Talk:Extremis (TV story)

What is real, what is not
Okay, one of the most (if not the most) thing we need to keep in mind when editing about this episode is what is real and what is not. Since most of what we saw was just a "practice Earth", can we really say that, for example, the Twelfth Doctor went in the White House? Can we say that the Pope met the Doctor, Bill and Nardole? Can we say that Bill and Nardole were on CERN? In my opnion, we should not. Probably, the safest way to display information would be to create Twelfth Doctor (Practice Earth), Bill Potts (Practice Earth) (as "practice Earth" was a term used by the "hologram Doctor" to describe the place they were in), and so on, and treat what happened in this episode almost as if this was an "alternate universe" (keep in mind this is only a metaphor I'm using, as it was clear that everything was a simulation). OncomingStorm12th ☎  21:25, May 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course we should write about it, even if it is not real. If we don't, the article will just contain the execution of Missy as well as the Doctor standing guard. Everything has to be written. And it's not really an alternate universe, as this is projected. It's not a different reality. --DCLM ☎  21:50, May 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * Afaiu, the issue is not whether or not to write about it (it all is a message "viewed" by the doctor, so it is a part of the episode's continuity), but how to disambiguate between things that happened only in simulation (without writing, like, virtual Bill and virtual Nardole meet the virtual Pope in the virtual Tardis) and those that happened in reality. 5.172.255.84talk to me 22:00, May 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm not proposing we write only about what was real. As the anonymous user remarked, what I'm aiming is how we should handle the information of the episode. And, again: I'm not saying this was an alternate universe. I left it pretty clear this was merely a metaphor. OncomingStorm12th ☎  22:08, May 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I think separate pages should be made for the simulation versions of the characters for example; Twelfth Doctor Projection (Extremis), Bill Potts Projection (Extremis), Nardole Projection (Extremis), but we must not forget that the real versions of the major characters appeared at some point during the episode - The Doctor, Bill, Nardole and Missy all had scenes set in reality - so should be credited too. Xx-connor-xX ☎  22:12, May 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * How were these things handled on the Amy's Choice (TV story) page? My idea is that we should pretty much handle this in the same way. --DCLM ☎  22:37, May 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is fair to compare this instance to that of a dream, as these avatars/projections were created to mimic the people rather than actually being then - because even if you are dreaming you are still yourself. Xx-connor-xX ☎  22:46, May 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * The example that most came to my mind: Moira. Does she appear in this story? For me, is a clear no. It wasn't Moira, it was a computer program acting like Moira. So: it looks like her, it sounds like her, it acts like her, but, by no means it's her. OncomingStorm12th ☎  22:56, May 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * Best possible example. Xx-connor-xX ☎  23:03, May 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * This could really need an admin's opinion. --DCLM ☎  23:05, May 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming we do take this route, exactly how far should we go with it? As in, should there be "projection" pages for just the main three, or for every character that appeared in the simulation (virtual Pope, virtual president of the United States, etc.)? TheFatPanda ☎  00:34, May 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * If they were real, we certainly would, so I'd say yes. Potentially, I think we should also make two pages for Penny: the real one and another for the virtual. OncomingStorm12th ☎  00:37, May 21, 2017 (UTC)

How perfect a simulation?
If we're going under the assumption that the virtual world really is as perfect as the Doctor believed, should we assume that any minor factoids revealed about characters in the virtual world also apply to their real counterparts like, for example, Moira apparently being unaware of Bill's sexuality? TheFatPanda ☎  00:44, May 21, 2017 (UTC)

Veritas is the book, not the aliens
It's just a coincidence that the DWU already has a story with similar looking aliens and the word "Veritas". The Monks are not the Veritas. They are not once called "Veritas" in Extremis. Pretty sure all the interviews in DWM 512 refer to the Monks as new aliens. It seems incredibly unlikely that Steven Moffat would bring back an enemy from an hour-long SJA audio book for a major storyline in an important season. CoT    ?  02:26, May 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * It also seems unlikely that Big Finish would take a one-off character from a Doctor Who Adventures comic and make them a returning character, but they did. We can't really guess a writer's motivation without sources suggesting either way. I reckon we should let this storyline unfold and then we'll know for sure what the Doctor's up against. If at the end of this three parter there's no evidence to suggest they're the same species, then we have a further discussion. The  Farty  Doctor   Talk  02:32, May 21, 2017 (UTC)


 * Which character is that? The Sidewinder Syndicate are the only thing that springs to my mind, and they were recurring DWA characters. Surely the fact that more than three Monks are seen means that they cannot be the Veritas? Like, nothing connects them other than appearance and name. CoT     ?  02:39, May 21, 2017 (UTC)

It was the Viyrans. It marked the first time that Big Finish used an element from "NuWho". I suppose my point is that, although I really understand that the species are not named "The Veritas" and that their agendas are different, I think that everyone should try to stay neutral in this until either it's cleared up on-screen, or until the third part is over and nothing has been said. You're completely right that it's completely random for Moffat to nab something from an SJA audio that very few people have probably listened to. But at the same time, we never really know what he's up to. Let's take Dalek. The team liked the idea provided by Big Finish and adapted it. Only the die-hard fans know what it's adapted from and enjoy the comparisons. I'd like to see an admin's opinion on what we do at the Veritas page. Whether we allow that information to float there or whether we jettison it. I don't think any of us should do it. The Farty  Doctor   Talk  02:45, May 21, 2017 (UTC)

"Imagine if a Silent had died while cosplaying as a member of the Sibylline Sisterhood, then was left to decay for a while, then was brought back to life - if you could call it that - just in time for Judgement Day. That's a Monk."

"...wanted to do a story about monks. We kept calling them Kung Fu Monks - not in the dialogue just in the directions - but we ended up removing the words "Kung Fu" when [it was] pointed out that they did absolutely no Kung Fu..."

- Steven Moffat


 * Ahhhh. Do storybooks count as DWAs? CoT     ?  02:54, May 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * If you wish to reach a decision before an admin gets a chance to do something, I'm fine with that. We've worked together on numerous things, so I trust your judgement completely. This time in two weeks, we'll have our answer either way and the page(s) will continue to get updated throughout. It'll work itself out eventually. :D The  Farty  Doctor   Talk  03:12, May 21, 2017 (UTC)

If the writer would do said thing is irrelevant. We have no evidence that this was done. There is no proof that the inclusion of these monks was meant to represent a group of aliens from a SJA audio book.

If you are adding information to pages which is likely to be contradicted one week later, then it is speculation. The entire thesis that "These monks = different monks" is based in the fact that this two-parter hasn't told us otherwise yet. Thus, no information about such an idea should be added to pages. OS25 (Talk) 05:08, May 21, 2017 (UTC)