Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 41.135.9.230 (talk) at 14:05, 24 March 2014 (→Scope and content). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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[REDACTED] 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)

Apparently you need to cite that the sky is blue and there are no Daleks flying in it. Mezigue (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Pleas epost your comments at the bottom of a section, otherwise it looks like you posted it earlier than you did, or people may not notice it atal. And once again you ignore rational discussion, and make unfunny jokes. Have you actually read the discussion? Do you have something to add, even if it's a refutation of what is being discussed? Do you have any WP:RS to back up your position? 41.132.179.212 (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No - I post my comments below the comments I am replying to. They are time-stamped so I don't see how confusion is possible. Mezigue (talk) 13:49, 12 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)

Well, the whole point of starting a discussion is so that everyone can make suggestions, and then the agreed on changes be made by consensus. While the term "Whoniverse" can be Reliably Sourced to its modern meaning, there is nothing at all to suggest that it has always existed, or even that the concept has always existed. Maybe something explaining how it is a modern term. I would like to say that it grew out of 1980's comic book fandom, but then I would need to find a RS. The other problem is that there are TWO "Doctor Who Universes", the one that this article refers to, and the original meaning, and it's probably wrong to conflate them. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's probably right to conflate them. Deb (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Why? Are you suggesting to have one umbrella article where both meanings are discussed? Or are you suggesting that we actually try and claim that two different concepts/ideas that happen to have the same name be treated as a single concept? 41.132.179.212 (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The article currently states that the word has been used for both the fictional universe and the real-life "scene" but that it is now mostly used for the former. There are a few sources in the article for that. If you think it is wrong, correct and source, but don't put a "citation needed" tag after "fictional universe" because that is just silly. The setting of a sci-fi show is fictional by definition. Mezigue (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS for that? Did you read the link from Doctor Courtney Brown I provided above? 41.132.179.212 (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Why? Does he say that Doctor Who is real? Mezigue (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your attempts at humour aren't helping at all. He obviously does not say that Doctor Who is real. But his comments are:

SNAPSHOT: It has long been known that science fiction often seeks to foretell future technological developments. But it is also true — although less often noted — that science fiction has often offered explicit commentaries on the political and social evolution of our societies. Fritz Lang’s biting critique of human society in his science fiction movie "Metropolis," and H.G. Well’s similarly powerful perspective on social and political development as portrayed in his novel "The Time Machine," are two such examples. This freshman seminar examines the role of science fiction as a powerful vehicle for social and political commentary, especially as it relates to the evolutionary tendencies of human societies.

EXTENDED VIEW: Science fiction is a literary genre of speculative fiction within which an author may extrapolate with respect to the evolution of our society. Unlike the fantasy genre that does require the author to connect an imaginary world with the real world, nearly all science fiction must in some way resonate with a reader’s understanding of current or potential problems of this world with little or no ambiguity. Thus, when the plot of a science fiction novel takes place in the future, it is clear that the author wishes the reader to imagine a possible future that could potentially evolve from the current world. The reason for doing this may be to show how an aspect of contemporary society which may seem of minor significance at present develops in the future into a horrific problem or dilemma. For this reason, science fiction is at its best when it depicts how our human societies may evolve — not just technologically — but socially and politically as well.

Science fiction commentary on social and political evolution is best identified through broad categories, many of which have long occupied the attention of social scientists. A number of such categories that are often (and sometimes profoundly) addressed by science fiction are listed below:

1. The struggle between collectivism and individualism 2. Population growth and environmentalism 3. Utopianism (portrayed through the lenses of anarchism, class struggle, pastoralism, Marxism and socialism) 4. Dystopianism (the flip-side of "utopianism") 5. The politics of gender 6. Artificial intelligence, slavery, and political reason 7. Bioengineering and the value of artificially created genetic strains among both humans and non-humans 8. Apocalypse and war 9. Corporatism, cyberpunk, and technological dependency 10. The struggle to control the evolutionary development of a civilization following the collapse of a previous social or political order (involving religious, political, economic, and technological themes)

This course introduces students to many of the political and social ideas listed above from the perspective of science fiction. Thus, this a course about politics, not science fiction. Science fiction is a vehicle that lends itself well to isolating the crucial elements inherent in the political and social debates which can be found in the above categories. This course is designed to enliven a greater understanding of the seriousness of such debates by allowing science fiction to guide the tone of the discussions. In many cases, this will occur through a careful examination of the extrapolations from our current human condition made by science fiction authors to futures in which problems only hinted at in contemporary society become major elements of social and political organization.

Again, you are confusing fictional characters and fictional storylines with a fictional universe. It is OR(and a complete misunderstanding of the fundamentals of science fiction) to assume that any fiction must be set in a "fictional universe". Nearly all science fiction features fictional characters existing in the real world. Indeed, for science fiction to work at all, it must take place in the same "universe" as the reader/watcher/listener. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Did he actually write "H.G. Well’s" ? Deb (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "real world" as portrayed in Doctor Who is part of an "fictional universe" in the most obvious sense. The real "real world" has never had an organisation called UNIT or a prime minister called Harriet Jones. Deb (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. Russell T. davies clearly subscribes to the "Whoniverse" idea that Mezigue takes for granted. However, a)this is not the only definition of "Doctor Who Universe" b)this is not the original definition of "Doctor Who Universe" c)this definition of "Doctor Who Universe" is a recent one d)Science Fiction by its definition exists in the real world e)There is nothing at all to suggest that anyone at least up to the Eric Saward era was ever making a show set in a "fictional universe" f)the article uses the term "Whoniverse" to refer back to the origins of Doctor Who and states as fact that there was always a "fictional Doctor Who Universe", that the original showrunenrs intentionally created/expanded a "fictional Doctor Who Universe" and one editor has made multiple jokes about anyone who doesn't swallow that whole as fact. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing at all to suggest that anyone at least up to the Eric Saward era was ever making a show set in a "fictional universe". Yes there is: it is full of fictional planets and creatures. Mezigue (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You're kidding surely? You can't possibly be being serious. Just because there are fictional characters does not mean that the setting' has to be a "fictional universe". There are millions of shows with fictional characters and fictional businesses that are supposed to be set in reality. Because if they were set in some "fictional universe" the whole point of the show would be lost. Do you believe in a "CSI universe"? Or a "Fawlty Towers universe"? Or a "Modern Family universe"? Or a "Hell's Kitchen universe"? You seem to be deliberately ignoring the points that have been cited, and are just blithely sticking to a debunked position, based on...what exactly? 41.132.179.212 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of a difference between fictional planets and fictional people, don't you? Deb (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? 41.132.179.212 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are human beings and there are aliens. In the real universe, we don't know whether aliens exist. We know of the existence of many planets as well as knowing which of them are likely to support life. So any TV programme that shows people living on Mars (for example) is set in a universe which isn't the one we live in; even more so for any programme that shows humanoids living on planets with made-up names. Whereas a programme that includes a person called "John Smith" could be based on the known universe even if that particular individual called "John Smith" doesn't exist in real life. The universe as portrayed in, say, "Coronation Street", is not fictional because it makes frequent reference to real people such as the Queen, whereas the universe as represented in "Star Trek" is fictional because it includes references to historical events that never happened in the real universe (not to mention the parallel universes that often crop up in sci-fi).

Another aspect of this discussion is the intended meaning of the word "universe". In terms of Doctor Who, I tend to interpret it in the sense of "a field or sphere, as of thought or activity, regarded as a distinct, comprehensive system", rather than "All existing matter and space considered as a whole".

Sorry, but that is your POV. Which can not be verified. It's very interesting that you mention Star Trek existing in a "fictional universe". Tis was clearly never the intention of Gene Roddenberry. In fact, one Trekkie obsession points this out crystal clear. In an episode of TOS(set in the 23rd Century) it was revealed that the first space shuttle has been called "Enterprise". However, when NASA later announced the construction of the first space shuttle, they announced its name would be 'Constitution'. This was met with horror form millions of Trekkies, who petitioned(bombarded) NASA until the shuttle was renamed 'Enterprise'. This action would have made no sense whatsoever had it been Roddenberry's intention that Star Trek take place in a "fictional universe". Just as the continuity-heavy Attack of the Cybermen would have been unnecessary at all had it been the BBC's intention that either Attack or the earlier The Tenth Planet be set in some fictional "Whoniverse".... Real science-fiction does not necessarily mean Earth. Some of the best-loved and most respected SF involves other worlds or aliens. The point is that it is done in a realistic, believable, credible manner. Is anyone saying that Cybermen or Klingons actually exist? No, but they are races that conceivably could exist. And as Dr Brown's essay said, much of sf is making future predictions, or future warnings, based on what we know today. Thus something like 2001:A Space Odyssey, made in 1968. In 1968 it was High Sci-Fi, and entirely believable. Viewed today, it bears no resemblance to the 2001 we all lived through, but it was always supposed to be a realistic prediction of what 2001 could believable hold in store, albeit from a 1968 perspective. Just as something made today that predicts events in, say, 2030, would look believable today(if done properly), but hopelessly dated by 2050. Just because the Sc-Fi writers of the past didn't have 100% accuracy with their predictions of future events does not mean their works were intentionally set in "fictional universes". By the way the definition of "universe" is:

u·ni·verse Show IPA noun 1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm. 2. the whole world, especially with reference to humanity: a truth known throughout the universe. 3. a world or sphere in which something exists or prevails: his private universe. 4. Also called universe of discourse. Logic. the aggregate of all the objects, attributes, and relations assumed or implied in a given discussion. 5. Also called universal set. Mathematics . the set of all elements under discussion for a given problem

In any case, nobody has provided a WP:RS that Doctor Who was originally conceived to be set in a "Doctor Who Universe". Just as WP:RS do' show that the original meaning of "Doctor Who Universe" was not what this article is about, and it is still strewn with problems. But the point is, it can be verified today that the term "Doctor Who Universe" is used by some people today in the sense that Mezigue and you are using it. The problems are that a)There is NOTHING that suggests the original Doctor Who(1963-1989) was ever set in this "fictional universe" and b)there is another, totally different, second meaning of "Doctor Who Universe", which is actually the original meaning, and many WP:RS using it in that sense have been used to try and prop up the "fictional universe" meaning. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This action would have made no sense whatsoever had it been Roddenberry's intention that Star Trek take place in a "fictional universe". Yes, clearly that would have made no sense! Thank god this embarrassing situation was avoided. Mezigue (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Your poor attempts at humour aren't helping this discussion at all. If you have nothing productive to add, then it may be best not to make those sort of comments at all. It is interesting that you have yet to provide a WP:RS, or indeed anything at all that isn't disruptive. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

But you can't pretend you have supplied a WP:RS for your comments. "Tis was clearly never the intention of Gene Roddenberry. In fact, one Trekkie obsession points this out crystal clear." If this is the best you can do in terms of verification, you can't really expect to be taken seriously when you talk about unprofessional edits and the need for references. Deb (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can't pretend you provided a reliable source when you talked about how Star Trek had things that never happened in history, and that must therefore mean Star Trek takes place in a "fictional universe". Since you made a source-free remark, I responded with the Enterprise/Constitution story, which illustrates the reality. You never provided a source for anything you said. I could provide sources for the Shuttle Enterprise tale, and then User:Mezigue was just plain rude and disruptive. And all you have managed to do is point out typos in my posts. You yourself have yet to provide anything even remotely resembling a WP:RS. But either way, this isn't about Star Trek. This is about the "Doctor Who Universe". And the facts remain:

1)There is NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING that ever suggests that Doctor Who, at any point during the 'Classic Series'(63-89) was ever set in a "fictional universe". I have asked and re-asked for anything to back up this position that the article now wrongly claims. All I've been met with are criticisms of typos and Mezigue's so-called "jokes".

2)The term "Doctor Who Universe" was coined to refer to the activities of fans, the production company, conventions etc. Many of the WP:RS make this clear. And yet, this article falsely claims that those sources support Mezigue's definition of "Doctor Who Universe". Which they must certainly do not.

3)There are actually WP:RS which use the term "Doctor Who Universe" in its modern-day term. And for this reason something like the article in that state should remain. However, a)it is a blatant falsehood to state that people like Newman ever had anything to do with a "fictional universe" and b)the RS that use the term in its original definition have NOTHING to do with this article.

4)You may complain about my lack of WP:RS, but that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that we have a rambling article that is mostly propped up by sources that have nothing to do with the article they are cited as sources for, and hot air and POV. Take a look at WP:BURDEN. If this article is not cleaned up, then it must get heavily edited/pruned to even begin to approach a standard that is acceptable for Misplaced Pages. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, one thing that I thought didn't need pointing out(I may very well have been wrong) is that this is not Wiktionary. This is not a place to list definitions of a word or term. It would be like having one article for "turkey" and then talking about both the country and the bird. And since the first paragraph uses the term exclusively to refer to the "fictional setting" of Doctor Who, that must therefore be the article's subject. Mention of the usage in its original definition may be interesting as a diversion, but it is not what the article is about. It's about the so-called "fictional setting", and sources that use the term in its original definition therefore can not be used to support this article's shaky foundation.

The other remarkable thing is that while the term is used in Mezigue's definition, does any source actually explain the definition? We may have sources referring to a "Whoniverse", but is there actually a WP:RS that explains the term? otherwise this entire article is WP:OR. Which added to the rather arrogant stitching together of unsourced material and POV pushing must take WP:SYNTHESIS to previously unplumbed depths.

Someone suggest that I "go for it" in terms of cleaning up this mess. I have tied to discuss this rationally. Mezigue's response was to make offensive "jokes". In the absence of properly sourced material using(and actually defining) the term "Whoniverse" as a "fictional setting of Doctor Who", then falsely claimed and/or unsourced parts of this article will start being removed, and as per WP:BURDEN they will not be allowed to be reinstated without proper WP:V WP:RS. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not made any "offensive jokes" ; I have used mild sarcasm. To recap, after your long rants about the words "Doctor Who universe" being misused in this article, you appear to have finally noticed that they are in fact not used at all. Good, that's progress. Now, as you point out the article is about the universe in which the show is set and uses the word Whoniverse to refer to it. The "original usage" section is probably needed in case some extremely pedantic editor (they exist!) might complain that this is not what the word means. So best not remove it. After that, you have not really made clear what it is you want changed about the article. Mezigue (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No. That is not what I said and you know it. I have repeated my position several times. If you refuse to actually answer what has been said, and attempt to put words in my mouth, then trying to discuss anything with you is pointless. Everything I have to say was explicitly stated in my previous post(s). Those points still stand, and your attempt at confusing the issue is irrelevant. What I said remains fact. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Started editing

I have now begun removing unsourced sections, WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS etc. More may well be removed. There 'are sources using "Whoniverse" in the sense that User:Mezigue espouses. Thus a properly Reliably Sourced article about the "fictional place" known as the "Whoniverse" can indeed be put together. The problems/concerns again are:

1)There is nothing at all to state that the "fictional Doctor Who Universe" was ever mentioned before 1992!

2)People conflating Haining's definition with Loccifier's meaning, and using "Doctor Who Universe"(original meaning) sources to support the "Whoniverse" meaning.

3)Long OR paragraphs that go on and on about the "Whoniverse" without a single proper WP:V WP:RS.

I am certainly very keen to discuss how the article should be reworded. I have asked this before and was met with "sarcasm", and criticism of a couple of typos I made. Specifically the very first paragraph. The first paragraph as it stands now wrongly(and without anything even remotely resembling a WP:RS) states that Doctor Who always existed in a "fictional setting". As we can see, before 1992 that was never stated. And after 1992 it is far from uniformly agreed upon. However, we can make an article about the beliefs of those who post-1992 do use the term "Doctor Who Universe" in its other meaning(ie. a "fictional universe"). It just needs rewording. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there an online Radio Times archive? I'm searching the web for WP:V/WP:RS"Whoniverse", but have only met with results such as so far. Will continue looking...41.132.179.212 (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear . 41.132.179.212 (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Found something . here the quotes that mention "Whoniverse":

The Universal Databank is a creative exercise in retroactive continuity. In other words, I believe that it is impossible to make all the elements of the Whoniverse fit into a coherent continuity based simply on the information given on the show. Some creativity has to be brought into play.

That is the problem with fiction. Trying to encapsulate it in a book of this nature is like taking photographs of shadows. Not only is it a matter of point of view, but shadows also change. So the best advice to be given to those readers who brook little disagreement with their own views of how the fictional Whoniverse should be arranged, is: read no further, go write your own book.(NB:This appears to be the first actual WP:RS to support this article!)

If you disagreed with that, you'll positively despise this book. On the other hand, if you found "History of Mankind" enjoyable, you may equally derive some pleasure from exploring the mind-boggling expanse of the Whoniverse, which is ultimately the purpose of this work.

Doesn't mention "Whoniverse", but -- I have NOT included any material from the Missing Season, New Adventures, Missing Adventures, BBC Books, Stage Plays, Radio Plays and Comics (DWM and/or strips) because, frankly, I consider these "apocrypha" and not pure "canon";

-- I have NOT included material from the recent Eighth Doctor TV movie (even though I ought to have done so) because I've been too lazy to update this work for the Net; :-)

On the other hand, this also means that my own, personal interpetation of what transpired in the Whoniverse may differ from the works of other writers. To quote but two examples, the history of the Daleks presented here follows a chronology slightly different from that of John Peel. The history of the Cybermen equally conflicts with David Banks' version. Like archeologists studying the records of long-dead civilizations, it doesn't mean that any of us are wrong -- simply that we followed different sets of rules.

41.132.179.212 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

More rambling unsourced OR has been removed. I have also done something that nobody else in the years this article has existed ever thought to do...I have added a link to a BBC America page called "Your Guide to the Whoniverse". Perhaps that link can be sued to salvage this article, and make ti into something Misplaced Pages-worthy? I may start using information from that soon, as others seem more interested in being sarcastic. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this section Unlike the owners of other science fiction franchises, the BBC takes no position on which Doctor Who stories are definitive for future projects. The show has no 'canon', and indeed, recent producers of the show have expressed distaste for the idea. actually relevant to the article? Someone stated rather strongly on this discussion page that "Doctor Who canon" and "Whoniverse" are two separate concepts. Certainly the source does not mention the "Whoniverse", it is merely a statement on canon. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

usage - a few links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sixth one uses the Haining definition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problem that will hopefully be resolved soon

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

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

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

Questions/Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other 3 are:

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

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

3)The Loccifier link.

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

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

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

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

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

The only WP:RS that uses the term "Whoniverse" in the sense that you insist is so well-known that it is equivalent to the knowledge that the sky is blue is Loccifier's book. Originally published in 1992. The one where he himself states On the other hand, this also means that my own, personal interpetation of what transpired in the Whoniverse may differ from the works of other writers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New citation need tag

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

Found a later usage of the term "Whonivsere"!

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

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

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

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

"Canon" and "Whoniverse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible new RS

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

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

Page 15:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems with current version:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mezigue: Have you actually read any of their references?

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

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

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

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

What the sources actually say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8)Another fan website...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scope and content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages-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

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)

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