Talk:List of Doctor Who villains/Archive 1

redundant

So far, this page is redundant, as there is a list of Doctor Who villains in the List of supporting characters in Doctor Who. One should be folded into the other. -khaosworks 22:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

merged

It should be merged with the other one but the other ones should also have the links to the pages

all the creatures on this page have been added so this can go

Solon and Morbius

Khaosworks said in an edit summary, "Solon seems to have a lot of redundant info. Do we really need it? Raise objections to deletion on talk, if any." I assume you're referring to the redundancies between the Solon and Morbius entries. If there's any info that you think we can eliminate from one or the other, feel free, but I think that a lot of the duplicated info is important to both characters. After all, Solon is probably most noteworthy for having created the Morbius monster, and the transfer of Moribius' brain to that monster is an important part of Morbius' story. But if you can winnow my logorrhea down, please do so! :)

We might want to add something about the components of the monster to the Morbius entry, too: the arm of a Solonian mutant (there's an alien we should add to List of Doctor Who aliens), the lungs of a Birostrop (sp?), etc. I don't remember the rest of the bits and bobs, though — if nobody else remembers them either, I'll try to watch the story or at least dig up the novelization. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My concern, really, is whether or not Solon is notable enough on his own to warrant an entry, or whether he's so intimately tied with Morbius that he might as well be dealt with within the body of that entry itself. It's kind of like, for the sake of argument, if we had an entry for Nyder, who's just as inextricably linked with Davros. Is there a way to merge the two? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe. Is it really that different from having listings for the Editor and the Jagrafess, though? (I'm playing devil's advocate here, a bit.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but having separate entries for those two is historical in nature - both were horrifically written stubs that I rewrote into passable articles rather than having to trudge through AfD, and the got pasted in when we created this listing. I would definitely not object to a merger of those two, either (although that is quite a nice picture of Simon Pegg). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object terribly to a merger of Solon and Morbius, although I think that they're each noteworthy in their own fashion (essentially as Dr. Frankenstein and his monster, both interesting characters). I suppose the question to be answered is whether the page benefits from having them both or not. I'm not sure what the answer is, although I would suggest that it's not actively harmed. I'll go with your judgment, and that of the other editors, though. Does anyone else have an opinion on the matter? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Unusual Page Order Justified?

I wondered, in the case of this page, would it be worth moving the See also section to the top of the page? I appreciate this isn't usual wikipedia styles, but I think the Manual of Style says that the guidelines can be over-ruled where there is a good case. In the case of this page, someone arriving would be able to look at the alternative pages and decide which of them the character/being/whatever they were looking for is most likely to be on. Just a thought. Jamse 16:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we don't have to break with MoS. Just a little link to the section below will do. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Line in Fenric should be altered?

The line 'The haemovores were strong enough to be able to weld metal with their bare hands, and were also immune to bullets' doesn't sound right to me. Did the original author mean to type weld? Surely something like bend would be more appropriate? --Brerbunny 16:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is one instance in Curse of Fenric where a haemovore actually fuses metal with its bare hands. Welding does not always require heat; uniting metal parts by hammering and compressing without previous heating is also termed welding (according to Mirriam-Webster, anyway). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Lumic

Lumic has no main article, and I can't seem to edit his entry. What should we do? 84.64.131.139 09:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Lumic doesn't deserve an individual article as he only appeared in one story. He's mentioned here. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Daleks

Erm, why? We already have one main article on them, this is (sorry to be blunt) poorly written, and finally isn't this section about individual villans rather than villanous races? I'm giving a grace period, but is it right for me to delete this? The_B 19:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Beast

I have uploaded an image here but I'm not sure whether to include it as the actual image of The Beast as we are not sure yet if this is exactly The Beast, or just some sort of projection of how The Beast is, as we haven't really seen the Beast yet other than the projection which flashed briefly in the episode The Impossible Planet. So, should I include it or not? The_B 16:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Jagrafess

Not that it proves anything, but Rose and the Doctor refer to the 'jagrafess' as if it was a race, not a person. If that's the case, then The Mighty Jagrafess of the Holy Hadrojassic Maxarodenfoe could just be the title given to the one we see on screen. Is this notable? RobbieG 20:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Captain Jack Harkaway

Captain Jack Harkaway was written by the Master of the Land of Fiction? Anything to do with Captain Jack Harkness?! Me thinky cleverly.

Coincidence. Jack Harkness is named after a minor character from Marvel Comics' Fantastic Four. Digifiend (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Too big

This page is too big and needs to be cut down to size (it is currently one of the 1000 longest pages on wikipedia.) As per Talk:List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens, we could either cut down the entries or merge one off villains with their episode/serial. Tim! 11:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In anticipation of the cull here which will undoubdtedly mirror the Species page, I have examined the 7 entries I wrote and decided that they restate data from the individual stories concerned and nothing else. There would be no point moving the text elsewhere as it would add no value to the other page, so I've just deleted them. Hope this makes the general dismemberment a bit easier for others. And yes, I vote for the evisceration of this page. Litefoot 13:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Abzorbaloff's homeworld

According to the subtitles on my TV, it's spelt 'Clom', but if anyone else has another source spelling it... Loyh 14:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

BBC's Doctor Who website's spelling = "Klom" RobbieG 08:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Update - Except for the 'Downloads' page where they've spelled it as "Clom". Oh dear, make up your minds, BBC people! If you don't know, who does? RobbieG 09:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This month's Doctor Who Magazine has spelt it "Clom" as well. --DaveJB 10:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this here

Why is rassilon and master of the land of fiction here!They are not villans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.49.56 (talk • contribs)

The Master of the Land of Fiction played a villainous role throughout most of The Mind Robber. Rassilon is a sinister figure in the Big Finish audios. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Absorbaloff

Should he not be in the Monsters list instead? After all - in the first line he is described as a "monster". Or is he here beacuse he is an individual with a name? Thanks.Wolf of Fenric 04:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Nimrod, Timewyrm & co

Should non-canonical villains be listed on this page? Shouldn't they have their own spin-off page, as with spin-off companions? Wolf of Fenric 06:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How so, Khaosworks?

After I added some more villains on to the list, they were removed and the only 'explanation' that was provided on the article's history page was as follows; "we're heading into kitchen sink territory...", says Khaosworks. How so? I have merely attempted to list the key villains from televised Doctor Who stories, for example Helen A - central to The Happiness Patrol, and Gavrok - the key villain in Delta and the Bannermen This article claims to be a 'List of Doctor Who villains' - so why not include these? Why should it not be a comprehensive and accurate list as oppose to seemingly a list of your choice favourites or those you deem, subjectively, to be of key importance? Furthermore, surely those that I attempted to add, established as firmly canonical villains owing to the fact that they appeared in televised stories, deserve a place on this list ahead of non-canonical villains such as Nimrod and Timewyrm, that I see you have not taken it upon yourself to remove? Please in future provide more convincing explanations for alterations you choose to make. Thank you. Wolf of Fenric 08:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not every villain needs that amount of detail. Over the course of 40 years, there are many, many villains that have been mere blips in the public consciousness; in fact, this page could due with more paring down.

In actuality, many of these villain entries don't really have to be that long - a one line/paragraph descriptor is often enough and the rest can be referred to the relevant episode article.

I think this page could do with a revamp in this fashion, end up looking like List of Doctor Who items or List of Torchwood items, and remove all the infoboxes. However, this would be quite a radical change, so does anyone have any thoughts on this proposal? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yvonne confusion resolved?

So, since Doomsday aired, there's been a lot of confusion about what happened to Yvonne, last seen as a Cyberman- was she sucked through the void? Did she stay like Torchwood's Lisa? If she stayed, then what? It's even been an issue raised in DWM by at least one reader. Perhaps, then, this page from the Torchwood website is meant to provide the explanation? Note the report states "it" (and it can't be a Dalek as there really would be no logical explanation for one of them being stuck on Earth) was found by some stairs- the last place we see Yvonne in the episode. Seems to me it's meant to be taken as a case of dramatic irony, with the reader knowing the final Cyberman killed is actually the boss of the Torchwood employees who killed it? What are everyone's thoughts on this? --L T Dangerous 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have commented out the conjecture about whether she was sucked into the void. She never crossed the void, so she had no 'void stuff'. There would be no reason at all for her to be sucked into the void. If agreed, I'll delete the statements entirely.--Jeffro77 10:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nasty evil alien quotes

Would it be nice to have a few quotes for particularly egregious villains? I am thinking for example of Sutekh's memorable "abase yourself, ya grovelling insect". For me, this page is too thin without the curses, rambling paranioa and dangerous banter of the typical Whovillain. MarkThomas 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Blon

Someone added Blon, under her pseudonym Margaret Blaine, on this page. I've done some work tidying it but while I do agree she is notable I do wonder if this info would be better as it's own section on the Slitheen page instead. Also, if we are going to have it here then wouldn't it be better if she was listed under her real name (Blon Fel-Fotch Pasameer-Day Slitheen) in the "S" section not under her pseudonym in the "B" section. Especially as the original Blaine who was killed for Blon's disguise wasn't a villain, but a victim? I see it a bit like us listing the Master under Tremas, Melkur, or Bruce. --GracieLizzie 13:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be better on the Slitheen page, but I do agree it should be listed under "S". However, many would look for "Blaine" first, so perhaps a note should be placed there? ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 14:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, and done :) --GracieLizzie 16:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

If anyone wants to put in a picture of Florence Finnigan, or any other character without pictures for that matter, please do. I have not as I don't want to breach copyright, Wikipedia flagging up warning messages if you try and upload a file. I'd upload a picture if someone were to post instructions here detailing how to jusitify usage without breaching copyright. I got a picture from the BBC website, but it says not to use photos from other websites...Wolf of Fenric 22:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Size

Even I am thinking this page is getting too big. How about a three-way split - List of Doctor Who villains (classic series), (covering Doctors One to Eight), List of Doctor Who villains (new series), (2005 villains onwards) and List of Doctor Who villains (spin-off media), (covering novels, audios, comics, etc. which would need expanding, as only a few of these villains are presently listed)? What does eveyone think? Please feel free to copy this suggestion to a Wikipedia page where more discussion goes on. Thanks. Wolf of Fenric 21:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry for my hypocritical stance on this as I keep adding to this page and have challenged others over the removal of entrants. I still think all major villains presently listed should remain, but with most new series episodes contributing to the page, it is only set to grow. A classic series list would give it an implied finite limit of villains, whilst a new series list would allow room for growth as we do not know yet when the new series will end. Wolf of Fenric 21:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. Having them all on one page is useful for comparison. Some villains belong to both, liken to one another, etc.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Links to other "Dimensions"

The cat people strongly resemble the Khajiit of the Elder scrolls Universe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.186.87.3 (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

They also appear like the cat people of Efrava. And the anther-Warriors. And the Rakshasas from D&D. And any number of other 'cat-people". What are you saying? 24.77.18.126 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yvonne Hartman

why is she a villian? Lizzie Harrison 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Because she's an antagonist, needs a place to link to but is not big enough for her own article. The page should probably be renamed, actually.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Cult of Skaro

May I say that it seems that two incredibly important Daleks have been excluded from this article unfairly? Whilst Sec and Caan ae included, Thay and Jast* are not mentioned. Surely they should be!

• I think that Jast is his name however there has been some confusion. In Battles in Time, he is name Rabe (this is a mistake)

Brief explanation for Rabe/Jast: The name was originally 'Rabe' but was changed to 'Jast' at a late stage, meaning that several medias had it down as Rabe still.

Thay and Jast are more like henchmen, as Sec and Caan led the Cult of Skaro at different times; the Cult could just as well have worked with just two Daleks.

Ood

I have deleted ood as its description is too brief and they are not an indivial vilian anyway

Fair use rationale for Image:Lilith the witch.jpg

Image:Lilith the witch.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Weeping Angels

They are already on the aliens and monsters list, which is a better place for them, so i removed the section. if anyone objects, please feel free to replace it back onto this list

The Weeping Angels are creatures that can send people back in time and feed off the days that people never had (called potential time energy). They use a form of defence that The Doctor refers to as the 'Quantum Lock'. Whenever a living creature looks upon them, they turn to stone and, as stone can't be killed, they are almost as old as the universe. Whenever there isn't someone or something looking at them they attack and, because they are so fast, they always get their target. However, their 'great defence' is also a weakness because, if they are to look upon each other, they will turn to stone. This is why they are shown as weeping statues, so that they don't look at each other. When The Doctor gets Sally Sparrow to send the TARDIS back to him, he tricks the angels into looking at each other by making the TARDIS dissapear when they are circled around it. This locks them into statue form forever, or until someone moves them....(Black Dalek 16:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)).

Or until the lights go off???--Jeffro77 10:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Professor Zaroff

Why does he want to destroy the world exactly? The article never says.

Anon

the Master

just fixed a spelling mistake, and someone put the wrong episode down, although utopia, sound of drums and last of the time lords are all part of a 3 part story we only know that he has appeared in Utopia.--Lerdthenerd 19:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If the Master is clever and pretended to go to Cambridge University, why did he pose in the Oxford University rugby shirt? The Tribe of Gum 21:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Style of writing

I notice that the past tense is used throughout this article (Morbius WAS a renegade...etc). This doesn't seem right to me. I thought that standard practise with fiction was to use present tense.Sceptic-all 14:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends if they're dead or not I guess. mattbuck 15:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr Saxon

Should Mr Saxon really have a section here? He's the Master, he's got an article to himself. The Rev. Magister and Sir Giles Estram aren't listed as villains, after all... Daibhid C 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yvonne Hartman

I know this was brought up before, but I think Yvonne Hartman should be moved to another DW characters article. Is there an article for the people who work in Torchwood? --DrBat 03:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

IIsolus

As far as I could tell was the Isolus just wanted wanted company. It wasn't a villain per-se but a lost child that wanted to be with its siblings. It should be stated the that it wasn't truly villainous. I cannot do this myself because I prefer The verse and am unaccstomed to the format of encyclopedic content.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.18.126 (talk • contribs)

Harold Saxon

Quite simply, no. It shouldn't be here. Harold Saxon is not a person. Professor Yana is more of a separate person (technically) and yet he doesn't have an article. As someone above me said, why not make separate entries for all of the Master's aliases?--Codenamecuckoo 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. Saxon is merely an alias (cf. the Reverend Magister, Kalid, Colonel Masters, Sir Gilles Estram etc). Of course, we'd have to deal with the various articles that link to that section, but it wouldn't be impossible with the aid of Google. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I take the resounding silence to mean that no one objects if I get on with this (in, say, 4 or 5 hours)? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Originally Villains#Mr Saxon was just there to be a redirect towards both Master and the story arcs but it gradually extended.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I've noticed how that can happen. People do love to fill up Doctor Who entries, even if it ends up in two uses of the same image on a page (Image:Saxon Toclafane.jpg). Anyhow, it's pretty much sorted now, touch wood. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 22:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheWarLord.jpg

Image:TheWarLord.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rationale provided. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lazarus Doctor.jpg

Image:Lazarus Doctor.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've amended the rationale used for this image so that it refers specifically to List of Doctor Who villains. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger Lloyd Pack

Should it be mentioned under the "John Lumic" section that Roger Lloyd Pack played David Tennant's character's father in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire? Chronolegion 19:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. That's too trivial and can be looked-up on IMDb. DonQuixote 00:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

ninja monks

who's the idiot who put down "ninja monks?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.197.212 (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

'Villain', 'Alien', or 'Monster'

Many of the entries in this article seem more appropriate to List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens. The defining marks for determining what belongs in which article seems unclear. Possibly the articles, should be merged; or possibly, a more specific definition should be applied.--Jeffro77 10:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a big discussion on WT:WHO a while back about this. No-one could really agree what to do with the pages, so they stayed together. I think the articles need redefined to avoid a huge cross-over. StuartDD _{contributions} 10:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Msolon.jpg

Image:Msolon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lazarus: Villian or Henchman?

I think Lazarus should be in List of Doctor Who henchmen, because, let's face it, he's only Saxon's puppet, isn't he? - Chad Sladerri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.231 (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I half agree with you - he was working for Mister Saxon. However, he is the main villain in The Lazarus Experiment so I think this is the proper place for it. Perhaps mentioning his Henchman status in the section would be a better idea. StuartDD _{contributions} 15:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

But the conflict of the episode was a result of Lazarus' own machinations. Saxon only funded his research (and later appropriated it). The rest was Lazarus. DonQuixote (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Humor or reference needing clarification?

Looks like the end of "The Wire" is a joke, but it could also be a reference to some storyline. I'm being timid with this one. ;) 68.63.165.28 (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Greatest enemies

If you were to make a list of the Doctor's greatest foes, who (from throughout the entire history of the show) should be on that list?

I've already thought of:

• The Master
• The Daleks
• The Cybermen

But I'm sure there are more recurring villains out there. Who do you think should be on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.235.202 (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sontarans (5 stories, 4 classic, 1 new). Slitheen (4 stories, 2 new, 2 SJA). Zygons, Yeti and Ice Warriors probably as well. Digifiend (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Trickster/'s Brigade

I think (as of Turn Left) that the Trickster might warrant a small section on this page, as he seems to make do on his threats in TSJA. Having attempted to kill Sarah-Jane to alter the Doctor's timeline and/or kill him multiple times by focusing on at least two of his assistants (not to mention killing Martha and Sarah-Jane in the Right-Whoniverse and possibly using the Graske to interfere during Attack of the Graske) he can be considered a significant threat. However I'm not sure whether he could be considered a villain in his own right as a member of a wider group of foes.

So... Does anyone else think he could do with a mention, or would this be better suited under Trickster's Brigade in the Monsters section? Lozeko (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's worth mentioning the Trickster here.EoinMahon (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Luke Rattigan and Asperger's

For some reason people of wikipedia absolutely love diagnosing fictional characters with Asperger's syndrome. Luke Rattigan correcting the Doctor for saying ATMOS system (when the 'S' in ATMOS stands for 'system') is used as evidence that he has Asperger's. On the face of it, it appears that Luke was simply trying to embarrass the Doctor after the Doctor had embarrassed him. Not really the basis for a diagnosis. Is there any other source for it? Was there something I missed within the episodes etc? Or can we delete the Asperger's/OCD diagnosis from the Luke Rattigan section? EttaLove (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No verifiable source that I'm aware of. You can delete it if you want. DonQuixote (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Might I also posit that the Luke Rattigan section is very long, and reads more like a novelisation than a reference work. 18:44 23 September 2008