Talk:Great Intelligence

Structure

Would it be more out-of-universe to have an "Appearances" section instead of "Fictional history"? River Song (Doctor Who) as an example. It would start with the Yeti stories and work through "The Bells of Saint John", and the "Other appearances" would be subheaded as "Other media". I know it may not be like some of the other villain/character articles, but this format seems to be the most updated. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of the grammar and consistency errors in Appearances section. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I support this motion Comics (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge Great Intelligence and Yeti articles

I don't believe these villains have sufficient notability distinct from one another, and now that the Great Intelligence has appeared more often than the Yeti it would make sense to merge the same content under that heading. I had originally made GI redirect to Yeti -- which someone developed nicely, and made a good compromise -- but three days ago it was reverted with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS edit summary, and since then the Great Intelligence has been set up as a major villain for series 7's back end. Would the community be behind a merged article under the heading Great Intelligence, perhaps with Yeti in bold somewhere in the lead?Zythe (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say wait and see where reliable sources lead us in the wake of series 7. At the moment the majority of sources concern the Yeti, under that name, as that was the focus of their classic appearances. So having all that good material under the article title of "Great Intelligence" would seem a bit odd. So for now, keep them separate and have a Yeti section in this article with a {{Main|Yeti (Doctor Who)}} link. If we get a wealth of sources looking at the Great Intelligence's appearances across the years, including the Yeti stories, then it may be time to think of merging. U-Mos (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

In the 20th Anniversary book Dr Who: A Celebration the Yeti were voted the 5th favorite monster so they have had some notability over the years. I agree with U-Mos suggestion that we keep the two articles separate. Since the GI is the focal point of this current set of episodes I would suggest that new info about it be kept out of the Yeti article and only placed in this one. It should also be pointed out that the Yeti did make an appearance in The Five Doctors independent from the GI. MarnetteD | Talk 15:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Having worked rather hard on the Yeti (Doctor Who) article, I'm conflicted as to how to approach this. On the one hand, it feels like it would be hard to juggle the out-of-universe material that focuses entirely on the Yeti (outside of recent reviews for recent episodes focusing more on the GI). On the other, the Yeti ARE puppets for the GI. Historically this would perhaps have been a similar case to the Autons and Nestenes (with the Autons the recognisable monster and the Nestene's mere puppet masters) but I'm not sure if perhaps it's growing into something more like Davros and the Daleks - two villains closely related but different enough. I was conflicted how to work the GI into the Yeti article substantially though. Maybe this would be a better way to collect all that information? I'll see what I can do. Comics (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been working on merging the two articles - now saving that and opening it up for critique. Comics (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If the articles were to merge, I'd be happy to see information about the Yeti presented as about the Yeti, with the article obviously being about both (separately and together).Zythe (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather see separate articles, as the Yeti have made many appearances in spin-off media, as well as The Five Doctors without the GI. Perhaps wait and see how Series 7 plays out and leave the articles as they are until the story is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.7.34 (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've gone back and edited through both articles to try and give both a stronger focus on themselves - Yeti on the Yeti, the GI on the GI. Any comments on the success of this, and whether it answers the merge question, are welcome :) Comics (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

They're both very good; there's some overalap but I think that's all good for now. I'm kind of neutral in this merge debate, but I agree that that they are very different creatures, so to speak, and would be hard to put together. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

The debate appears to have drifted off and people seem to have lost interest. My summary of the above debate is:

• The Yeti, while a tool of the Great Intelligence, is an identifiable monster that people remember and will want to look up.
• The GI is a character in its own right, and appears without the Yeti in the 2013 serials.
• Comics (talk) has worked hard on the focus of both articles

While no-one feels particularly strongly, the debate appears to have gone towards do not merge.

Unless anyone objects to my reading of this I will delete the merge tags in a week or two Rankersbo (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with this, however would like quality assessments done on both the Yeti and GI so we have a clear idea of what else can be done with the articles. Comics (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Forty years?

How can The Web of Fear be set forty years after The Abominable Snowmen when both feature Professor Travers, played by the same actor in both serials? john k (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Because in one Jack Watling depicts the character as a young man, and in the other he's done up with glasses and a beard to look older? Like how David Tennant was done up with make-up to look older in The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords, Karen Gillan was done up with make-up to look older in The Girl Who Waited - this is the 60's version on a lower budget? Comics (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130406020715/http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/03/30/review-of-doctor-who-the-bells-of-saint-john/ to http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/03/30/review-of-doctor-who-the-bells-of-saint-john

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The Doctor's Wife

Would it be appropriate to mention (with proper sourcing) that the Great Intelligence was planned to be revealed earlier in the revived series as the true identity of the villain "House" in the episode The Doctor's Wife, only for the relevant portion of the script to be dropped? Or is it too anecdotic? --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, if that's the case then it's definitely worth mentioning as part of the character's conceptual history. (I've heard the same thing, but I've never seen it verified.) —Flax5 17:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)