Talk:Brian Williams

Article needs renaming
It's been confirmed that the character will appear in a later episode, so the DAB nature of the title is inaccurate and will prevent users from finding the article on him, especially if the DAB page at Brian Williams is deleted by those who seem to want this wiki to be hard to navigate. 70.72.211.35talk to me 02:40, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation articles are there to navigate people to the correct article(s). When you search for something they're pretty much the first thing you see. Plus, on most articles it suggests pages that you might have meant when you loaded the article. I don't really think there's an issue tbh. Plus, the Brian Williams in the NSA "Snowglobe 7" came first and there's very little we can do about it.
 * The Farty  Doctor   Talk  03:02, September 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * The page still needs to be disambiguated, even if he appears in a later episode. As this is his first, this is what we go with.  Tardis1963   talk  03:41, September 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * For cases when there's only two people, You may is more than enough to alleviate the confusion. Often, when you start typing Brian Williams in a link, it'd show the two dabed Brian Williamses. -- Tybort (talk page) 11:37, September 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * It does seem that the Doctor's wife's Grandfather is going to remain more notable than a one off character in a novel. Perhaps Brian (Dinos on a Spaceship) should be the one listed as Brian Williams and a You may link could handle the rest.  The page for (Snowglobe 7) is barely a blip as it is, clearly Rory's dad is already more interesting.

At a later date, when this character has made multiple appearances, it would certainly be best to give this page preference as I do not doubt it is the page most expect to find at Brian Williams. There is no urgency to make the move, but I see no reason to delay as links will only have to be changed when the switch is made and they're sure to pile up in the meantime.-- 20:05, September 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * When Amy Pond first appeared in The Eleventh Hour, the page was named 'Amy Pond' not 'Amy Pond (The Eleventh Hour)'. So I completely agree that this page should be renamed. 86.22.110.143talk to me 12:16, September 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * While I'm not completely opposed to the idea of maybe making this the "prime" Brian Williams page, the Amy argument has nothing to do with anything. Amy has appeared in far more media than just one or two episodes, including three comic series running at the same time. I don't know of any conflicting Amy Ponds like with Brian Williams (Snowglobe 7) (which until DOAS' airdate was the Brian Williams page), so for what purpose would we even consider requiring an Amy Pond page with the disambiguation term (The Eleventh Hour)? -- Tybort (talk page) 13:27, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Conversely, I am totally opposed to dropping the dab term from the full article name. There's no cause to make an exception to policy in this case.  He's not more important than the Snowglobe 7 guy, because core site policy sets all media as of equal weight.  06:00: Mon 17 Sep 2012
 * Moreover, it's an incredibly common name. I'm not entirely convinced there's not another Brian Williams somewhere in some story we've not got around to cataloguing yet.  And given that we have two stories in 5 years to use the name Brian Williams, I certainly don't think it's unlikely that there will be another Brian Williams somewhere down the road.  One thing people are forgetting in this thread is that we've only got about 30k articles on this wiki, and a lot of those are behind the scenes pages.  We've barely begun to scratch the surface of in-universe characters.  We use dab term naming as much to futureproof ourselves as to make differentiations that we're sure about.  I can't see a situation whereby it'd be good policy to move this to Brian Williams; we're only gonna have to move it back.   06:10: Mon 17 Sep 2012

Leadworth
Where is it established that he is from Leadworth? The only time he has been seen is at Amy and Rory's house (last we heard they are in London), and he was never mentioned, or seen during the adventures set in Leadworth. He is not even present at the wedding, which took place in Leadworth. Geek Mythology ☎  21:28, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

Another victim of the silly Disambiguation policy on this wiki
There are a number of wiki users like myself who don't bother using the search tool and instead just browse to tardis.wikia.com/wiki/ . This is how I get to most pages, and finding that disambiguation pages have been deleted because there's only two or three similarly-named entries is, frankly, a bit rubbish, and makes the wiki very hard to navigate.

I'm strongly in favour of either renaming this article to simply Brian Williams, or recreating the disambiguation page. Certainly the article's current title, which includes the name of what will be only the first appearance of the character, is not the way to go. Ben Paddon ☎  20:24, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, our dab policy would look pretty stupid to someone who doesn't use the search tool. Obviously, though, using your browser's URL field isn't in any way a search.  You should only use that method when you're sure of an article's name.  There is absolutely no reasonable expectation that a name as common as "Brian Williams" would have appeared only once in a franchise that's 50 years old and comprised of thousands of unique stories.


 * In calling our dab policy "stupid", you're not really understanding the challenges of organising information on a franchise that's 50 years old and comprised of thousands of stories. The DWU requires a different approach to naming that is dependant on using the search tool.  If you used the search tool, you'd soon discover that it produces auto suggestions which then reveal the wisdom of the dab policy.  Moreover, having the dab terms helps during editing, where autosuggestions are also prevalent.  Without a consistent policy of applying the name of a character's first policy to their name, editing and searching would in fact be much more difficult.  It's a good thing to have dab terms like we do, because it makes it completely obvious which Brian Williams you're looking for.   05:45: Mon 17 Sep 2012

Spelling
Somebody, no idea who, but somebody sucks at spelling. This page was at the correct "Brian Williams (Dinosaurs on a Spaceship)", but somebody, no idea who, who I'd assume is not as good at English usage as they think they are, moved the correct page to an incorrect title. Can an admin please move it back to the correct title? Unless all of a sudden 'soar'ing is the new dinosaur roaring.  Tardis1963   talk  06:07, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a truism of, well, life that people make mistakes. Take it easy, big fella. 06:32: Mon 17 Sep 2012

I support the name change
Just like to say I support the name change. I struggled to find this character, using google. It took me to the page Brian. Considering the number of Brians in Doctor Who i think that Brian should be made a disambiguation or at least have a (bracketed conxtext) in the page title.

The "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship" title is now irrelevant. Just had to share my thoughts.

-Thomas Love http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/jackass/images/5/5f/Star_tiny.png [ talk ] 13:48, October 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * He's now appeared in Dinosaurs on a Spaceship, The Power of Three, and P.S.. As the only other "Brian Williams" on record is a three-line page, I also support moving this to Brian Williams.  If another particularly notable Brian Williams turns up, we can re-disambiguate this page as necessary.  NOT doing it because there MAY be another B.W. somewhere down the line in either direction is frankly silly. d ● • ·  13:58, October 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, man, this is absurd. Rory's dad is obviously the most notable Brian Williams. He's not just the Brian Williams from Dinosaurs on a Spaceship, he's a prominent reoccurring character. Parenthetically noting the story a character was in works when the character was only in one story, but in cases where a character was in multiple stories it looks like an error, and is certainly more confusing than useful for casual users. Any wiki policy that demands that article names be formatted in this way has to change if the wiki isn't going to look like a parody of itself. -- Rowan Earthwood ☎  01:12, October 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you guys don't understand our dismag policy... OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 17:32, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Under the DAB policy header "Primary Topics":
 * "Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it sometimes is the case that one of these topics is far more likely to be the one a reader is searching for when searching in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is known as the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, that article should be titled with no disambiguation, however, with a note at the top of the article directing to a disambiguation page."
 * The likelihood that anyone is searching for Brian Williams (Snowglobe 7) is nearly zero, whereas searching for Brian Williams (Dinosaurs on a Spaceship), twice a companion with an entire webcast revolving around him, is substantially higher. It's like saying if there was a character named Craig Owens in Planet of the Spiders (TV story), who appeared in the first two minutes and was unceremoniously killed and never mentioned again, that the current Craig Owens would have to be "Craig Owens (The Lodger)" forever, despite being a direct companion twice, and the focus of both episodes.  At WORST, Brian Williams should be "Brian Williams (companion)". d ● • ·  17:51, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you skipped two important points to get to "Primary Topics". Take a look at Tardis:Disambiguation policy and Tardis:Disambiguation policy and you'll see the more specific guidelines. I understand that at present Rory's dad is "far more likely to be the one a reader is searching for" but how long will that last? He's pretty important now, but in the long run he's just a minor character who appeared in a handful of episodes in half a series. We're not naming articles for the current series, but rather for the entire almost-50 year run of the show and its various media. Shambala108 ☎  18:15, October 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * Rory's dad was a twice-companion with a considerable amount of focus. The previous "Brian Williams" was a prose character we know effectively nothing about.  Look at the two characters pages it connects to.  Only ONE of them has any considerable detail.  It has nothing to do with "right now", there is a clear, stark, substantial difference as to the importance of each character.  d ● • ·  18:30, October 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * yeah, if the policy doesn't allow a change then the policy may need updating becuase this is obvious. If someone just googles "doctor who brian" on google they are taken to the page Brian. Which is another insignificant character. No matter how much you love the old series, the majority of people searching for a Brian will be looking for this Brian. He should be made more accessible for this reason.


 * I don't agree that Brian Williams-Pond needs to be considered the wiki's primary Brian (he has a last name that's pretty well-known), but I agree with the gist of this. The advantage of a wiki is that it can easily be edited as things change. If in the future Brian Williams (Snowglobe 7) or another Brian Williams appears in another story and becomes more prominent, we can revisit this. As it is now, it sounds like Rory's dad should be considered the primary topic in Brian Williams, and appear without disambiguation. There's considerable support here for revising any rules that might say otherwise. -- Rowan Earthwood ☎  00:02, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Two things: first, you're ignoring my original point, which is that Rory's dad is currently popular but that won't last forever. For most cases, this wiki does not put more relevance in one type of medium, character, etc over another. And let's face it, Brian is a minor character at best, even as a companion. Second, and most important, if you want to talk about changing the rules, it's time to take this discussion over to the forums where these kinds of discussions take place. Shambala108 ☎  00:34, October 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether he is currently popular or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that he was a fully-formed character, whereas the other Brian Williams is not.  And you're right, for most cases there is no preference given to a medium, character, or anything else.  But this Brian Williams was not just a side character, he played an active role in two adventures (like Craig Owens, for example), and the writers felt it necessary to give this particular character his own sendoff.  The disambiguation rules clearly state that in a case where one is clearly the primary topic (in this case, Rory's father), it is not to be disambiguated.  It can still retain the header linking to the one from Snowglobe 7, but by our own rules, how they stand right now, this page should be renamed. The other BW only has three lines describing him on this entire wiki.  This needless rules-lawyering is getting ridiculous. d ● • ·  00:43, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This isn't the only page where the disambigs aren't done how you'd expect. Victoria is the page for Queen Victoria (and for some reason that links to a planet, which should have a disambig in the title instead IMHO). But there's a companion called Victoria Waterfield. Surely she should be the primary subject for that name, it's even more obvious than Brian. Or at least disambig the planet, move the monarch to Queen Victoria, and move Victoria (disambiguation) to Victoria.

I agree that this page should be made the primary; if the disambiguation policy allows for this page to become the primary Brian Williams article, then let's do so. -- Bold  Clone  04:01, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

So far no admin has weighed in on this issue, and since Victoria has entered into the picture, I suggest you take this issue to the forums. Shambala108 ☎  05:17, October 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Shambala108 has represented the policies that are in place on this wiki very well.
 * There are currently two Brian Williams' on this wiki. The two articles are not the only example of our DAB policy. This article happen to be the most visible now but as Shambala108 has said that is only how it currently stands.
 * That DAB policy will not be changed to merely accommodate this article.
 * Digifiend, Victoria Waterfield has a last name. That's her name. Her name "Victoria Waterfield" is used in a variety of mediums. Your suggestion to move Victoria to Queen Victoria would violate our Tardis:Honourifics portion of our Tardis:Tardis Manual and it will not be implemented. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:02, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood on all points (and agreed on the Victoria front), but what are your thoughts on the DAB's "Primary Topic" policy, particularly with the other Brian Williams being an otherwise unnotable character? <font color=#609000>d <font color=#609000>● <font color=#FF6090>• <font color=#6090FF>·  15:11, October 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe any character or subject is "unnotable", this wiki covers everything of the DWU. So I don't see a difference between this or the other Brian Williams. The concept of an "unnotable" subject doesn't really exist on this wiki, certainly not in any way that it does on Wikipedia.
 * This Brian Williams is not a primary topic. Regeneration, as the DAB policy notes is. --Tangerineduel / talk 06:43, October 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, "unnotable" was certainly the wrong word, but you're suggesting that we equate a character whose page barely contains three lines of information (we know his name, that he was part of a team, and that he was "surprised") to one whose presence has been quite important in the first half of this series, and the closure of the current companions. Honestly, I don't understand how it is that you can't see a difference between the two.  To the right is literally all the information we have on the Brian Williams of Snowglobe 7, half a KB of text.  He's not unnotable, but he's certainly not equal to "Brian Pond". <font color=#609000>d <font color=#609000>● <font color=#FF6090>• <font color=#6090FF>·  10:18, October 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * They both appeared in valid stories, both these stories' articles are given equal coverage on this wiki as is the information contained within them and the characters.
 * I am not saying that the information on this article is insignificant or valued any less than the Brian Williams (Snowglobe 7) article. But I am not saying it is any more significant or valuable either. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:19, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean, I have to disagree, P.S. alone I feel makes this Brian Williams more significant, but if we're not even going to address the Primary Topic rule, then what is the point of having it? <font color=#609000>d <font color=#609000>● <font color=#FF6090>• <font color=#6090FF>·  15:12, October 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * In this case, the Primary Topic and the rest of the DAB policy exists to show why this discussion needn't have gone as long as it has. And why things are named as they are on this wiki.
 * The discussion concerning the DAB policy has already happened, it is policy.
 * PS contains notable information and it's been included on this article and other articles. We are not discounting the information presented in PS. Its significance and this article's significance is not being challenged. PS is no more significant than Snowglobe 7.
 * Changing this article's name will not happen. As it would be in contradiction of our current policies and would have ramifications for a multitude of other articles on this wiki. As I've noted above with Digifiend's suggestion, making an exception on one portion of policy dominoes into other polices. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:37, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, however the entire purpose of the Primary Topic portion is to make exceptions when they arise. In particular, the line "one of these topics is far more likely to be the one a reader is searching for when searching in the Search box" is what I am addressing.  This Brian Williams qualifies as a companion (for more than one adventure) whereas the other appears to have only had one line dedicated to him in the entirety of Snowglobe 7.  The likelihood (paramount to the Primary Topic portion) that SG7's Brian would be searched for is significantly lower than that of this Brian.  This separation is key.  This is a particularly rare situation (that I honestly can't think of anything to compare it to); we're not looking to make exceptions to rules, we're looking to enforce one. <font color=#609000>d <font color=#609000>● <font color=#FF6090>• <font color=#6090FF>·  16:00, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

This Brian Williams does not define the "essential" Brian Williams. He is not the stand out example of A "Brian Williams".

I will not engage in a discussion whether he is a companion or has companion status here, that is not relevent to this conversion.

Here's a similar example; Joan Redfern (novel character) and Joan Redfern (TV character), where it was argued at the time that the TV character was more significant, that people felt that it was more significant than the novel character and that they were essentially the same character. --Tangerineduel / talk 03:18, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

And John Hart (Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang) and John Hart (The Sea Devils). This example is in the similar field as this discussion. John Hart from Torchwood appeared in more stories than Brian Williams and his name is still DABed in accordance with our policy.

Additionally, as this topic has been covered not once, but three times, it is one that has been covered and attended by three different admins over the course of these discussions.

This topic has been well and truly covered and I am closing this discussion. The page will not be renamed. --Tangerineduel / talk 08:50, October 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * I propose renaming the page to Brian Williams (TV character) and the other one to Brian Williams (novel character), then, in accordance with Joan Redfern's precedent. It looks less like an error. -- Rowan Earthwood ☎  00:02, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * The only reason Joan Redfern gets that distinction is because the novel and the TV episode have the same name (i.e. Human Nature); otherwise, a DAB'd character is named by the first episode he/she appears in. Shambala108 ☎  00:35, October 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * As Shambala108 has explained the Joan situation was only implemented as both the novel and the TV episode had the same name.
 * Rowan Earthwood this discussion is closed. The pages will not be renamed. Neither Brian Williams page will be renamed. As I've already noted above admins have already been involved several times in this discussion. And as I've already noted above John Hart (Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang) is disambiguated - this character has appeared in more stories than Brian Williams and is not specially disambiguated. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:50, October 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly, the community opposition to this ruling is considerable, with suggests that instead of trying to shout down the naysayers a compromise might be advisable. Why not turn Brian Williams (and John Hart, and Joan Redfern) into a disambiguation page? Limiting those to names associated only with three or more individuals seems a needless obstacle. The only thing you have to fear is a more easily navigated wiki. -- Rowan Earthwood ☎  19:38, October 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * "The community opposition to this ruling is considerable." Most of the names I see in favor of your argument are people who barely contribute to article pages. And most of them have only posted one time on this issue and have then ignored the issue -- only you and the guy with a dot for his name have bothered to post more than once in favor of change. I would bet that many of our regular users don't even know that such an issue is in question as the argument is currently located on an article talk page. I have suggested twice that you bring this issue to the forum page, which you have not done. More users are aware of issues from the forum pages than from the article talk pages. If you really want a representation of the community, the forums are the place to go. Shambala108 ☎  20:28, October 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking every comment in this thread one by one:
 * Thomaslove92: Brian has been a dab page since 2010.
 * Witoki: I sympathise with your feelings that it's silly to futureproof article names, but as the person who typically has to clean up the mess, I can tell you that it's not. It is far, far smarter to anticipate that there will be another character with the same, common name — because there often is.  This one is a slam dunk because there already is another character with that name — that we know of.  Also, when I say futureproof, I don't mean that we're waiting for a new piece of fiction to rear its copycatting head.  As I pointed out when this controversy first broke, we've barely scratched the surface on existing narratives — especially when it comes to audios and novels. I fully anticipate that at least one other Brian Williams exists somewhere in the huge catalogue of stories in other media.
 * Rowan Earthwood: I wouldn't call a guest star who returned once a "prominent recurring character". I'd barely call him recurring.  He's a modern day Edward Travers, that's all.  (No, P.S. doesn't really count as a separate story.)
 * Witoki: The primary topic rule is a seductive argument for overturning the current title. However, it is generally not applied to people on this wiki. The example quoted in the section, which you did not include, obviously referred to a general noun, regeneration.  It's not meant for people, except when those people are, in a sense, partially concepts, like Victoria.  The rule which applies in this case is point 1 under Dab.  Your Craig Owens example is a bit moot because there is no other "Craig Owens" and "Craig" is unusual enough to make that eventuality less likely than "Brian Williams".  Yes, this is a judgement call, but the fact of a pre-existing Brian Williams (not to mention a major US newscaster who might one day be mentioned in a work of DWU fiction) tips the balance in the favour of "Brian Williams" being a common enough name to guard against. Shambala108's rebuttal to your claim of "likelihood of search" seems determinative to me.  The guy's only appeared in two episodes (again, P.S. is not an episode, and there's no confirmation he actually appeared in Big Bang) and probably won't return.  He's not Wilf.  He's not even Sylvia.  He's not Mike Yates.  He's Edward Travers.
 * Unnamed editor: If you Google "Doctor Who Brian", you go to Brian where there's a top-line disambiguation note that directs you to the two "companion relatives" named Brian.  So you'll get to this Brian Williams in one click from a Google search.  Also, as an aside, "Doctor Who Brian" should take you to Brian, because there are a lot of Brians in DW history — only some of which are currently catalogued there.  By this time next year, no one is going think that "Doctor Who Brian" should lead to this page.  This will be a half-remembered character in Doctor Who history, as we all come to grips with the new series.  (By the way, you're the second person who seems to believe that Brian is an insignificant character.  It has always been a disambiguation page, not a character page.)
 * Witoki. You've got things the wrong way round when you argue "he's a fully formed character, whereas the other Brian Williams is not".  The rule exists to minimise this sort of value judgement.  It attempts to equally weight media and characters.  The fact that one is a minor character in a book and the other is a two-time supporting character on television is irrelevant.  They both have the same name, so the procedure is Name (First story).  That's an easy rule to both apply and understand.  It's not, as you seem to suppose, "rules-lawyering".
 * Digifiend: The Victoria situation has been remarked on before, but I'll give you some details. Victoria is seen to be the 18th century Empress of India and Monarch of the United Kingdom because she is partially conceptual.  Much is named after her, including the Victorian era and, indeed, Victoria Waterfield herself.  It is from her that a number of other concepts flow, so she is the very definition of a "primary topic".  She could not be Queen Victoria because of T:HONOR — and because other monarchs are titled with just their name and number (Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II), but more because there is an actual thing in the DWU called "Queen Victoria".  It's a planet.  At every step of the way with the name "Victoria" there are clear dab notes.  On Victoria there's a link to Victoria (disambiguation) and Victoria Waterfield.  At Queen Victoria, there's a link to Victoria.  No one should be getting confused, and if they are, clarification should be readily available by visiting the pages in question.  I don't honestly believe there could have been a better way of handling all the Victoria stuff, given the relative complexity of the disambiguation required.
 * Rowan Earthwood. Eh, there's not considerable opposition to this ruling. And there is compromise.  We're just talking about the article name being disambiguated.  If you type Brian Williams into the search bar, it naturally takes you to the oldest article with that name (if you're a go-searcher) or presents you with a list of Brian Williamses (if you're a default-searcher).  In either case, this Brian Williams is but a click away.  Furthermore, Brian prominently mentions this Brian Williams.  The autosuggest feature clearly points you in the direction of this Brian Williams.  So I'm not really seeing how there's some great loss of navigation with respect to a straightforward application of dab policy.  I can see that there could be an argument for pointing the redirect to this page, but as it stands, the only page which links to the un-created Brian Williams is in fact this one.  One measure of community opposition would be that people would simply be ignoring the proper title of the article and are linking to Brian Williams.  If there was actual opposition, someone would have already created a redirect. This does not appear to be the case, however.  So either our community isn't writing much about this Brian Williams, or when they do write, they're happy to use the dabbed name.  In either case, there's hardly "considerable" opposition.  No one is trying to "shout down the naysayers".  There just don't appear to be that many actual naysayers out there.  I think the truth is that we've used dab top-line notes, redirects, and disambiguation pages well enough that the average person isn't all that confused by what's going on.  More to the point, Wikia seems to have fixed autosuggest since this debate first started.  It's popping up immediately for me now, which means that no one should at all be confused as to the Brian Williams in question.


 * At the end of the day, I just can't see how following the dab rules is at all hampering navigation in this case. 23:12: Sun 28 Oct 2012


 * Sorry, I said there was compromise, but I didn't quite demonstrate that, because I forgot I was getting results because of go-searching, not redirection. I have now created a redirect and it's pointed towards this Brian Williams.  There's a tophat on this article pointing to Snowglobe Williams.  Thus, the compromise is that the currently prominent Brian Williams wins the redirect, because it's unlikely that any other Brian Williams we might find will be more prominent than this one.  But the actual, full name of this article stays at Brian Williams (Dinosaurs on a Spaceship).  00:10: Mon 29 Oct 2012

Why not rename it to Brian Williams (Rory's father)? Does the manual of style forbid this kind of article name? Rory is a companion and will be easily recognised by whoever searches for him. On the other hand, "Some guy (episode name)" will probably not be as recognisable in the autocomplete or other search options. Not many people will know what that episode was about, maybe some didn't see it or didn't know it was named that way, but they'll know Rory. Also, wasn't his dad also in the episode about the invasion of the cubes? That makes the episode title even more confusing. --Anime Addict ☎  13:16, October 29, 2012 (UTC)