Talk:List of minor Doctor Who villains

Why are we creating a new article for a one-shot character? Didn't we go through this with Doctor Constantine? --khaosworks 13:38, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Cassanrda is the main villain, Constantine was a bit part. Look to your own Henry Van Statten, and to Count Grendel. Having said that a merge of villains would probably be in order. Tim! (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't create Henry van Statten or Count Grendel - someone else did I decided to beef it up (this was before we figured out that we could avoid protracted VfDs with redirects) rather than leave them as horrible, ugly stub articles. Grendel at least has the notability of appearing in a short story. Time for List of minor Doctor Who villains or similar perhaps? --khaosworks 13:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

A list is probably a good idea. I'm not sure recurrence is always a good guide to inclusion though — Kandyman appeared in Happiness Patrol and the same short story as Count Grendel, but there is not really very much to say about him Tim! (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree; in fact, if anyone wants to turn both of them into redirects (and just note the recurrence in The Happiness Patrol and The Androids of Tara that's just fine by me. Like I said, the only reason I beefed them up (like Pete Tyler and the Reapers) was only because I couldn't stand seeing the stub articles as they were. --khaosworks 15:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

War Chief

is the fan spec stuff worth including? at least in such detail

Probably not. I'll see if I can winnow it down; as it is, it's disproportionate to the entry. —Josiah Rowe 20:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Cassandra

Someone else chime in on this; what do you think of the edits? Let's get a proper airing of views here. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"It is not yet known whether this means Cassandra survived her apparent death, or if New Earth is set before The End of the World and, if the latter is the case, how this might affect Cassandra's future actions on Platform One"

I don't think that last subclause adds anything, it just makes it more confusing. Tim! (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. User:TheDoctor10's additions here and on The End of the World (Doctor Who) are a bit more speculative than is necessary — anybody reading the page should probably be able to draw those conclusions on their own. I also think that he or she is taking the recent edits too personally. I can see how Khaosworks' thorough editing style might seem brusque or proprietary, but getting huffy about it won't help anything. —Josiah Rowe 17:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It is, however, fact. It is not yet known. If the latter is the case, it might affect her future actions. It's not actually doing any harm: I take it personally for that reason. Khaosworks is now just reverting on principle. Feel free to discuss this with me on my talkpage (but I'd rather you didn't: just keep it there, harmless little sentence).--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, the "subcase" does make people think. It's quite possible that people wouldn't have thought of this: they could in fact also not think about the fact that the Doctor looked different on both occasions: it may be worth adding that.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Josiah and Tim here. Regardless of whether someone could draw such conclusions on there own, it's beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article- WP:NOR applies.--Sean Black ^Talk 21:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be babyish, but I will keep re-adding it. I think it is worth it, I will, if you like, write to Russel T Davies personally (via the [[BBC]]) and ask him what he thinks. Obviously what happens in New Earth will no doubt change it, and I won't object to that then. Yours, with the deepest <!--dis-->respect, --TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

hidden text revealed by Josiah Rowe 07:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget the three-revert rule. GraemeLeggett 08:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: WP:3RR (or WP:1RR, if you're feeling generous...).--Sean Black ^Talk 08:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I've got a couple of problems with this whole "appeal to RTD" idea.

1. It's highly unlikely that RTD would have the time and inclination to answer such a trivial question. If TheDoctor10 gets any response at all, it would probably be from some secretary or underling, and as such would probably lack the authority TheDoctor10 is seeking. Furthermore, if an answer were received, the most likely content is something along the lines of "you'll find out when the episode airs", which is true but unhelpful in resolving this dispute.
2. We have a content disagreement on the page. One editor feels strongly that the clause "and, if the latter is the case, how this might affect Cassandra's future actions on Platform One" is a worthwhile addition to Cassandra's entry. Four other editors disagree (with varying degrees of strength). Wikipedia operates on consensus. The clear consensus, in this case, is to remove the clause.
3. TheDoctor10's comment says, "pls keep it this way until RTD comments". If we consented to this request, it would be equivalent to locking the page at TheDoctor10's version. And if you consider how unlikely it is that RTD will in fact comment on such an insignificant matter, then the request to "keep it this way" begins to look more and more like a demand for indefinite control of the article, which is unacceptable.

If TheDoctor10 continues to buck the clear consensus, maybe we should make a request for comment, to get some outside perspective on this (really pretty minor) dispute. Of course, Wikipedia's dispute resolution page reccomends that prior to an official RFC, a truce should be called. Despite the concerns I've aired above, I'm willing to let the entry stand either way for the moment, while we try to get some perspective on the matter. Tim, Sean, Terence — do you think this is a good path forward? —Josiah Rowe 07:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

My reply is: I don't know what perspective there is to get on the matter. I notice that, on Josiah's message, there is no mention of the rival values of keeping or deleting the clause, there being only talk about how "childish" I am.

The "childish" remark was about TheDoctor10's hidden-text message above. Either you're willing to engage in polite discourse or you're not. I didn't mention the merit of the clause itself because I thought others had made the point already. But if you need me to say it as well, here's my opinion: I don't think that the clause adds anything particularly worthwhile to the entry. Sorry. I called for "perspective" because this has clearly become an edit war, and as such it's sometimes difficult to separate the value of the content from the personalities involved. The purpose of an RFC is to bring the matter to a wider audience, who can look at it more objectively. Of course, I fear that in bringing this to a wider audience, we run the risk of ending up on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever.—Josiah Rowe 08:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I have had an idea to which the Khao-club will object, but it's worth a try. Suppose we create a List of minor Doctor Who villains/With speculation subpage, with a [fairly] prominent link to at the top of the page. I would be willing to settle for that, seeing as you are all averse to a slight uncertanity in the actual page. Or, more extreme I admit, a new namespace could be created, similar to Talk: but being there to discuss uncertanities in the articles, for example, there could have been one about Bad Wolf. People would have given their opinions on what it could be: a sort of Debate: namespace. The difference between this and Talk: would be that Talk: is for everything connected with the article, while Debate: is simply for discussion on the topic of the article, rather then the encyclopedic content of it.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

What TheDoctor10 is proposing here is creating forks for the express purpose of violating actual Wikipedia policy, which is a suggestion so radical as to render any civilized response to be anticlimatic. I am not in favor of letting it stand at a non-consensus version for the simple reason that it is for TheDoctor10 to provide a basis for its inclusion, not the other way around. I have asked, cajoled, begged, even for TheDoctor10 to try filing an RfC, but thus far he has declined to respond to that. I am willing to call a truce until such a RfC can be filed, if not by TheDoctor10, then perhaps by the rest of us: the only question is, what terms are the other editors willing to accept? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that letting the article stand at TheDoctor10's current version temporarily, until comment comes in from the RfC, might be a token of good faith. But then, so would not banning him for the violation of 3RR...

Oh, and I agree that the proposals are absurd: not (as TheDoctor10 seems to think) because I worship at the shrine of Khaosworks (although I do value his contributions), but because they're contrary to the spirit and policy of Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe 08:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

My view is that the sentence should only be temporarily introduced for the purposes of the truce only after the RfC is filed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

My terms are as follows: I feel that the clause is as useful as knowing about fictional faces in the year 5 billion can be. I want that clause to be on Wikipedia. Where it goes is up to you, but I don't mean on some sub-sub-talkpage. I mean in a main namespace or hypothetical Debate: namespace article. The same goes with the End of the World date thing.

The clauses actually don't do any harm. They don't use up much space. I will donate £25 to the Wikimedia Foundation for all the space they use up and bandwidth they take if you want. But WP is supposed to be free and editable by all, so you lot in the Khao-club are also violating WP policy.

The reason for my continued refusal to file an RfC is that I will be outvoted. I respect that consensus is against me. That does not, however, mean that I think my passages are bad, or not approved of. I think that the Khao-club is simply trying to control DW articles, and I was unlucky enough to try to edit one. The "Edit this page" tab is misleading. On DW articles, it ought to say "Edit this page, but bear in mind that it will be reverted within 24 hours by Khaosworks and his pals".

I tried to make a compromise above by suggesting a subpage. But Khaosworks acted as if I'd just blasphemed most dreadfully. Even if he thought it was as bad as he (exagguratedly) made out, he could just have said something along the lines of No. Bad idea. But instead he acts as if I have made a personal insult to him with that short paragraph. I may have wrongly made personal attacks, but he needs a look at WP:CIVIL too.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose someone could always respond to this, rather than pointedly ignoring it like Khaosworks just has. Ah, well...--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I am not sure what you want me to say. Once again, WP:TINC. Your "compromise" was no such thing and against all Wikipedia policy, you've just admitted that your view is against consensus but you don't care, and you've also promised to continue your "reversion campaign" on WP:AN/3RR. With every comment you're making you're just providing more fodder for a case against you for disruption. So... still not sure what you want me to say. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that I don't care that my view is against consensus. I don't beleive that my view is against consensus. I said that I am against consensus. The consensus is against me, Anthony Pulley. There isn't anything wrong with speculation. WP is full of it. And you, Khaosworks, seem to revert things for the sake of it. So it's not about my comments.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not about you. It's never been about you. It's about the edits. Those edits of yours that you've provided cites for. Remember The Girl in the Fireplace? The note about Madame de Pompadour in the NDAs which in the end, you yourself removed? You provided a cite, and I assumed good faith and trusted that it was accurate, just removing the speculative bits. Turns out you made a mistake and you removed it yourself, and you should be commended for that. But I concentrated on the edit, not the person. This is not, nor has it ever been, personal. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's my two cents of advice for TheDoctor10: Any active page on Wikipedia is going to have users who keep a close eye on it. Doctor Who pages are no different. What you call the "Khaos-club" is just the community of WikiProject:Doctor Who. Yes, Khaosworks is one of our most active members, and we value his contributions because he's made thousands of helpful and constructive edits to Doctor Who pages. I'm sure that you can also become a valued member of the project. But that involves respecting the judgment of the community, even when it differs from your own. When a clear consensus emerges against a change you think is an improvment, the proper response is to discuss it on the Talk page, not launch a one-man campaign of reversion. And if, after you and the other editors have aired their perspectives, the consensus is unchanged, you've got to let it go. It's not worth fighting so desperately for. Instead, go on to some other article or subject area of interest to you and make other useful changes. Over time, you'll learn what changes are valued by the wider Wikipedia community, not just this little corner of it. And I think you'll find that when you come back here, the changes you make might last a bit longer. —Josiah Rowe 08:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

---

OK, I've filed the RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature. Here's what I said (I tried to describe the problem as neutrally as I could):

Talk:List of minor Doctor Who villains — an edit war over whether one clause is needlessly speculative and confusing. One user continues to revert, despite a clear consensus from at least four other editors. Dispute has included personal attacks and a general lack of civility.

We'll see what response, if any, we get. —Josiah Rowe 09:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, but it seemsthis is necessary. We need some outside opinions. I really hope this clears things up.--Sean Black ^Talk 21:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed a very strange thing to have an edit war over. I came from the RfC. I think the consensus version is clearer and Doctor10's addition should be omitted. Kit 08:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I did mention WP:LAME above... —Josiah Rowe 18:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I also came here per the RfC. I agree that the consensus edit is clearer; while, as Doctor10 points out, there are ample examples of speculation in wikipedia, I don't see that that's a successful argument for adding to the list. Colonel Tom 22:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetizing

Shouldn't Henry van Statten be listed under "S" instead of "V"? I mean, you wouldn't file Ludwig van Beethoven under "V", would you? —Josiah Rowe 22:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I'll do it now.--Sean Black | Talk 22:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

A possible light at the end of this particular tunnel

We may be able to escape this unpleasant cycle of speculation and reversion. A post at Outpost Gallifrey's forum (the spoiler section, be warned!) gives a specific date for "New Earth". I haven't yet been able to find the source, but if this is confirmed we can revise the last sentence accordingly. (Did you like how I managed to say that without letting on whether the OG source says it's before or after TEotW?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you post the text either here or on my talkpage? I don't have an account for OG. I hope, however, that you won't alter it.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:TheDoctor10 Tim! (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The Malus

I've added this character, because I think it belongs here. However, I don't really know enough about it, so I've just put a link to the serial. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than I will be able to fill in some details! 82.13.223.11 21:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)