Forum:Unknown species

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Unknown species

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

The discussion on Talk:Blue Humanoid has brought something to my attention. I agree that Blue Humanoid and White Humanoid are not needed articles, firstly because we do not know that they are definitely separate species, and because the individuals of that species that exist are included in the "Individuals of Unknown Species" Category. However, if you look at Red Humanoid, there is no individual. Should that article be deleted, there will be absolutely no record of that type of humanoid having existed in the Doctor Who universe. And since we are meant to document everything we possibly can, surely we should be documenting their existence? Mini-mitch suggested an article for every unidentified species, but it was thought that it would be too long. However, should length really stop us from documenting the information? If Matt Smith decided to stay until he was 50 years old, we would most probably end up with an article ten times the size of the tenth Doctor's. But we wouldn't miss out parts of his history just because it was that long. Every type of article should be treated just the same. They need to be documented somewhere, and if they're not, then we are not doing our job correctly. --The Thirteenth Doctor 14:23, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Not every type of article should be treated the same, there are very distinct differences. A list of unknown species is just ridiculous. The only way to order it properly would be chronologically in the Doctor's time line.--Skittles the hog--Talk 16:11, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Tell me then, why should certain articles be treated differently than others? The order is in the details of the article once it's created. The one thing we're here to discuss is the fact that no species in the DW universe should be treated any less than another just because more information is known. --The Thirteenth Doctor 16:40, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

There are loads of types. In-universe, out of universe, species, individual, actor. Having a list of unknown species is completely different to a biographical account of an individual.--Skittles the hog--Talk 16:51, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

When I say they should be treated the same I mean they should all exist, and should all have all the information we know about them. Why should one species be completely ignored just because we don't know it's name? I'll say it again, we are supposed to document everything in the Doctor Who universe, not just what we can get to fit our policies. Otherwise this wiki isn't the best it could be.

Actually look at the Red Humanoid article. There is more information there than there is on Howling Halls, but you want to delete that, even though the history of the red humanoids ranges from 2010 all the way to the year 5 billion. That information is part of the DW universe, therefore relevant to the wiki, and should be noted. I'll ask you this question then; where else is this information supposed to go? Or should it just be wiped from the wiki completely? --The Thirteenth Doctor 17:29, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Right, so skin tone defines a species does it? What about all the white near-human species? They are certainly not the same. You have no evidence these appearances are individuals of the same species.----Skittles the hog--Talk 18:56, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's most probably a duck. If you really want to go with the "just because they look the same doesn't mean they are the same", you should go through the articles of everyone who hasn't actually been called Human, but is still listed as it. They might look like a Human, but unless they're called Human, how do we know for certain they are the same species? I'll say it again. We are supposed to document everything, not just what fits in with our policies. --The Thirteenth Doctor 23:21, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Look at this category. Many of them are indistinguishable from one another. Red Humanoid is not the definition of a species. Do you know how many types of Duck there are?----Skittles the hog--Talk 10:13, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'll say what I've said before again, because you seem to be avoiding it. We are supposed to document everything, not just what fits in with our policies. Can you make an argument against that? --The Thirteenth Doctor 12:12, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Where have you got this point from? I doubt is specifies unknown species.----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:25, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean where have I got it from? I'm not talking about any specific policy on the wiki. Documenting everything on a chosen subject is the whole basis of a wiki. What would be the point in a wiki of it only documented parts of a topic and not others? There wouldn't be. It's not about what best fits into a wiki's policies. We don't get to choose what is and what isn't part of the Doctor Who universe, so we don't get to choose what is documented. --The Thirteenth Doctor 21:54, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Documenting unknown species is like documenting extras. They're left unnamed for a reason. You cannot prove the Red Humanoids are related.----Skittles the hog--Talk 22:33, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I understand so far in this discussion:

• We are supposed to document everything. (Our policies don't prevent this. They just shape how we document everything.)
• I agree with 13D that there are several characters which we've called "Human" that should have at least been indicated (Near?)-Human to indicate we've got some doubt.
• I agree with Skittles that a list of unknown species would be ridiculous. I have somewhat different reasons, however. I think it would involve us making up names left, right and center. I don't actually think the list would be all that long, as DW writers have tended to relish making up names for their creations (how else do they get copyright?). I just think it would be über-conjectural.

Here's what I don't get:

• The contention that if we delete Red Humanoid, the "species" won't be documented. I really don't get this. Nobody's saying the individual can't be covered. What I, and I think I can include Skittles to say we, are saying is that the term "Red Humanoid" does not describe a species. Change the article name to Red humanoid or, better, Red humanoid (episode name), and confine yourself to talking about what that particular red humanoid did. Capitalizing, by our naming conventions, implies a species, which we simply can't prove.
• How documenting unknown species is like documenting extras. You can prove sometimes that extras existed — or at least have a credible source for them.
  czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

As long as the individuals have pages, then they can be added to the Individuals of unknown species page, and I'd be happy with that. --The Thirteenth Doctor 14:30, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Hallelujah!----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:39, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

I know I've come to this slightly late, but, looking at the articles, as species articles they're dumbing down the information somewhat. There isn't enough information about what may be a species, so the information is specific about certain individuals which makes the article (as a species article) vague. Having this information however, on an individual article would remove this vagueness by making it so the information could target the specific individual that it needs to. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:59, February 21, 2011 (UTC)