Talk:Pete Tyler

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of Doctor Who villains#John Lumic|John Lumic]] The anchor (#John Lumic) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Dead = no affiliations?[edit]

Why can't Pete be "affiliated" with Rose and Jackie? Adric is still affiliated with the Fourth and Fifth Doctors, and he's just as dead... arguably more so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the appearance of "real" Pete in just one episode doesn't seem as strong as Adric's longer-term association to me. But if you disagree, then go ahead and re-add it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even though "real" Pete appeared in only one episode, his presence is felt in more (e.g. Gwyneth's mention of Rose's dead father in The Unquiet Dead]]). I'd say he merits an "affiliation" credit on the basis of how important his role in the series is — even if, technically, most of his on-screen appearances have been as his alternate-universe self. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood[edit]

Is he affiliated with Torchwood? He was with Torchwood in Army of Ghosts/Doomsday. (unsigned)

Parallel universe version, yes, after they destroyed their version of Torchwood 1, they took it over. In the "real" universe, it was closed down. Digifiend (talk)

File:Pete Tyler.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Pete Tyler.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 16 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pete Tyler alternate.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Pete Tyler alternate.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pete Tyler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfx.co.uk/tv_reviews/doctor_who_fathers_day

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]