Forum:Could we create article for each Cybermen Mark/Model?
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Could we create article for each Cybermen Mark/Model?
Just asking if possible, could we create articles for each of the different Marks/Models of Cybermen? Each one which have been referred to throughout different reference guides:
- Cyberman Mark I - Tenth Planet, Spare Parts
- Cyberman Mark II - Moonbase, Tomb
- Cyberman Mark III - Wheel
- Cyberman Mark IV - Invasion
- Cyberman Mark V - Revenge
- Cyberman Mark VI - Earthshock, Five Doctors, Attack, Silver Nemesis (possibly)
just that like with the different variations of Daleks, each of these Cybermen types have included different appearance, equipment, attachments and weapons; not to mention voice.
So if possible could we please create articles for these? --Victory93 08:38, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
- There are already pages for Category:Individual Cybermen and Category:Cyberman leaders which are in the similar vein as Black Dalek etc.
- See also the Category:Cybermen category, as there are already articles that cover the various "Marks" you've noted; Mondan "Mark 1", CyberTelosian covers "Mark II", CyberFaction covers "Mark II & III & IV" CyberNeomorph, CyberNomad covers "Mark V and Nemesis" and CyberNeomorph covers "Mark VI". --Tangerineduel / talk 16:21, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
No, they're from a reference book.----Skittles the hog--Talk 19:48, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
- I see. I know for a fact that The Doctor Who Technical Manual refers to the Cybermen as such and I'm not sure but also Doctor Who: Cybermen might too. Well we can at least have mentioned on their articles that they are referred to as Mark I, Mark II etc. as well creating redirects for them. --Victory93 06:04, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if the names come from reference books, they shouldn't be used, in my opinion. Reference books can't be used to derive in-universe information. They can be used to supplement it on a behind-the-scenes section, but they certainly can't be used to name articles. That way lies madness. And flatly ridiculous things like "Polly Lopez" instead of Polly Wright. I'm pretty sure "mark I", "mark II", etc. has no basis in narrative, either. There shouldn't be individual articles on the various Cyberdesigns any more than there should be different articles for humans dependent on race. The way to go is all on one page, listed in chronological order of the way in which the Doctor encountered them in visual medium (since that's the only way we can actually identify models). Of course, if you can find a narrative source which does differentiate between designs, then you might have a way forward with separate articles. But I'm not sure you will be so lucky — unless there's something in the comics somewhere.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 04:54:24 Thu 10 Mar 2011
- Well, if the names come from reference books, they shouldn't be used, in my opinion. Reference books can't be used to derive in-universe information. They can be used to supplement it on a behind-the-scenes section, but they certainly can't be used to name articles. That way lies madness. And flatly ridiculous things like "Polly Lopez" instead of Polly Wright. I'm pretty sure "mark I", "mark II", etc. has no basis in narrative, either. There shouldn't be individual articles on the various Cyberdesigns any more than there should be different articles for humans dependent on race. The way to go is all on one page, listed in chronological order of the way in which the Doctor encountered them in visual medium (since that's the only way we can actually identify models). Of course, if you can find a narrative source which does differentiate between designs, then you might have a way forward with separate articles. But I'm not sure you will be so lucky — unless there's something in the comics somewhere.
I agree that they should be deleted. It's a silly source for something so important.----Skittles the hog--Talk 14:54, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
