictional universe" definition? Where the only actual section only covers your definition?

I'm glad you didn't bring up WP:RS, because the current version has three times as many sources as your version.

In conclusion, you should take a long, hard look at any article before accusing it of violating any of the above policies. Thanks! G S Palmer (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That "enjoinder" comment was not mine. It came from a much earlier version of the article. And indeed this has been pointed out before. As have the reasons why your version can not remain.

1)It is OR to take information from an article which never mentions "Whoniverse" and insert it into a Wikipedia article called "Whoniverse". This has been pointed out dozens of times already. Your deliberate reinstating of the this material must now be seen as deliberately disruptive on your part.

2)You mention the BBC. Can you please provide just one Reliable BBC Source which says that Doctor Who takes place in a "fictional universe"? Everyone has been asking for that for a long time, yet there is nothing.

Again, the definition of SYNTHESIS is taking two Sources that state two different things, and then creating an article by combining them.That is EXACTLY what you are doing by continually adding the BBC information(which never mentions anything about a fictional universe) and inserting it into this article.

If you can find RS that speak of the "Whoniverse" or the "Doctor Who fictional universe" then please add them. But anything that doesn't SAY it's about the "Whoniverse" or the "Doctor Who fictional universe" can NOT be added. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources?

1)[1]. Haning definition. And says only that "As well as two of the best baddies in the Whoniverse there will be other major changes to this years event." No other mention of 'Whoniverse'.

2)[2] Not a WP:RS.

3)[3] Never mentions "Whoniverse" or "fictional universe". Using it is clear OR/SYNTHESIS.

4)[4] Never mentions "Whoniverse" or "fictional universe". Using it is clear OR/SYNTHESIS.

5)[5] Never mentions "Whoniverse" or "fictional universe". Using it is clear OR/SYNTHESIS.

6)[6] Never mentions "Whoniverse" or "fictional universe". Using it is clear OR/SYNTHESIS.

7 etc.) And really ALL the "new Sources" are the same as No.s 2-6. Never mention "WhoniversE" or "fictional universe" at all, so using anything from any of them is clear OR/SYNTHESIS.

Again, Wikipedia Policy states:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.) The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed."

and

"Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

and

"In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove unsourced contentious material about living people immediately. For how to write citations, see citing sources. Verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy."

and

"Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing any reliable source that directly supports the material."

and

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves"

^None of these are "my overly harsh interpretations". They are Wikipedia Policy. Please stick to these Policies. This is Wikipedia, not your fanboy website. 41.135.9.230 (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

More

[7]. Read the C'rizz section.

[8]

Of course, there's another whole take.

From the Foreword to Dead Romance by Lawrence Miles, Virgin Books, 1999(ISBN:9780426205326)

"Note for continuity purists and nobody else: the universe in which much of Dead Romance takes place - the universe of the Gods, the planet Dellah and Bernice Summerfield - is the same universe in which the events of Christmas on a Rational Planet, Down and indeed every other New Adventure take place. However, this absolutely and positively isn't the same universe in which any other books I might have written are set. Believe me."

Or this piece of information from Doctor Who The New Audio Adventures The Inside Story by Benjamin Cook, Big Finish Productions Ltd., 2003(ISBN:18445350347) (Page 226)

"The Pythia was dropped when Gary Russell wrote the sequence with the Eighth Doctor, finally nailing down the alternative realities, thus negating the need for anyone to try to work the audios or Virgin's New Adventures or the BBC Books into the same concurrent universe ever again."

Of course, the term "Whoniverse" really means

[9]

[10]

[11]

And User:G S Palmer keeps removing this link from an official BBC website: [12]

So to sum up....

1)The term "Whoniverse" refers to both fandom as well as the production aspects of Doctor Who(the way the BBC and Matt Smith use it)

2)We have RS stating that Doctor Who takes place "in our universe".

3)We also have RS stating that there is no single Doctor Who "universe".

However, we DO have Jean-Marc Lofficier's Foreword from his unofficial 1992 book. User:G S Palmer and User:Mezigue make that one definitive, and either blithely ignore, or actually twist/distort other information to suit their aims. The article needs to state that G S Palmer's preferred interpretation is just one idea, not THE truth. Actually, it DID state that, but G S Palmer and Mezigue kept reverting it to their unsourced version. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, here we go again. 1) It refers to both the fictional setting and sometimes fandom activities. The word has been used in both senses. This article is about the fictional setting and uses it in that sense, while acknowledging that the word is sometimes used in a different sense. Why you keep banging about that is a mystery. 2) Nope. You are misunderstanding whatever you read. Our universe does not have Daleks or time travel. 3) Yes, in other words there is no Doctor Who "canon". This is what that bit explained. The one you wanted removed. Mezigue (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In addition, I might mention that I don't have a point of view to push and I'm sure User:G S Palmer does not either. My "aim" is to stop this article from turning into gibberish. We have both been extremely patient in the face of your insulting language and, to put it politely, misleading representations of our position on various pages. Many editors would have reported you a long time ago and just got the page semi-protected. Mezigue (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You are using OR.

1) is clearly the definition used by Matt Smith and the BBC themselves. Thus that is the meaning, while your "fictional setting" is the "other usage".

2)I bet you still haven't read WP:V or WP:OR. Those sources refer to Cybermen and Charley Pollard coming from "our universe". it doesn't matter what you or I think. There are Reliable Sources saying that Doctor Who is set "in our universe". Period. We don't use OR. We just state what the RS say.

3)Wrong again. We have RS from people who have actually written Doctor Who stating that there is no single "Doctor Who universe", bur rather at least three separate "universes". So, your saying that there is a "Whoniverse"(fictional setting) based SOLELY on Lofficier(who has never written for DW)'s Foreword is clearly the minority, fringe view. In any case, there are at least 3 Reliably Sourced positions, with no two being compatible. Thus, your "Whoniverse"(fictional setting)" is one interpretation. And the article can not begin by saying that "The Whoniverse is the fictional setting...". It needs to state that it is a point of view of some people(in fact the only RS we have is from Lofficier). Stating a poistion held by only one RS, and arrogantly dismissing contradictory(and more authoritative) viewpoints held by a greater amount of RS is the very definition of having a Point of View. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1) Your mind is really working in curious ways. You are arguing that one use is the other use while the other use is the one use? What sense does that even make? If you are now arguing this article should be called something else, go ahead, waste everybody's time and make a formal request. 2) I am perfectly familiar with those rules and have been for years. You misunderstood that source. It says "our universe" as opposed to the "parallel universe" introduced in Rise of the Cybermen. It doesn't say Doctor Who happens in real-life. (Mind you, even if you can quote a Doctor Who writer saying it's all real, this will only be an admissible source in a paragraph about their state of mind.) Doctor Who is a TV show set in a fictional universe. If you really can't get your head around that simple concept, please just take everyone else's word for that. 3) What they are saying is that there is no continuity between the show and the various spin-off media (audio plays, novels etc...) There was a whole section about that, which you have deleted. It did contain a lot of weasel words and lacked references, but perhaps it would have been better to prune and improve it. Mezigue (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1)No. This article as it is in G S Palmer's unsourced fanboy mess states that "Whoniverse" is primarily used to mean "fictional universe", whereas "Doctor Who fandom/productions" is a minority alternative usage. Whereas the reality is that Matt Smith, convention organisers and the BBC themselves all use the "fandom/productions" definition, whereas the "Fictional universE" meaning is the minority other usage. 2)That is OR on your part. It says "our universe" because it means "our universe". Your interpretations and your personal beliefs can not be used to make an article. If it says "our universe", we take it to mean "our universe", not your personal interpretation of it. 3)No, what is clearly being said is that the various Doctor Who ranges take place in different "universes". Again, that's what it actually says. Your interpretation is both strange and total OR. And in fact, the one source that backs up your position specifically says that only the Classic Series(1963-1989), Shada and K9 and Company:A Girl's Best Friend are part of the Whoniverse, and that everything else is not. Again, Wikipedia must go by what the RS state, not by your interpretation of it, and you can't say "Oh, he meant..", or "He probably also thought that..." or "What that actually means is...". It's what the sources say, not your OR interpretations. Two sources state that Doctor Who takes place in "our universe". Two sources state that Doctor Who takes place across various "universes". And Lofficier states that only Doctor Who(63-89), Shada and A Girl's Best Friend are part of the Whoniverse and that the audios, novels, comics etc. are not. It's what the RS state, not what you want them to mean. Which means that the article as it is is a hopeless mess of unsourced fanboyisms and OR. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

TwoThree thoughts - one we could do with a response at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, two - DRN, three - get this sorted out at the Doctor Who project (existing thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#Whoniverse looks remarkably quiet - I wonder why. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok then

While it is likely that either G S Palmer and/or Mezigue will blanket-revert, I will now go point-by-point through the article, pointing out what is wrong in the Edit Summary. Again, this is not one issue, it is a whole lot of issues. Please wait until I'm finished. I'll try to leave stuff whenever possible. But let's see what happens. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

So...

1)The BBC Quiz link never describes what the "Whoniverse" is and can only be used to show usage of the term. It is OR and totally deceptive to claim that it is used as a Reference for the definition of the term.

2)Lofficier never mentions anything about Torchwood, the Sarah Jane Adventures, K9(tv show) or Jack Harkness. In fact Lofficier himself states that only the Classic television Series, K9 and Company and Shada count, and that he doesn't consider any spin-offs to count. It is totally deceptive to include Torchwood, Sarah Jane Adventures, K((tv show) and "other related media" when that is not what is stated in the RS. Assuming what lofficier may have thought today is pure OR.

3)It is deliberately misleading to use the BBC Jersey "Battle of Flowers" article about a fan convention to claim that the usage of "Whoniverse" there is in the "fictional universe" sense.

4)The "canon" quote is interesting, but utterly irrelevant. There is a Canon (fiction) article. Take that there.

5)The quote from Survival is utterly pointless and irrelevant, and shows exactly what User:G S Palmer considers to be worthy on inclusion in a Wikipedia article.

6)The various bits of information listed from the BBC website....well none of those BBC articles mention "Whoniverse", "fictional universe", "fictional setting" etc., let alone state they are describing elements of it. It is thus pure and total OR(at the very best) to mention anything at all from any of them on this page.

7)It is of course totally deceptive, and at the very best POV, to call the original Haining definition the "Alternative usage", when that is the one used by the BBC, Matt Smith etc. The sentence "Since then, the term has been used in that meaning several other times" is also weasely as it again implies that the Haining definition is the less-used definition.

8)Since none of the RS mention that Torchwood or Sarah Jane Adventures are part of the "Whoniverse"(fictional setting), listing them as Categories is OR.

9)No mention of the RS from Tat Wood's book which, unlike most of G S Palmner's sources, actually mentions the word "Whoniverse", only it criticises people who use the term.

10)The article states as plain fact that Doctor Who takes place in a "fictional setting". Based solely on Lofficier's Foreword. The one where he himself says that this is just his interpretation. I have added WP:RS on this discussion page. Two state that Doctor Who takes place "in our universe", whereas the other two state that the various Doctor Who ranges take place in different "universes". Thus, we have three mutually exclusive positions. And the only source for G S Palmers position is the one that states that it is just the authors personal interpretation.

11)Bleedingcool is not a WP:RS.

12)Tardis Data Core is not a WP:RS.

13)Where exactly do Howe/Walker talk about "Whoniverse"?

41.132.48.255 (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy, you really like making things difficult for yourself and everyone else. I am not sure what the point of answering the same questions again and again is but I'll try one more time. To recap: you are inexplicably fixating on the word, when the article is not about the word but about the setting. The point of this article is not to describe the word scientifically, which cannot really be done, but to give an overview of the setting. A few links have been added to illustrate its use. 3) No, that link is perfectly relevant. I don't understand your problem with it. 4) The "canon" quote is relevant because there is little consistency in the Doctor Who universe and this is why. 5) I agree that quotes used at the beginning of sections randomly like this are unencyclopedic, and I would also prefer it gone. 6) That is because they assume that everyone understands it is fiction, probably because they haven't met you. 7) it is alternative to the one used in this article. Possibly this should just be in the intro rather than a section of its own. 8) Listing categories is not "OR". It's just helpful to the reader. These series share their setting with Doctor Who, essentially. 9) Well that is not massively interesting. On any topic like that I guess you can find someone ranting, but that's hardly of interest. 10) The fact that Doctor Who is set in a fictional setting is not based on Lofficier's word, but on the universal understanding of fiction. 11) Bleedingcool is just linked to to illustrate the use of the word. It's perfectly acceptable for that purpose. 12) It is not used as one. Just an external link. 13) In the book listed, I'm guessing? Mezigue (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

3)That's debatable. Especially since it's about a fan festival, which is one of the things Haning listed as "Whoniverse".

4)It's irrelevant. This is about the "Whoniverse"(fictional setting). Not canon or Dapol toys, or The Airzone Solution or anything else that is only related to Doctor Who, but not related to the "Whoniverse"(fictional setting).

6)Everyone assumes it is fiction, but not everyone assumes it takes place in a wholly "fictional universe". Indeed I provided 2 RS to the contrary.

7)The problem is more with the way it is worded, making it seem that the "fictional setting" is the wider used 'correct' definition, and the Haining definition is only used by a small minority of people.

8)Whether that is true or not, the problem is that there is nothing in any of the RS that states that. Therefore it is OR to include them. But then what about [13], [14], [15] etc. ?

9)It's interesting because it offers a more balanced view of the article's subject then just G S Palmer's POV essay.

10)WP:V and WP:OR. If you'd read those, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and the article would have been cleared up, and all arguments ended long ago. And again, most fiction is set in our "universe". And there are WP:RS which state that Doctor Who is. Lofficier may or may not have come up with the idea of the "Whoniverse"(fictionaol setting), but what is true is that his is the only RS to actually name and describe the "Whoniverse"(fictional setting).

11)But it's a non-RS being used to "verify" the point of the article, and prop up an article.

12)But it's a non-RS, again being used to effectively "verify" this article.

13)If it is mentioned, could you provide a page number and quote? 41.132.48.255 (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

G S Palmer's recent edits

1)The "Quiz" link does not define the "Whoinverse" at all, let alone states anything about a "fictional setting". Therefore it can only be used to show usage of the term, not used as a Source in the very first sentence.

2)Anything which doesn't mention "Whoniverse", "fictional setting", "fictional universe" is an irrelevant citation. Because it never mentions the name nor the definition of this article. In the fact the text these so-called "sources" prop up should be removed entirely.(They were, but G S Palmer keeps starting edit wars by reinstating this irrelevant material).

3)Tat Wood's book has been published by a well-known publisher, with ISBN etc. all added. More importantly it actually mentions the term Whoniverse, unlike the majority of G S Palmers so-called sources.

4)Wikipedia is about WP:V(although I'm sure G S Palmer still hasn't read it, and likely never will). Therefore whatever you think or think you know about Torchwood, K9(tv series) and the Sarah Jane Adventures...unless the RS specifically state these shows are part of the "fictional setting" of the "Whoniverse", it is OR to include them at all. Plain and simple. Is Blake's 7 also part of the "Whoniverse"(fictional setting)? What about Corpse Marker? Is Star Trek The Next Generation also part of the "Whoniverse"(fictional setting)? What about Assimilation2?

5)We still only have one source that actually defines the term "Whoniverse"(fictional setting). That is Lofficier. And he explicitly states that he considers only the Classic Series, K9 And Company, and Shada to be part of the Whoniverse, stating he doesn't consider spin-offs to count. And Wikipedia must go by what the Sources say, not editors interpretations of them, let alone editors completely unsourced personal beliefs. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I am through trying to reason with you as you show no understanding of how Wikipedia works and constantly ignore the consensus. Two editors out of three active on this page say you are wrong. Stop reverting. Mezigue (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you are going to get any compromise out of the IP. Tagging everything on the page is rather overdoing it to try and make the point. I had thought that this edit of mine which put at one accepted definition as the lede sentence and the disputed extension of the term to the spin-off materials as a separate statement - though requiring sourcing -could be acceptable as a middle ground to work from. But it seems the IP would rather have restore wording they didn't like so they can over-tag?. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if the IP comes back and continues their behavior we should report them for WP:OVERTAGGING at WP:ANI. That way we could get a few more people involved in the issue. G S Palmer (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

We could also mention their near constant hostile tone, refusal to negotiate to reach consensus despite several offers to collaborate (1, 2, and 3), personal attacks ([16], [17], [18]), grudge reverts (1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14), block evasion, outright lies [19], refusal to understand Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SYNTHESIS, and most importantly WP:NPOV, the fact that they have repeatedly removed the version we have been attempting to improve in favor of their own poorly written, poorly sourced, POV version, and their repeated copying of large sections from other articles into this talk page [20], as well as the fact that they have engaged in such interactions before. G S Palmer (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and done so. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editor at page Whoniverse. G S Palmer (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have also removed most of their tags for clearly being conscious violations of both WP:OVERTAGGING and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I have, however, made my reasons for the individual removals clear in the edit summaries. G S Palmer (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

a search of google books

And this is just a list of some books among the first few pages of hits that appear (at first glance) to plausibly be reliable sources, that use the word Whoniverse. I've weeded out the obvious Wikipedia extracts but some may be too close to the subject or self published

• Fan Phenomena: Doctor Who edited by Paul Booth
• The Television Handbook Jeremy Orlebar
• The Nth Doctor Jean-Marc Lofficier (2003 version)
• Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2011 (Liz Sladen entry) By Harris M. Lentz III - origins of this work uncertain as biblioography not available in preview
• Inside the Tardis: The Worlds of Doctor Who James Chapman
• Love and Monsters: The Doctor Who Experience, 1979 to the Present Miles Booy (refers to Haining's book)

For some reason I can't access #1

1. 2 clearly talks about "the fans who inhabit the Whoniverse", that's the deifintion Matt Smith used(Doctor Who fandom).

1. 3 can be used to show usage, but doesn't actually define anything.(same as the BBC "Who are you?" Quiz)

1. 4 seems be used to mean "production of Doctor Who", as per Haining's Original definition.

1. 5 can be used.

1. 6 actually refers to Haining and his definition in those words.

So, the only one that can really be used to flesh out the article is #5(and probably #1, which I can't seem to read). #3 can be used to show usage(although it's Lofficier again). 41.132.48.255 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability of Tat Wood

As per User:G S Palmer's disruptive revert [21]:

{Bizarelly he refers to Tat Wood as "this single person". How can you claim to be a Doctor Who fan and NOT know who Tat Wood is?)

(I could of course find tens of thousands of non-RS links, but unlike a certain someone who used [22] as a so-called "RS" to prop up a POV piece of nonsense, I'll go by real RS)

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

That's 4 RS showing the significance of someone who has his own Wikipedia article. The only reason User:G S Palmer can want to remove something by Tat Wood now would be User:G S Palmer's own POV/OR position. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The article Tat Wood does have it flagged up that notability may not be met. WP:GNG does require significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. There are three cites on that page - 1) is by the publisher, so is not independent (also has no content about the author so far as I can see) 2) I can't check, 3) Licence Denied I could check if I could lay my hands on it - but the essence of the book is fan-generated content. The cite may support that Tat Wood wrote some material, but I don't remember any biographical content in Licence Denied that actually addresses the writer. Personally I doubt that the article would survive an AfD. PS: I am a fan, and I didn't recall the name. PPS, it would be useful to all if you - and you are not the only one who does this - didn't leave bare URLs when giving links. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the chap himself, this is a childish rant rather than "criticism", it is about the word rather than the topic, and the size of the article as it currently stands does not warrant a "criticism" section, even if it were articulate. Mezigue (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is just a short quote from a lengthy article where he shows how stupid certain types of "fan" are. By trying to create a "fictional universe", being obsessed with continuity details etc. when the vast majority of people who watch Doctor Who don't even take such things into consideration.(And explains how, as examples, the same Robert Holmes wrote both The Sunmakers and The Mysterious Planet, the same Terry Nation wrote The Daleks, the Dalek Comics with Yarvelling, a Special feature on Dalek Origins in the Radio Times, and Genesis of the Daleks, and the same Production Team made both The Daemons and The Time Monster less than a year apart). The majority of people were happy just to watch, while a small minority obsessed over how it all managed to fit together in this "universe". Followed by the quote I added. Which is the only part of the article that actually uses the word "Whoniverse". 41.132.48.255 (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to "show how stupid" certain people are. If that is your goal, then you shouldn't be writing Wikipedia articles. G S Palmer (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I said? It is an article where the usage and concept of the term Whoniverse is shown to be stupid, and similarly illustrates how the majority of fans, as well as the people who actually make the show DON'T use the term, and never even consider the concept. This article must maintain a WP:NPOV. Stating outright that "Doctor Who takes place in a fictional universe called the Whoniverse, as do all of its spin-offs) is YOUR POV. There are now writers to back up your POV.(Although, AGAIN, Lofficier states that this is just his personal take and that others may come to different conclusions). Then there are others who reject the term and, more importantly, the very concept of "Whoniverse". Whether that is by showing how silly it is. Others believe Doctor Who takes place "in our universe"(as at least 2 RS I added to this discussion page show). And I also added 2 RS stating that Doctor Who takes place across various "universes". Each of these is equally valid, as long as there are RS for all of them. Which there now are. Either these other views need to be added, or the opening paragraph must be changed to show that this is just one take on things, not a definitive statement. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

New additions

Look good and can help immensely.

My main concerns are

1)anyone removing the Criticism section, or the BBC America external link

2)Russell T. Davies' quote about canon is totally out of place in this article

3)The Features section is OR. The new sources, along with Lofficier's Foreword, can be used to build it properly. None of those BBC sources in "Features" mention "Whoniverse", "fictional universe" or "fictional setting". And there are articles for Daleks, Cybermen, Sontarans, Ice Warriors etc. A better idea may be to actually talk about it as a whole, rather than going into detail about creatures who have their own Wikipedia articles, and whose text here is still OR. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

1) I have removed the silly rant again. See above why. No one wants to remove the BBC link, it's just been bounced up and down the article. 2) No it isn't, as already explained to you numerous times. 3) There is no original research there, and I am still not sure that you understand what the term means. Mezigue (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

1a)It's not a silly rant. It's a source about the concept(which is all "Whoniverse"(fictional setting) is). from a RS. There needs to be something which gives this article a NPOV.

1b)Sorry, confused...this means the BBC Quiz link:It belongs in the article. But as it does not define the term in any way, it can't be used in the first sentence to define the term. It would be better suited as an external link.

1c)The BBC America link I mentioned first is the "Your Guide to the Whoniverse", which is still there.

2)This is not an article about canon. And as the two terms mean different things, there is no reason to include it here, especially as that topic has its own article.

3)Yet, again, none of those articles mention anything about "Whoniverse", "fictional setting", "fictional universe" etc. They never say anything of the sort. You are taking articles, taking information, and placing them in a Wikipedia article that they never mention anything about. Thus it is OR for you to make the never-stated "connection" between those articles and this Wikipedia article. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that "canon" is what defines the Whoniverse. Therefore, it is relevant. G S Palmer (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide a RS stating that, then it can stay. Otherwise it's just your interpretation of things. Someone else may claim that something else defines the term "Whoniverse", and add links to articles talking about that. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Er, do you even understand what NPOV means? It is purely a point of view, if not a Wikpedia editor's one. It is not informative in any way - it just tells us that some guy doesn't like the word. The contrast with the way you criticise the previous version of the article and the nonsense you are trying to put in is amazing. And for the umpteenth time, this article is not about the word, it is about the setting. Mezigue (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to make offensive comments. Please read WP:CIVIL. Now, i'm not sure which comment you were even referring to. And what NPOV means is that we must take a Neutral Point Of View. In other words not push one persons'(or even one group of peoples') viewpoints. If someone says something that disagrees with what you want, if it can be Reliably Sourced, it can be added. But what you and G S Palmer are doing is cherry=picking things that back up your Point Of View, and deleting anything that states there may be a different interpretation. As well as falsely claiming that certain Sources say things that the never do actually say. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No, all I am trying to do is keep silly content out of this and other pages. I have no point of view to push. The so-called criticism section is just an inarticulate rant. It is ridiculous and rather off topic, especially in such a short article. Mezigue (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have been pushing your POV all along. When you stated earlier that I was stupid for not just accepting your "All fiction takes place in fictional universes" hypothesis. You have been working.editing with this assumption from the very beginning, when there is nothing which states that. In fact, as bad as this article is, it is nowhere near as badly OR as the fictional universe article.

Now, let's see...you want to add/keep numerous references which never mention anything at all about "Whoniverse", yet I add one source that explicitly references both "Whoniverse" and its concept, and you say that that is "silly" and "rather off topic"? That is very much pushing a point of view. In fact, it's about as good a definition of "pushing a point of view" as one is likely to find. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No. It is nothing like pushing a point of view. It is called using judgement. This is how you write a good article as opposed to a loose and incoherent collection of misunderstood quotes. Mezigue (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDISCRIMINATE. G S Palmer (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly not a good article as it currently appears. What it is is a collection of sources, some RS some not, stitched together to create a wholly new something that none of them actually say, and then a big helping of totally unsourced POV pushing thrown in on top of that. As it stands right now, there is ONE RS that backs up ...a position. Not YOUR position though. It if Lofficier, who explicitly states that a)what he has written is just his personal take and b)that only TV Doctor Who, Shada and K9 and Company are part of the Whoniverse, and that all other spin-offs, including other television shows, are not.41.132.48.255 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that your point of view is the one that NPOV is applicable to? G S Palmer (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. You're right there. I am the one person here trying to maintain a Neutral Point Of View. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you know that's not what I meant. G S Palmer (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresenting Sources to state what you want, and ruthlessly deleting anything that even hints at another viewpoint/possibility is POV. Why did you keep deleting the BBC America "Your Guide to the Whoniverse" source/external link? Why do you keep deleting that Lofficier's Source is just his take(when that is exactly what he himself says in his book)? Why did you delete the Criticism section? Why do you keep reinstating information that is not backed up by any Source, Reliable or otherwise? Why do you immediately turn hostile the moment someone actually provides a new RS that says something even slightly different to what you believe you know to be true? Because you are indeed pushing your POV. You want the article to say exact specific thing. YOUR POV. You falsify what it states in RS, use obviously non-RS material, use totally unsourced material, use SYNTHESIS to stitch together a Frankenstein's monster of information from various unrelated origins(none of which actually mention the definition nor name of this article), and relentlessly delete anything at all that doesn't state exactly what you prejudged the article should look like(according to you). That is POV. That is why I reported this article to the No Original Research board. That is why there have been Edit Wars. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Spare cite(s)

Probably not needed at the moment. But a cite that backs up SJA being part of whoniverse.

• Kelly, Stephen (3 October 2011), The Sarah Jane Adventures: a fitting tribute to Elisabeth Sladen, theguardian.com

Not sure if this one meets the RS requirements

• Hartley (Yahoo Contributor Network), John C (28 March 2014), Peter Capaldi’s greatest TV hits, YahooTV, Capaldi has already had some brushes with the Whoniverse, as Caecilius in 2008 episode 'The Fires of Pompeii', and as Frobisher, the browbeaten Permanent Secretary to the Home Office, in 'Dr Who' spin-off 'Torchwood: Children of Earth' the following year {{citation}}: |last= has generic name (help)

the contributor's profile seems reasonable, but how much editorial oversight from Yahoo? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's another one: same potential problem as the second source, but it's a start: Capaldi’s Past Whoniverse Appearances Not Ignored, Doctor Who TV, 28 September 2014 G S Palmer (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And one for the "fictional universe" definition: [27]. G S Palmer (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"Even so, The Sarah Jane Adventures has powered on – occupying a unique place in the Whoniverse." That's more production/franchise. Had they said "Sarah Jane Smith occupies a unique place in the Whoniverse you may be on to something".

Capaldi's is ambiguous.

Is DoctorWhoTV a WP:RS? 41.132.48.255 (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is used quite often as a source for current events in Doctor Who, for instance over at Doctor Who (series 8). Whether that makes it useful here is open to debate. G S Palmer (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's a source for the Daleks actually being in the Whoniverse: Kistler, Alan (2013). Doctor Who: a history. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-7627-9188-0. Retrieved 4 April 2014.. This should make 41 happy. G S Palmer (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)