Talk:List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens

Untitled

I know nothing about Dr Who, so I'll not edit this myself but

Unknown which planet these fearsome creatures come from, their cloaks draped over their necks to give an impression that they had a head, but no. Their skin has been tied into a tight not where the head has been cut away. Remember, anyone could turn into one of these if you are not careful.

I like this, but it's not encyclopaedic. TRiG (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's the Headless Monks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.224.106 (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Size Split?

Support - Artile is over 100kB, and should be split into sections. Thoughts???--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SIZE: "Articles of about 200kB (~30 pages) are not uncommon for topics that require depth and detail, but it's typical that articles of such size get split into two or more sub-articles. ... These rules of thumb only apply to readable prose (found by counting the words, perhaps with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool or Prosesize) and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means). ... They also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table." 24.23.163.55 (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Skarasen

The Skarasen was indirectly mentioned in the revived series (9th-11th) in School Reunion. Sarah Jane cites "the Loch Ness Monster" to Rose & that was the Skarasen. I'm not sure if you count such indirect mentions, so I'm notifying you, rather than editing the list myself. --89.242.72.64 (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Stingray doubled?

Seems "Stingray" and "Flying Stingray" are the same, yet listed twice. I've only watched seasons 9 and 10, so please check me. I wouldn't want to introduce a mistake. Also, feel free to remove this entry after checking, whether I'm right or wrong. Rmikke (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

One was in Army of Ghosts, and the other was in Planet of the Dead. They were separate beings, but now "Stingray" (from the latter episode,) has been retitled "The Swarm" to allay confusion. G S Palmer (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Linking back to the term?

I clicked on some of these terms, which appear to have active links, and the links bring one back to the term. It's crazy. Why have a link that opens a window and brings one back to the term that one clicked on to? It's useless. Unless a link is taking the reader to a different Wikipedia article or a different section of the same article, they should be removed.69.125.134.86 (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

If I remember right there used to be descriptions of each fictional life form on this page now there's just this chart. The problem is many of the fictional life forms don't have their own articles and redirect here. There should of been a better solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jph (talk • contribs)

The information hasn't been lost, it's just been moved to subpages (which are linked from here). The redirects just need to be retargetted to the correct destination. --SnorlaxMonster 16:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Table on this page

Hi, could I possibly raise a talk discussion for this page? Namely, the table of appearances. Frankly it's quite an eyesore. The vast, vast majority of it is simply large red 'no's, which seems to dominate the bulk of the entire page. It's not at all aesthetically pleasing, and the information contained therein could surely be put across in a more succinct and accessible method. I'd be happy to make some changes myself, but I'd rather get some consensus first to see if anyone would object to this first. Please let me know. Justin.Parallax (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it generally works to convey the necessary information, namely, where they have appeared. G S Palmer (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Change Links to Redirects

I would like to propose an edit: Instead of having the creature's names be linked to their first appearance, wouldn't it make more sense to have them redirect to their entry in the list proper? Perhaps the "Yes"s in the table could then be formatted to link to their first appearance. If we can reach a consensus I would be happy to start on the task myself. G S Palmer (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Creatures From Other Media

A small number of the creatures on this list have appeared exclusively in other media such as comics or print. While these may be Doctor Who aliens, they don't really belong on this list. Perhaps a separate page could be created for them, though I doubt it would be useful. These entries specifically are likely unnecessary: Aquarbi, Arcanus Servitoris, Bruydac, Caxtarids, Chimera, Communication field, The Dark, Droon, GENIE, Lamprey, The Light, Melkene, Naglon, Olympian, Parasitic alien tapeworms, Pwccm, The Sanctified, Selachian, Serfian, The Shroud, "The First Senior", Skith, Veritas, Viyrans, Vondrax, Vortisaur, Water hag, Waterhive and Yend. After all, their is no way that all the creatures from spin-off media could be included in this list. If we can get a consensus on this these entries should be removed. G S Palmer (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: if there are no replies to this suggestion by 10 March 2014 I am going to be WP:BOLD and make the changes myself. I will provide links to each edit here so that anyone who disputes the changes can easily reverse them. G S Palmer (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have now removed the entries on creatures which have appeared solely in spin-off media.

• Removed Aquarbi, Arcanus Servitoris, Bruydac, Caxtarids, Chimera, Communication field, The Dark, Droon, and GENIE with this edit and Eutermesan with this edit.
• Removed Lamprey, The Light, Melkene, Naglon, Obelat, Olympian, Parasitic alien tapeworms, and Pwccm with this edit.
• Removed The Sanctified, Selachian, Serfian, The Shroud, "The First Senior", Skith, Veritas, Viyrans, Vondrax, Vortisaur, Water hag, Waterhive, and Yend with this edit.

G S Palmer (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Slitheen family should be added. <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=slitheen&oq=slitheen&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2312j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8">Source</a href> 63.96.39.67 (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Shirley F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.39.67 (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify. Added how? We already have an entry on the Raxacoricofallapatorians. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Name

There's List of Doctor Who planets, List of Doctor Who henchmen, List of Doctor Who villains, List of Doctor Who robots...this article should just be List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens. 41.132.49.185 (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

[1]. G S Palmer (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

And that's supposed to mean...? 41.135.172.4 (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I was just providing a link to an edit summary where I made an opposing argument. G S Palmer (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a disruptive one. 41.135.172.4 (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Table of appearances: unencyclopaedic?

The big Table of Appearances that makes up most of this article does not appear to me to meet Wikipedia's basic criteria: it falls foul of WP:OR, WP:V and WP:INUNIVERSE. That is, it is original research, with no citations given, and written in an in-universe tone.

I suggest one of two options:

1) Delete it (or transwiki it to the TARDIS wikia); or

2) Trim it down to creatures and aliens that had some lasting impact (as a start, cut anything that only appeared in one story).

Do others have thoughts? Bondegezou (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There are zero references in the table. If allowed to list "every" creature in DW, there's no way any editor could ever verify it. If left to a core dozen creatures, it's pointless. What possible purpose does such a table serve anyway but to appease hardcore fankwankery? I think it should go. By the way, the article proper is now encouraging people to create links to it for single-appearance species like Argolins even though they have no article of their own: don't link something to a list entry if there's nothing there except the fact the creature appears in the episode article you're linking from. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Article structure

I'm assuming the article was split into the subsection articles in order to accommodate the ghastly table. Can those be restored? The various species links around DW articles are now leading to this orphaned page. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it was the other way round. The article got too long, so was split. This article then looked empty and the table appeared...? Bondegezou (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's a problem for all those orphaned links now. Why was it a problem for a list article to be long? Isn't that kind of what they are? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Oof, referring this to the Guild of Copyeditors

eek Atomic putty? Rien! 19:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rutan (Doctor Who)

This AfD discussion ended with a "merge" to this article. However, I found that the relevant and sourced material was already here. This is a link to the source article just before it was converted to a redirect, if someone wants to pull any other content over here. Joyous! Noise! 00:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This article needs some cleanup, or some form of inclusion criteria

There are numerous issues with this article. Most notably, it's clogged with numerous aliens who were either minor spin-off antagonists, or never appeared outside of a small mention. Some are incredibly minor and don't have much notability beyond the episode of their debut. There is also an issue of random infoboxes throughout the article. It's understandable for more notable aliens, but do we really need them on minor aliens like the Sky Fish?

Some form of criteria determining what should be included/what should be getting an infobox or not (Or if infoboxes should even be kept in the first place) should be determined. I'm unsure myself of what could potentially work, given a large bulk of aliens tend to recur more frequently in spin-off media. In any case, it should probably be confined, at the bare minimum, to aliens who had a major role in an episode of the TV series, or to aliens who can have notability established if they are from spin-off media. For instance, the Mentors are probably noteworthy to include given their involvement in Vengeance on Varos and Mindwarp, but the Raak from Mindwarp is probably not a noteworthy inclusion. Another example would be Chelonians, who have a vast amount of appearances across all Doctor Who spin-off media, compared to something like the Wyrresters, who only appeared in a single novel. If anyone has any thoughts on this, then feel free to discuss. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

A discussion at talk:List of Doctor Who villains#AHistory resulted in trimming a lot of in-universe style prose, which eventually resulted in a list of appearances with a few notes. DonQuixote (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you proposing the same thing for this article? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I might tinker with it myself in future. DonQuixote (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

My main concern with the usage of a notes format is that, just from a brief read of the List of Doctor Who villains article, the prose helps the reader understand what each of the aliens are in a quick read. While I doubt anyone's searching for the Z'ros any time soon, many of these are decently notable individually even outside of the episodes they show up in. Things like the Sisterhood of Karn or the Thals are very likely search targets and have appeared in a variety of media over the years, and it would be much better for readers to get an understanding of them from simple prose rather than scroll through numerous episode summaries and other articles to get a better understanding of them. I'm not saying everyone and their mother deserves like three paragraphs or something, but I feel in some cases prose is more beneficial than a notes box. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

It depends on how much in-universe description is removed. Long plot summaries of single episode aliens can probably be trimmed to a sentence or two. DonQuixote (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it does come down to how much information is necessary in a future revision. I'm not too keen on it, but it depends on how it turns out. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

slitheen

should the slitheen section be merged with raxacoricofallapatorian? the slitheen are only a subsection of the latter species, and i noticed that Autons were omitted for being a product of the nestene consciousness. Sebimus (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"Androgum" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Androgum has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 21 § Androgum until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The Siterhood of Karn is comprised of merely Gallifreyans and are not another alien race.

Gallifreyans as in the people on Gallifrey who aren't Time Lords. They moved to the planet of Karn after being banished from Gallifrey by Rassilon. GarethBaloney (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source that states that. DonQuixote (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think on Wikipedia it is quite hard to cite non-academic sources, especially works of fiction. GarethBaloney (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Use template:cite book or template:cite episode or whatever is appropriate--you just can't write it like a fictography (see MOS:WAF). DonQuixote (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel like my words have been misunderstood. I meant to mean this discussion as in "The Sisterhood of Karn are not a separate alien race so they probably shouldn't be on here." GarethBaloney (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

And...you need to cite a reliable source stating just that, otherwise it's just you saying it, and you're not notable enough to be cited on Wikipedia. DonQuixote (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sadly not notable enough... yet! I'll go find some sources tomorrow morning. GarethBaloney (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup Proposal

This page has been messy for a while, and I feel the list is probably very fixable. My proposition is:

1. Redirect one-off one-off monsters away from the list and to their respective episode or story, removing their content on the list, given that the same information is included at their story's page. Recurring monsters and monsters deemed better covered by this page can remain, but the removal of one-offs will give them more breathing room. Should this route be taken, inclusion criteria should be determined so as to avoid future bloat by re-additions to the list.
2. Additionally, depending on how many individual monsters remain, infoboxes and images should either be pruned or cleaned up due to how randomly scattered they are throughout the page and how much they clutter the page.
3. Sources from the last AfD of this article can be used in order to finally create a concise Reception section, which will give the article some meat.

Put together, this should not only clean up bloat, but also allow for the article to be more encyclopedic in nature. If this proposal goes through, I'd be more than happy to make the necessary adjustments myself so as to not inconvenience other editors. I will of course handle rewrites on subpar and unsourced entries that are kept as well.

For the Cuts and Keeps Proposal, I'll list out my suggestions here, though this is in no way final and any disagreements can be resolved separately. Villains are redirected due to being singular antagonists more than uniform species.

Keeps:

Adipose, Arcateenian, Bane, Blowfish, Catkind, Chelonian, Cyberman, Cybermat, Cybershade (Merge the latter two under Cybemen), Dalek, Dalek Puppet (Merge the latter), Eternal, Fendahl, Graske, Guardian, Hoix, Ice Warrior, Judoon, Kaled (Merge with Daleks), Macra, Mara (Admittedly unsure if this is an alien or a villain), Mentor, Nestene, Ogron, Ood, Rutan, Sea Devil, Shadow Kin, Silence, Silurian, Sisterhood of Karn, Slitheen (Merge Blathereen and Raxicoricofallapatorian), Sontaran, Stenza, Sycorax, Thal, Time Lord, Vashta Nerada, Voord, Weeping Angel, Weevil, Werewolf, Zygon

Redirects/Deletions:

The 456 (Torchwood: Children of Earth), Abzorbaloff (Love and Monsters), Aggedor (The Curse of Peladon), Alpha Centauri (List of Doctor Who supporting characters), The Beast (The Impossible Planet), The Blessing (Torchwood: Miracle Day), Boekind (Jack Harkness), Carrionite (The Shakespeare Code), The Celestial Toymaker (Either to his debut episode or to the villains list), Cryon (Attack of the Cybermen), Dæmon (The Dæmons), Demon (Delete due to ambiguity), Dominator (The Dominators), Draconian (Frontier in Space), Dwarf Mordant (Delete due to lack of a proper target), Drahvin (Galaxy 4), Eknodine (Amy's Choice), The Eminence (Delete due to lack of target), Fenric (Either Curse of Fenric or the villains list), Fisher King (Before the Flood (Doctor Who)), Fomasi (The Leisure Hive), Futurekind (Utopia (Doctor Who)), Fleshkind (Sky (The Sarah Jane Adventures)), The Flood (The Waters of Mars), Gelth (The Unquiet Dead), Great Intelligence (He has an article already), Groske (Death of the Doctor), Haemovore (The Curse of Fenric), Hath (The Doctor's Daughter), Headless Monks (A Good Man Goes to War), Kahler (A Town Called Mercy), Kinda (Kinda (Doctor Who)), Kraal (The Android Invasion), Krafayis (Vincent and the Doctor), Krarg (Shada (Doctor Who)), Krillitane (School Reunion (Doctor Who)), Kroton (The Krotons), Krynoid (The Seeds of Doom), Maestro (Devil's Chord or the villains list), Martian (Delete due to ambiguity), Meep (The Star Beast (Doctor Who)), Menoptra (The Web Planet), Minotaur (The God Complex), Monk (Extremis (Doctor Who)), Movellan (Destiny of the Daleks), Metalkind (Sky (The Sarah Jane Adventures)), Midnight Entity (Midnight (Doctor Who)), Nimon (The Horns of Nimon), Not-things (Wild Blue Yonder (Doctor Who)), Ogri (The Stones of Blood), Optera (The Web Planet), Peladonian (The Curse of Peladon), Pied Piper (The Day of the Clown), Plasmavore (Smith and Jones (Doctor Who)), P'ting (The Tsuranga Conundrum), Pyrovile (Fires of Pompeii), Queen Bat (The Caves of Androzani), Quill (Class (2016 TV series)), Raak (Mindwarp), Racnoss (The Runaway Bride (Doctor Who)), Rakweed (The Gift (The Sarah Jane Adventures)), Reaper (Father's Day (Doctor Who)), Refusian (The Ark (Doctor Who)), Rhodian (Class (2016 TV series)), Ribosian (The Ribos Operation), Rill (Galaxy 4), Salakans (Delete due to lack of a redirect), Sand Beast (The Rescue (Doctor Who)), Saturnyn (The Vampires of Venice), Savage (The Savages (Doctor Who)), Scarecrow (Human Nature (Doctor Who)), Screamer (The Daleks' Master Plan), Seed Pod (The Seeds of Death), Sensorite (The Sensorites), Sex Gas (Day One (Torchwood)), The Shadow (The Armageddon Factor), Shakri (The Power of Three), Shalka (Scream of the Shalka), Shambonie (Delete), Shansheeth (Death of the Doctor), Shrivenzale (The Ribos Operation), Simon (Delete), Siren (The Curse of the Black Spot), Sirian (Delete), Skarasen (Terror of the Zygons), Skithra (Nikola Tesla's Night of Terror), Skonnan (The Horns of Nimon), Skullion (The Man Who Never Was (The Sarah Jane Adventures)), Sky Fish (A Christmas Carol (Doctor Who)), Slyther (The Dalek Invasion of Earth), Solonian (The Mutants) Spiridon (Planet of the Daleks), Star Whale (The Beast Below), Stigorax (The Happiness Patrol), Swampie (The Power of Kroll), The Swarm (Planet of the Dead), Tree of Cheem (The End of the World (Doctor Who)), Tancreds (Birthright (Robinson novel)), Taran and Taran Beast (The Androids of Tara), Tenza (Night Terrors (Doctor Who)), Terileptil (The Visitation (Doctor Who)), Terraberserker (Delete), Terradonian (Full Circle (Doctor Who)), Tetrap (Time and the Rani), Tharil (Warriors' Gate), Thoros Alphan (Mindwarp), Tigellan (Meglos), Time Beetle (Turn Left), Time Brain (Time and the Rani), Time Zombie (Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS), Tivolian (The God Complex), Toclafane (The Sound of Drums), Toraji (42 (Doctor Who)), Tractator (Frontios), Trakenite (The Keeper of Traken), Travist Polong (Delete), The Trickster (List of Doctor Who villains), The Trickster's Brigade (List of Doctor Who villains), Trion (Vislor Turlough), Tritovore (Planet of the Dead), Tythonian (The Creature from the Pit), Ultramancer (Delete), Urbankan (Four to Doomsday), Usurian (The Sun Makers), Uvodni (Warriors of the Kudlak), Uxariaen (Colony in Space), Validium (Silver Nemesis), Vampire (State of Decay (Doctor Who)), Vanir (Terminus (Doctor Who)), Vardan (The Invasion of Time), Varga Plant (Mission to the Unknown), Varosian (Vengeance on Varos), Veil (Heaven Sent), Venom Grub (The Web Planet), Venusian (Delete), Vervoid (Terror of the Vervoids), Vespiform (The Unicorn and the Wasp), Vigil (The Rings of Akhaten), Vinvocci (The End of Time (Doctor Who)), Viperox (Dreamland (Doctor Who)), Vishklar (The Nightmare Man (The Sarah Jane Adventures)), Visian (The Daleks' Master Plan), Viyrans (Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures), Vogan (Revenge of the Cybermen), Wallarian (Delete), Whisper Man (The Name of the Doctor), Wirrn (The Ark in Space), Wolfweed (The Creature from the Pit), Wyrrester (Delete due to lack of valid redirect), Xeraphin (Time-Flight), Xeron (The Space Museum), Xylok (Mr. Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures)), Zanak Humanoid (The Pirate Planet), Zaralok (Shadows of the Vashta Nerada), Zarbi (The Web Planet), Zocci (Voyage of the Damned), Zolfa-Thuran (Meglos), Z'ros (Delete) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I do hope this kind of proposal still works. I'm having a little bit doubt after what happen to this [2]. Though, I'll Support this decision. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 00:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal to redirect one-off monsters. I also agree that unnecessary infoboxes should be shortened or removed, but I believe that the notable creatures and aliens will still require an infobox, and all the images should still remain on the article. As for the Keeps and Redirects/Deletions, I trust the judgement of the nominator and other experienced editors on which entries should stay and which should go. Mr Sitcom (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: This kind of list is often used as an Alternative to Deletion in countless Article for Deletion discussions: i.e., redirect and merge individual pages to the items on this list. It's bad faith to spend years merging other articles into this one, and then delete almost everything from the list. In addition, Pokelego999's list of cuts and keeps is entirely arbitrary. The "keep" list includes many one-off monsters: Adipose, Blowfish, Chelonians, Eternals, Fendahl, Graske, Rutan, Shadow Kin, Stenza, Sycorax, Vashta Nerada and Voord. Truly cutting the page down to aliens that have appeared in more than one story would leave maybe a dozen characters — Daleks, Cybermen, Sontarans, Weeping Angels, Ice Warriors — all of whom already have their own pages. Toughpigs (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Toughpigs I don't quite understand how it's bad faith to simply move content to other articles? If a merge is more beneficial on certain subjects for retaining information, then that can be undertaken, but the content isn't exactly going anywhere; the target is just different now. Again, what will occur to individual redirects happens on a case by case. Pretty much all the information on most of my redirect proposals are already at the articles I targeted, and anything missing can be added rather easily while still keeping page history via the redirect should it be needed. This is not a deletion, and moreso a reorganization of content.

  Also, most of the monsters you've cited are recurring? I'm admittedly iffy on Adipose and Fendahl (Who have more complex situations I felt might overcomplicate the nomination) but the others have re-appeared multiple times. Blowfish appear in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (Torchwood) and Fragments (Torchwood), among other cameo appearances. Chelonians don't have a proper episode but recur a lot in spin-off media to the point an entry is justifiable. Eternals appear in numerous episodes, such as Enlightenment (Doctor Who) and Can You Hear Me? (Doctor Who). Graske, though mostly an individual, appears several times, such as in Music of the Spheres (Doctor Who) and several episodes of The Sarah Jane Adventures. Rutans do only appear in Horror of Fang Rock but make frequent spin-off appearances and are referenced as a large part of the Sontarans' lore to the point it seems more beneficial to keep them here, though this one I feel is on shakier ground than the others. Shadow Kin were the main antagonists of Class (2016 TV series) and recurred throughout the series. The Stenza is iffier since most of their appearances were via Tim Shaw, but nonetheless they were the creators of the main antagonists of The Ghost Monument and Tim Shaw himself was the major antagonist of Doctor Who series 11. Sycorax, per Rutans, is iffier due to mainly having one TV role, but they've cameoed in a significant amount over the years and have additionally had a large number of spin-off appearances to where having the entry seems more beneficial, though this one is debatable. The Vashta Nerada had Shadows of the Vashta Nerada on top of their two part appearance, which seems pretty significant to the point that it seems beneficial to keep them. Voord were only included because the Voord have an article, and it would be remiss to not include an entity with an article.

  TLDR: Blowfish, Chelonians, Eternals, Graske, Shadow Kin, Stenza, Vashta Nerada have appeared in enough significant capacities to where they are decently recurring. Voord have an article, and thus have to be included. Adipose, Fendahl, Sycorax, and Rutans are more iffy, but I do believe the Sycorax and Rutans qualify. Willing to debate the latter four, but I did state in my nomination I was more than willing to refine the list alongside more familiar editors, so feel free to debate my placements if you feel they're better off merged/redirected elsewhere. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your answer; I'm rethinking my knee-jerk opposition. There is a ton of stuff on the page and it would be better if it were trimmed down. (It helped that somebody today added an entry for "The Kin", which appeared in a Neil Gaiman story in a spinoff book.)

  I'm thinking about criteria that could be a less drastic cut. One idea is to cut the characters that only appear in spin-offs and have never appeared on the actual TV show Doctor Who — ie, cut characters that only appeared in Torchwood, Sarah Jane Adventures, Class, novels, audio dramas, comics, etc. That would take out about 50 characters. I know that's a lot less than you're proposing, but it would be a defensible line to draw, and it would be more clear what's in and what's out. Toughpigs (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Toughpigs I do feel that's a good starting point for cleaning the list up, and I am fine with not being as drastic with cuts so long as the list becomes a bit more readable overall, but I do feel there are a lot of rather minor entries better off merged. Some of the one-offs I included do appear in spin-off media in a significant context to my knowledge (Such as the Krynoid, Krillitane, and Krargs, for instance) but there are also a lot of creatures who barely have a role in expanded media (Such as the Swampies, Shrivenzale, or Viperox, for example.) At a minimum, I definitely do agree with your stance, but I also feel that, even if we don't clean it out to the extent I'm proposing, we should probably determine some clear-cut form of inclusion criteria so that the list remains manageable and we don't have to debate specifics for every individual entity who is and who may be on the list.

  (Though, minor note, while I know the Shadow Kin could probably be easily redirected/merged to Class (2016 TV series), and most others from spin-offs could easily be redirected/merged, I am conflicted on how the Bane would be handled with your proposal, given they have a less over-arching role but still have a significant context in The Sarah Jane Adventures that may be more difficult to handle.) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree that it should be a clear guideline. For example, under my proposal, the Bane would be cut, because (as far as I recall) they never appeared on TV in Doctor Who -- even if they're important in the Sarah Jane Adventures. Similarly, Arcateenians are solely Torchwood/Sarah Jane, the Eminence is just Big Finish audio, and Viperox only appears in Dreamland, so they'd be cut. For one-shot TV monsters, I don't think it would make sense to include some because they're also in audios, for example. Keeping Chelonians and cutting Krotons just doesn't make sense to me. Toughpigs (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Toughpigs What would you say would be a good inclusion threshold for DW monsters for the list? I'm curious to know your thoughts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  The one that I proposed above: yes to monsters that have appeared in television episodes of Doctor Who, no to monsters who have only appeared in spin-off media (Torchwood, Sarah Jane Adventures, Class, animations, audios, books, games). Toughpigs (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Toughpigs I ask moreso in the sense of monsters who have appeared in the main show, per my concerns that I laid out in my earlier comment. I feel there should be at least some form of basic criteria for them, since the list being cluttered with minor monsters from various one-off episodes, especially those who are not even the main focus, feels like it'll result in the list being hard to navigate when it'd be easier to redirect to the episode in question, where the exact same information is included in the episode's plot. Per above, I'm perfectly to loosen up criteria, but I feel there's a big difference between something like the Shrivenzale and the Krynoid.

  Additionally, I do worry where we'd put information for monsters who play notable roles in other series but not in the main show. Arcateenians play little to no role in Doctor Who, but there's no valid redirect target between their two appearances, and no separate list exists for monsters from the spin-off medias of origin for them and many other monsters. Would they be merged to the main parent article? (I.e, something like Blowfish being redirected to Torchwood) In that case, what would happen to those without a valid parent article, such as the aforementioned Arcateenians, or something like the Chelonians, who are primarily a spin-off only race who have been referenced in the main show and appeared across various media over several years? I feel the solutions are iffy there and above, so I'd like to hear your thoughts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I see what you mean. It's a tough question! I'm not sure there is a logical way to draw a line that isn't subjective. I get the distinction that you're making between the Shrivenzale and the Krynoid — the Shrivenzale only shows up in part of an episode, while the Krynoid is the big bad of a well-liked six-part story.

  But at the end of the day, that's a judgment call that only leads to arguments. How much of the story does a monster have to be in? (The Draconians are in a lot of Frontier in Space, but are they the main focus?) How do you apply that standard to a 21st century story that's only 45 minutes long? (Yes to the Hath, no to the Space Whale, maybe to the Minotaur?)

  I think that a list of Doctor Who aliens is inevitably going to be very long, because there's 60 years worth of stories and most of them have aliens in them. In my opinion, the only clear line is whether the character is in "Doctor Who" or not. If they are, then they're included in the long list.

  As for the rest, I think it makes sense to put that information on the characters' first appearance — Arcateenians can go to Greeks Bearing Gifts, Chelonians can go to The Highest Science. If you're really worried about the Chelonians, who have never appeared on television at all, then maybe we should just leave this page the way it is. :) Toughpigs (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Toughpigs I'm less so worried about the Chelonians in particular and moreso trying to make sure we preserve as much content from the list as possible while trimming the content. Per my above statement, I seek not to delete but merely to reorganize content for easier reading and better cleanliness. I do think your spin-offs method may work, though. (Perhaps with a mention that a species re-appeared in another episode, or went on to be recurring somewhere in the article? Might be a good middle ground.)

  But yeah, per your statement on how confusing it would be to determine exact inclusion criteria, it's why I initially proposed such drastic cuts. Saying "are they a recurring character or not" or "Are they easily able to be redirected with minimal damages to reader comprehension" is much simpler than saying "How much screentime did this one have?" or "How important was this monster overall?" It leaves very little room for debating specific placements, with only a few unique exceptions existing per above, and provides a clear outline going forward. Very little information is lost since most episodes contain the bulk of their respective monster's info. It's really the only "feasible" solution to the problematic mess that is this list that I can think of, since otherwise this list will only grow harder to navigate and more difficult to improve upon in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I think "recurring character" is problematic as well. You said above that you see the Vashta Nerada as "recurring" because a) it was a two-part story, and b) they also appeared in a video game.

  Practically every character from the classic series appeared in a "four-part story" or a "six-part story", and almost everything has returned in one of the literally thousands of tie-in books, comics and audio dramas. I could rattle off a list of novels featuring the Movellans, the Zarbi, the Foamasi, the Krillitane, Draconians, Chronovores, and lots more, and the audios have probably covered most of the rest.

  If you don't want to count the spin-off material and just count what's returned on television, then we end up with a list of a couple dozen.

  My basic argument here is that I don't think this page would be improved by cutting out 80% of the items. I don't think that would serve the readers who are almost certainly expecting more than Cybermen, Daleks, Ice Warriors and Weeping Angels. Toughpigs (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Toughpigs Given the above we discussed for Arcateenians and such, I feel examples like the Vashta Nerada could probably be handled similarly. I do wish to clarify I did not mean to imply that all multi-part stories proved independence, that was an unfortunate miswording on my part.

  I do feel an ignorance towards spin-off material would be a bad idea, given that they were still published materials for the franchise, but my main concern with that is that this list would grow massively unwieldy if we covered everything, especially since most of those appearances are only covered in primary sources, and touching on spin-off material would additionally open the floodgates to including monsters from spin-offs, of which there are hundreds to thousands, and many of whom have recurred in significant capacities. I worry this kind of thing would either be exclusionary, or make the list downright impossible to manage without splits, most of which would be problematic quality wise as well. It's why I proposed my original point, as the primarily known appearances of monsters are often at their debut episodes.

  Admittedly, this is a conundrum I'm afraid I don't really know how to answer, in the end. It's either exclude spin-off material entirely and cull the list so that its quality and cleanliness is assured, or include practically everything, and have to constantly micromanage a list that will never be able to grow smaller or be trimmed in any capacity. It's something that's nearly impossible to solve perfectly. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think there are several things that we can do that would make a noticeable improvement.

  1. I've started removing some of the really non-notable entries -- characters that were only mentioned, or appeared in the background, or only appeared on a website. Check out the history to see the no-hopers that I'm culling, like the Venusians, the Wallarians, and background critters from the Rings of Akhaten.
  2. Remove the characters that have only appeared on Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures, merging that info with their first appearance page.
  3. Take out the random infoboxes, making sure that the entry contains the important info (basically the first appearance).
  4. Trim the remaining entries down to a brief, encyclopedic description of the character, linking to their first appearance and mentioning any significant spin-off appearances. Remove specific plot details like you can currently see on the Krillitane entry, and remove random mentions like "the Doctor mentioned that he arm-wrestled with a Draconian once".

  Honestly, I think the problem with this page is not the number of entries, but the fact that the existing entries are mostly very badly written. Well-written capsules for each creature would make for delightful reading, even if it's a long list. Toughpigs (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Toughpigs For now, I think I might try doing that and seeing how it goes. However, I do have a few queries about your proposal.

  1. Given the amount of entries, I feel infoboxes and images should be culled given that there simply isn't enough room for all of them to have one.
  2. Should individual antagonists (I.e, stuff like The Beast, the Mara, and the Trickster) be removed and redirected to the villains list? (Which admittedly also needs work, but I plan to tackle that after I deal with the supporting characters list.) I feel they aren't really "creatures or aliens" per se, they're less of a species and more of an individual.

  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I totally agree about infoboxes - they're basically useless - but I think the images are helpful, and should be retained.

  I was thinking about taking entries like the Toymaker and Maestro over to the villains list, but then I looked at that page, and it's so dire that I hesitated to merge anything there. :) Toughpigs (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Toughpigs I admittedly feel as though the villains list would benefit from an overhaul akin to this list, though I've been iffy on getting to it since I want to see how the supporting characters list would go first, since I'm iffy on how independently notable the concept of "villains" are from recurring characters and alien species. Realistically I could probably completely rewrite it in order to provide more value in the short term, though that would take some time given how many entities there are and how much spin-off material there is to comb through.

  About images: there's so many entities, for which ones would you justify images for? Given how many public domain images we have of monsters thanks to the various exhibitions, I feel it may end up cluttering the page and making it hard to navigate if every monster has an image. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think we keep the public domain pics that we currently have. There aren't that many. Toughpigs (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  For now I'll go through and see what can be gleamed of individual entries image-wise in the coming days. Rewriting the list overall will take a while, so I'll try to get what I can done soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, great! Thanks for talking with me about this. Toughpigs (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Toughpigs It's no problem- I greatly appreciate the insight. While I'm admittedly sad the list will still be as long as it is, I feel your points still stand on that a well written long list is better than a mediocre short list. I'll see if I can't improve this list to a far higher quality level over time, though it will take a while given the number of entries and appearances that need to be covered. Thank you for talking this out with me. I feel this was greatly beneficial overall. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)