Talk:List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens/Archive 1

Minor monsters

All minor monsters should be added here in preference to individual articles. Tim! (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Should this therefore be "List of minor Doctor Who monsters" (like the villians one)? --Jawr256 06:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

hrmm... not sure. It might be worth linking to the major ones who have their own articles. Tim! (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please fix the tetrap box? It went all screwy. Thanks in advance! Sean 02:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Ood

It is said that they were susceptible to mind control from the beast in their part, but if you look at the Tardisode, before the asteroid is even approached one of the says 'the beast shall rise from the pit', during their talking whilst control from the beast they say something about how the beast had sent them to integrate into all societies ready to attack (not worded like that, but that is the implication), I'm not sure how to put this in or cite this, so I'll leave this to someone else. Ragzouken 23:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Is it just me, or dose anyone else think that the Ood's faces bare a likeness to Doctor Zoidberg from Futurama, when focusing on the mouth area?

Dr genestealer 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they might be inspired by Illithid to some level, actually. 67.83.72.38 07:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Mechanoids

There is already a short one liner about Mechanoids at List of robots in Doctor Who, do we want to move the more detailed version from here to there (and possibly flesh out the items on that list) ? Tim! (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Are they robots or cyborgs? I can't remember. If they're cyborgs keep them here, if they're robots, move the nice, shiny pargraph to the Robots list--Sean Jelly Baby? 20:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

They were robots in "The Chase", but when Davros turned them into Juggernauts in the Big Finish story, he added human tissue and made them cyborgs. I suppose the TV version takes precedence? —Josiah Rowe 23:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So, put them in the robots article, and leave a note here, perhaps?--Sean Jelly Baby?`

Could always be naughty and give them their own article... Tim! (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hee! I doubt that would survive AFD, though. Either way, I suspect that the Robots list needs some work.--Sean Jelly Baby? 17:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Morbius

Morbius is already on the villains list, which seems more appropriate... Tim! (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
yeah I added him into the monster one my monsters and villan doctor who book says that he's a monster --Madcowpoo 00:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Abzorbaloff

Until recently, there was a redlink to Abzorbaloff in the series 2 section of List of Doctor Who serials. It certainly doesn't need an article of its own, but there could be a case for adding it to this page. We don't have any information about its fictional context (beyond the notion that it absorbs its victims, and their faces show through its skin), but we do have some mildly interesting nonfictional information about its creation (the Blue Peter contest, won by William Grantham, age 9). (Here's a BBC press release and news story about it, and there's a full-sized picture of the Abzorbaloff here, although I'm not sure whether we could use it or not. OG has some screen captures from the Blue Peter here, which might be closer to fair use.

Anyway, I'm just not sure whether we should wait until the actual episode airs to add this, or whether the newsworthiness of a Doctor Who monster designed by a Blue Peter viewer outweighs other considerations. Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Only if we can have entries for Aquaman, the Hypnotron and the Metal Octopus too! ;-) Seriously though, I think mention of its non-fictional origins would be precisely the sort of interesting material the list could do with. But you know me and Wikipedia articles, always one for the behind-the-scenes over the fiction, so I'm probably biased. Angmering 01:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Aquaman already has a page — but I don't think that's the Aquaman you had in mind! :) I've added the Abzorbaloff, and others can edit mercilessly and worry about the image question. (I don't really understand what's fair use and what isn't, so I'll leave it to those who do.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Shaun Lyon at Outpost Gallifrey's News Page has the Abzorbaloff appearing in Episode 10. (Look at the mini-episode guide in the left column.) We probably shouldn't be that specific without official confirmation, but the press release linked above does strongly suggest that the Abz. will appear in the 2006 season. I don't think "expected" is too strong a word in this circumstance. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Some new photos, from Heat magazine, have emerged of the Abzorbaloff in costume and full prosthetics. Should the picture be updated to show the actual monster and not just a sketch? Selia lahugeea 17:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion at the bottom of the page.--Keycard ^(talk) 17:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Quarks

I know they just got moved here from their own page, but it just occurred to me that they might be more logically placed at List of Doctor Who robots. On the other hand, we've got more info about them than that page's current format allows. Opinions? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Quarks here but agree a robots page would be better, though am equally happy with the ohter suggestion made to rename this page aliens and monsters. The List of robots is, however, just that - a list - not a series of articles. Litefoot 08.03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Page title

There's been some discussion at the WikiProject about renaming this article. It was previously named List of Doctor Who monsters, which didn't really cover folks like the Moxx of Balhoon and the Draconians, and is currently named List of Doctor Who aliens, which doesn't really cover Earth-based mutations like the Primords and the Giant Maggots. (The earlier move discussion is here.) I suggested that we move the page to List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens, and NPChilla proposed List of Doctor Who aliens and monsters for the sake of alphabetical order. I don't feel strongly about the word order (although my preference is still for "monsters and aliens", since "Doctor Who monster" is a standard phrase), but I do think that a move to include both would be a good idea. Do others agree? Does anyone else have a preference for "aliens and monsters" or "monsters and aliens"? If we can get a consensus here I'll take care of the move (and relevant redirects) next week before I leave for Gallifrey (the convention, not the planet...) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So, er... anybody have any opinions about the move? Shall I just be bold? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"Monsters and aliens" seems like the best compromise.--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Either way fine by me. I've become involved with previous conversations and recognise, much like Edward VIII in 1936, that "Something must be done". Good luck as I'm sure it's no small job. Litefoot 04.32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'm just going to bite the bullet and do it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've taken care of all the double redirects, but there are still a lot of links that need to be fixed. I'll try to finish it up tomorrow — it's after 3 in the morning where I am. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Good start - well done! Litefoot 11.12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I was in the process of s-l-o-w-l-y fixing the remaining links, but Chris the speller pointed out that it wasn't necessary: see here. I suppose that if that's the case, we're done with this move. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Gelth

The line "gas from decomposing bodies or the living in the gas pipes common to Victorian era households." needs recomposing as it doesn't really make sense. I suggest: "gas from decomposing bodies or natural gas in the gas pipes common to Victorian era households." Any comments? --Brerbunny 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and have made the change you suggest. I think that sort of fix is noncontroversial enough that you can just be bold and do it without discussion. (I've been asking about other changes because I think they might be more controversial, or might benefit from discussion before they were made.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Natural gas didn't come into use in the UK until around the 70s following production from the North Sea fields. Prior to that the gas used was coal (aka town) gas. I'll make the change. Sharm 09:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sad Tony

No listing? For shame! --Aderack 06:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The Krotons

Do they belong on this list? According to the episode page The Krotons are crystalline creatures created in chemical vats. Aside from the head, though, they look distinctly robotic. Thoughts?

Blueminute 02:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Split up

At some point this list will need to be split up. It is not yet complete, and already it is huge and hard to navigate Tim! (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A-M and N-Z? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, we need to be more discriminating. I'm not sure that Taran Beast, or Argolins, or Dulcians, or Drahvins, etc. need to have their entries even here as much of this can be incorporated into the story articles themselves. How many of these are actually notable? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to propose stopping adding new entries until we sort this out and get some kind of consensus — although there's been a lot of good work here, it's getting to the point where the page is getting unweildy and I'm looking at a lot of the entries and thinking they aren't really notable (even stuff that I originally created). We need to either firm up our criteria, or find some way to split up the page. Alternatively, we could cut down on the descriptions entirely and leave it as a table with just pointers to the episode articles, which probably duplicate a lot of the information anyway. Thoughts? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I guess splitting up is just an invitation to add even more cruft:) Severe paring might be the way forward, to maybe the level of robots and planets. Tim! (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That would make sense. It does seem strange that both Jagaroth and Scaroth have separate entries in two different lists, and that minimalised ones such as Hy-Bractor even exist. NP Chilla 22:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects or keeps the discussion going, I'm probably going to cut down turn this page into something similar to List of Doctor Who items in a few days when I find the time. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Having written a few of these I'm a bit disappointed that it can't just be split up, but I can understand the reasoning. It will however make me think twice about spending time producing copy for sections like this in the future, but I guess that is probably my bad judgement rather than anyone else's. Maybe pages like this need some sort of recommendation on length etc to avoid people wasting time. You can take this as an objection, but I seem to be a bit of a lone voice. Ho hum. This isn't meant to be as negative as it probably reads. Litefoot 22:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's my bad judgment as well, really, because I've contributed to the page as much as anybody. What I don't think any of us anticipated was how much it would grow out of control. Perhaps what I can do is create a sandbox version of a proposed new page and then have everyone take a whack at it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think if we remove some of the boxes and images the page will be become a bit more manageable, and should allow say one to two paragraphs per entry. I'm not sure if we can really justify so many fair-use images on one page anyway. Tim! 21:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)