Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:29, 12 March 2014

Doctor Who C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on October 25, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

K9 Adventures

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

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

Why oh why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Temporal disposition of encyclopedic compilation.

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

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

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

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

"Features" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:canons

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

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

Features section: revisiting the subject

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

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

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

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

Inclusion and continuity?

These are all direct quotes from the BBC Charter( ):

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

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

(and later)

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

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

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

WP:RS

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

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

Canon citations

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

You need an account there to read it.

Certain anachronisms

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

Er, what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a page from a book:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More...

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

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

• C-Class Doctor Who articles
• Mid-importance Doctor Who articles