Forum:The Unspecified Cyberman Debate

The initial query
I was recently reading through The Brilliant Book 2012 and noticed that it states that the "A Good Man Goes to War" and "Closing Time" Cybermen (although it says nothing about "Blood of the Cybermen") are infact 'Mondasian' (for want of a better term) and not 'Pete's World' ones. I suppose the debate now is: Do we consider The Brilliant Book/s to be canon? I can see why some people wouldn't (a lot of it is written out-of-universe), but I also understand that the views on continuity expressed inside the book are also those expressed by the production team. So should we go ahead and merge the information into Cyberman (Mondas), or are there some people who object or something? The preceding comment was made by Bigredrabbit (talk to me) 23:26, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

If the fact that the more recent Cybermen are actually the main universe Cybermen actually does come from the production team or from Moffat, then I would say that we should consider that canon. I would think that writer's intent is really what is important in this case. Still, I'm sure that their are plenty of people who would disagree.Icecreamdif talk to me 20:19, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a debate as to whether reference material works as a source. I'm sure I read somewhere that it's preferred to be placed in the "behind the scenes" section. Am I wrong on this? That said, if it's absolutely said with the production team's blessing, rather than just whoever wrote it... -- Tybort (talk page) 20:55, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

There's s0me debate as to whether reference books are 'canon'. This wouldn't be the first article that demonstrated information from REF prefixes as 'canon'. Even the CyberMondasian, CyberNeomorph, CyberFaction, etc. stuff is mainly based on REF: Cybermen. So I really think we ought to consider The Brilliant Book 'canon'. 220.244.162.100 10:02, November 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * The issues are seperate in that particular case. The CyberMondasian / CyberNeomorph / etc. info comes from the book Doctor Who: Cybermen which is a very unique case, as it contains both in-universe narrative and out-of-universe reference material.  The in-universe reference stuff is presented in the form of a reference work by in-universe characters.  So the in-universe stuff from Doctor Who: Cybermen is okay to cite in-universe regardless of how we feel about out-of-universe reference works like The Brilliant Book, and we can't base our policy on out-of-universe reference material on how we feel about CyberNeomorphs. &mdash; Rob T Firefly - &#916;&#8711; - 21:37, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * The Brilliant Book cannot be used to assert in-universe information. Our canon policy is immensely clear. Narratives are primary information.  Secondary sources — that is, reference works — cannot be used to source of in-universe information.  Secondary sources may be used to add notes to "behind the scenes" sections but that's about it.


 * Although I've got a lot to say on this subject, it's actually really simple. In-universe sections have to come from in-universe sources.  Behind the scenes sections contain real world information.  Ne'er the twain shall meet.  And since the in-universe portion of articles is mandatory, if you don't have a narrative reference for a topic, you can't even start the article at all.


 * Here's a practical example. Let's say there was a book called Uncle Terrance's Guide to the Whoniverse.  And imagine that Terrance Dicks, feeling a bit impish, put in an entry about a place called "Devon Motorworks", which he asserted was the company that built Bessie. You can't then create an article which says:
 * Devon Motorworks was the automobile factory that created Bessie. (REF: Uncle Terrance's Guide to the Whoniverse)


 * It doesn't matter that it's written by Terrance Dicks, key production team member during the years that Bessie was in use. The problem is that you're using an out-of-universe source to cite something which is in-universe.


 * I know it's tempting to use information said to be straight from the word processor of Steven Moffat, but we just can't do it. It's the "thin end of the wedge", as Humphrey Appleby liked to say.  We'd then have to let in a lot of material:
 * Offhand comments made on DVD commentaries. (And then we'd have to settle the question of who's right.  For instance, Julie Gardner firmly asserts The Woman was the Doctor's mother, but RTD is more coy about it in PCOM: The End of Time part 2.)
 * Stuff in the production notes section of DWM, or notes from the producers at the front of annuals. Was series 5 actually Season Fnarg?  It is if you take Steven Moffat literally in the pages of DWM.
 * A literal ton of material from old Doctor Who and Dalek annuals that we don't even want to think about, such as text which introduces activity pages, which is sometimes done non-narratively, but in-character. This sort of creep is already happening on the wiki, largely from the DWBIT range of magazines.  Some editors are quoting from non-narrative "factoids" that appear in BIT and it simply can't be allowed to continue, much less expand to other publications.
 * God does not know how much we'd have to include from The Writer's Tale, The Nth Doctor and other books which contain information about narrative avenues not actually taken. We're already on shaky enough ground sometimes using the credits and the script (hello Zaggit Zagoo bar, I'm lookin' at you) to name things which the finished episode does not.  We don't want to open ourselves to the mentality that "anything which comes from the mouth or pen of The Creator deserves an article/is canon here".  Sometimes great artists just doodle.  We don't want to be in the position of creating an article for all the things that almost were.


 * Another thing I'm seeing as dangerous is the suggestion upthread that some reference works are better than others. This would be a very difficult arrangement to administrate.  A reference work is a reference work is a reference work.  One written by RTD may be more valuable to your own personal sense of canon, but it'd be hard to let some in but exclude others. Other people, who generally disapprove of RTD, would be quick to say that they don't particularly care what his opinion is in a specific book.  Thus, the disqualifying factor here is not the writer, it's the perspective from which the work is written.


 * See, this is a wiki about a fictional universe. The DWU is created by and indivisible from narrative.  This isn't like the Star Wars universe, where Lucasfilm has a canon policy. It's okay for w:c:starwars to use the Star Wars Encyclopedia because that's explicitly canon to Lucasfilm.


 * We don't have the organisational luxury of a BBC-provided list of allowed works. So we have to set some sort of boundaries.  If we didn't, we'd soon be including fan works or things that have no actual bearing on the DWU.


 * Now, we have a pretty broad church here, but it's not infinitely expandable.


 * If you look at DWU reference works, as a general group, they're not the most accurate things in the world. JNT wrote The Companions and erroneously asserted that Sara Kingdom was a companion — something Jean Marsh has strongly denied ever since.  JNT later asserted in another book that he had absolutely no problems with Tom Baker, something we know isn't true from the preponderance of other evidence.  He's a big part of the production team, though.  Should we take him more seriously than Jean-Marc Lofficier, who once notoriously asserted that Polly Wright's last name was "Wright"?  I don't see why we should.  Philip Hinchcliffe is well known as a non-expert on the narrative history of DW.  I wouldn't trust him if he set out to make a DW encyclopedia, nor would I expect Verity Lambert to have been terribly accurate on the details of her tenure in the years before her death.  I mean, this is surely the lesson of DVD commentaries.  They're not that accurate, even though they may include people who we'd otherwise deem to be authoritative.  We'd expect Tom Baker to remember things about The Ribos Operation.  After all, he was there!  But his memory is often spotty.


 * The point is, as a class of works, it is simply better for the quality of our information to stay on point. Our subject is the DWU, not other people's impressions of the DWU.


 * Such a stance forces us, as editors, to actually watch the episodes, or read the books, or listen to the audios. Everything in the DWU begins and ends with the narrative. "Reference" works are — by definition — someone else's distillation of the stories of the DWU.  Now, of course, it's relevant to note what various people important to the production of the DWU think about it.  But these notes must be in their proper place — the behind the scenes sections of articles.


 * Now, allllll that said, I happen to believe that you don't need The Brilliant Book to tell you that the S6 Cybermen are Mondasian. This is readily apparent in their design, in their ability to travel into deep space, and in the design of the shapes of their spacecraft — which clearly match those seen in The Invasion.  The visual evidence is that they are "proper" Cybermen, and I've long held that we've put the burden of proof the wrong way around.  The question is not, "prove they're Mondasian".  Rather, it's, "using only the evidence at hand, prove that they're Pete's World."


 * We're being far too literal, expecting a bit of dialogue or a screen to tell us that they're definitely this universe's Cybermen. Such dialogue is incredibly unlikely.  We can positively assert they're Mondasian, because they're obviously NOT Pete's World, and we've been given no reasonable expectation that there's a "third option" out there.


 * It's better to say that it's unclear how or why the Mondasian Cybermen came to have a somewhat similar appearance to the Pete's World Cybermen than for us to assert that the s6 Cyberment are a "third, unknown type" of Cybermen. We're just making that up.  The visual evidence points to the fact that they are Mondasian, and that we're simply missing the bit of their history that connects, I guess, Silver Nemesis with A Good Man Goes to War.


 * 01:37: Wed 02 Nov 2011


 * Their ability to travel into deep space is not much of an argument for them being Mondasian, as the Cybermen with the Cybus logo in The Pandorica Opens also have this ability. And the third option is not them being a completely separate type, but a result of an alliance/merger between the Mondasian Cybermen and the remnants of the Pete's World Cybermen. As for visual evidence, while their ships etc. look Mondasian, I don't think we can just dismiss the fact that they themselves look more like Pete's World Cybermen. Ausir(talk) 11:37, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

Well, as long as this is turning into a debate about what type of Cybermen they are, let's just go with Occam's Razer. An alliance/merger betweeen the different types of Cybermen is wild speculation. No possible justification for it at all exxcept that it would be cool. The Mondasian Cybermen aren't like the Daleks who have been completely destroyed (over and over), we just haven't heard from them. The Cybus-Cybermen, on the other hand, come from a parallel universe that has been completely cut off from the main one. Every episode that they have been in has given some sort of explanation for how they crossed through the void. Even in The Pandorica Opens, we can probably assume that they came through the cracks. The Cybermen of the new series look exactly like you would expect the classic Cybermen to look if they had a higher budget and modern special effects. Unless we have a real reason to believe that they found another way to brak down the walls of the universe and cross over from Pete's World, we should assume that they are the Mondasian Cybermen unless told otherwise.Icecreamdif talk to me 20:04, November 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that we don't have enough info to assume a single thing about where those C-less Cybus-looking Cybermen came from. What we do know is that the modern version of the DWU contains our familiar classic-era Mondasian Cybermen, because of the head in Henry van Statten's vault, so we can't assume an original Star Trek Klingon style of "oh, they were supposed to look like that back then too" just because that would be cool.  We should really be calling Rory's Cybermen "Cybermen," without indicating anything to suggest they came from Mondas or Pete's World or France or any other damn thing; it would all be just speculation on our part.  We're here on this particular wiki to catalog what we see, not to imagine what would fill in the gaps we don't see. &mdash; Rob T Firefly - &#916;&#8711; - 02:59, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

It's not really relevant, but the Klingons' appearance actually changed due to Klingon genetic engineering experiments using human augment embryos. There was an Enterprise 2-parter that explained it. The case with the cyberheadd is more like the DS9 episode where they travel back in time to The Trouble with Tribbles and ask Worf why the Klingons all look like humans. Anyway, back to the point. I wasn't saying that we should assume that the Cybermen always looked the way that they do now. I meant that if they had originally brought back the Mondasian Cybermen in the new series instead of parallel universe Cybermen, they probably would have made them look similar to how they look now. Even if you just look at the black & white era of the show, the Cybermen in The Invasion are radically different from the Cybermen in The Tenth Planet. It isn't really a stretch to assume that they would continue to look more advanced. By your logic, we also shouldn't assume that the Cybermen in Silver Nemesis or The Five Doctors, or most other cyberepisodes. After all, they rarely specify where they came from and for all we know the Pete's World Cybermen could have travelled to our world, gone back in time, gotten rid of their Cybus logos, and faced earlier versions of the Doctor in different episodes. We shouldn't require evidence that the Cybermen are from our universe-if there is no proof that they aren't from our universe then they are from ours.Icecreamdif talk to me 06:03, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

i think the best way to compare the cybermen types is to look at how they become cybermen. mondasian cybermen are made from human parts being replaced with cybernetic parts while the cybus cybermen are created when the brain is transplanted into the cybersuit. from this information, i conclude that the cybermen in series 5/6 are mondasian not cybus (skull in helmet in DW:pandorica opens, craigs transformation in DW:closing time), although i do think a cybersuit redesign would have helped clear matters. an alliance is still a valid point though. this debate seems more like the kind of conversation that would happen on the howling instead of in the panopticon. Imamadmad talk to me 08:28, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least when it started out, this was about trying to figure out what to do with the Cyber-articles. Anyway, the method of conversion can't really be used as evidence, thanks to Cyberwomen and Lisa Hallett. There is probably more than enough evidence, regardless, to assume that the Cybermen that we've been seeing recently are real-universe Cybermen, but just putting the ambiguous Cybermen on the Cyberman page is probably as fair a compromise as any, and the fact that we are having this discussion proves that the evidence that we are now seeing real Cybermen wasn't quite clear enough for some people. Hopefully we'll get some kind of redesign before long that will finally convince people that we are seeing real Cybermen.Icecreamdif talk to me 09:17, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that the cybus cybermen aren't real cybermen. for those of us that started watching from the 2005 series, they are the only cybermen they know, and before i started watching the classic series and participated in these sorts of conversations, i will admit i was confused at first to why the cybermen were converting people by methods other than brain transplant. now i have more knowledge on the subject, i can clearly see that they are actually a different kind of cybermen, but that should have been made more obvious. i guess the thing with lisa does add confusion to the conversation as she wasn't converted in the same way that had been stated earlier in (the new) series, but the show still shouldn't confuse new whovian children who are to young to have watched the classic series or torchwood. Imamadmad talk to me 05:00, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should have put the word real in quotes. The Cybusmen are clearly real in that they exist, but it is the same as saying that Jackie Tyler is the "real" Jackie as opposed to Jackie Tyler (Pete's World). Anyway, there is no reason that age should stop younger children from wathcing Classic Who. The show had long been cancelled when I was a kid, but I was still a fan when I was nine. Still, I definetly agree that they should have made it more clear that the Mondas-Cybermen were back, if for no other reason than to avoid these kinds of debates. Anyway, this conversation is sort of veering away from one that is appropriate for the Panopticon, so if we are going to continue discussing this, then we should move to the Howling, unless someone has some kind of solution as to which article this should all go on.Icecreamdif talk to me 07:51, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

ok, i opened a thread on the howling to continue this conversation about the types of cybermen http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Howling:The_cybermen_debate Imamadmad talk to me 11:55, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Admin calls time out

 * I'm going to disagree with Icecreamdif. This conversation should remain here.  It is a violation of T:SPOIL FORUM to invite people to a howling thread from the forum namespace.  People in the forum space may not understand fully that they are entering a place where spoilers are allowed.  No discussion in the Howling can ever be used to formulate policy.  We do in fact need policy on this matter, so  here the conversation should remain.   03:39: Mon 26 Dec 2011


 * Oh, and guys, please indent your comments, by using colons at the beginning of a line, so that others can follow the conversation later.  Below are the comments from the Howling thread I've now closed.

The conversation continues
I genuinely think the origin of any Cyberman that isn't explicitly shown should be left intentionally vague. The Cybus Cybermen was meant to be a reboot of the Cybermen just like the new Silurian. In the end, I think they are just considered Cybermen by some of the writiers. The Cybermen with ambiguous origin does not have to be Mondasian or Cybus; there could be other Cybermen. Of course, the information from the Brilliant Book should be noted, but the other ones should probably be just considered generic Cybermen in general.

The fact that Mondasian Cybermen looking similar to Cybus Cybermen already suggests that certain adoption of each other's technology has occured. The clean division between the two races may not even exist anymore.

The Silurian would be much more worthy of debate, considering that the new series Silurian have removable mask and a humanoid face, which may suggest all other Silurians and Sea Devils actually might have been wearin masks the whole time... --222.166.181.197 15:31, December 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * The Silurians are a completely different case. The original Silurians would have looked very stupid in the modern show. Some races, like the Sontarans, can return to the modern show and still look good with few major changes to their appearance, but the Silurians just looked like people in cheap costumes back in the 70s. The Cybermen also looked like people in cheap costumes back in the classic show, but their appearance was constantly changing even in the classic show. The Silurians, however, are a fully biological species, and some kind of explanation was needed to change their appearance. The fact that Mondasian Cybermen look similar to Cybusmen really proves nothing at all except that they didn't have the budget to redesign them. There is also no reason to believe that there are more than the two forms of Cybermen. Just the fact that Lumic randomly came up with a similar design and name to a species that existed in another universe is unlikely enough, but anymore variants of the Cybermen existing is next to impossible. Any Cyberman we see must be either from Mondas or from the Earth of Pete's World. If you genuinely think that the origin of any Cybermen that isn't explicitly shown should bhe left intentionally vague, then you must think that Cybermen in any Classic episode that doesn't mention Mondas should also be left vague. As I mentioned in the Panoppticon conversation, a group of Cybusmen could have crossed into our universe, travelled back in time, gone through a redesign, and then been scooped up and taken to the death zone, or captured by Vorg and stuffed in his miniscope, or gone after Nemesis. We shouldn't automatically assume that the Cybermen we see in new episodes is from Pete's World, anymore than we should assume that any other character we see is from Pete's World. The walls of the universe have been closed. Nothing can get across through the void. Therefore, the Cybusmen couldn't possibly have been behind Closing Time. If you want an in-universe reason as to why they weren't redesigned, then apart from Rose, every character who appeared in Pete's World was identical to their "real"-world counterpart. Why should something like the Cybermen be any different?Icecreamdif talk to me 22:12, December 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the idea of Classic Silurians wearing masks the whole time could actually make sense. It would explain why their third eye could be used as a weapon, for example. Maybe it would have been cool if the Silurians initially looked like their classic counterparts in The Hungry Earth, and then revealed that they were just wearing masks. Anyway, that is another debate entirely.Icecreamdif talk to me 22:14, December 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * uh...what you said make as much sense as saying having a Pete in Pete's world is unlikely. They are parallel universes to our; they are meant to have similarities. Moreover, the development of Cybermen not of Mondasian origin in our Universe is perfectly probable. A Cyberman is a Cyberman, and the origin, unless specified, is ambiguous. You don't go and look at Silurian and say they come from specific parts of Earth unless they specifically told you now, do you? --222.166.181.57 03:40, December 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, realistically, it seems incredibly unlikely that their would be a Pete in Pete's world. The odds that the same people would meet and have children in such a radically different world are incredibly low. In any parallel universe story, it's just one of those things where your willing suspension of disbelief has to kick in. However, with the Cybermen, it's even more unlikely. Not only do we have a very similar "species," but they have a completely different origin. In many ways it is completely ridiculous, but Rise of the Cybermen and Age of Steel are good stories, so the unlikliness of the whole thing is easy to ignore. However, unless you're suggesting Cybermen from yet another universe made their way through the sealed walls of the universe, then we must assume that there are only two brands of Cybermen in The Doctor's universe.Icecreamdif talk to me 05:20, December 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * the universes are parrallel, meaning they are very similar meaning that having a person in both universes is still very likely, otherwise the world would look much more different from ours then it does as if any of the many importaint people who influenced the way the world looks like today (eg: benjamin franklin, alexander graeham bell) were never born, the world would look very different to what it is, which is basically our world with blimps in the air. next, i think what 222 was saying was that the mondasian cybermen might not be the only ones which originated in this universe. there are many other humanoid species which might have turned into cybermen within our own universe. although it hasn't been specified in the show, there is always that possibility. i also quite like the idea of the two known kinds of cybermen forming an aliance with the cybus' better body and the mondasian's easier way of converting. Imamadmad talk to me 12:08, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we saw that Rose already didn't exist in the parallel universe. Think about all the many other people who must not exist in that universe. Anyway, back to the point, what are the odds tha there would be other Cybermen in our universe. You might as well say that another species who were mutated in a nuclear war built travel cases for thesmelves and removed all emotions, and now we have another, identical, group of Daleks. Plenty of other humanoid species have turned into Cybermen, but they are still all the Mondasian brand of Cybermen. The Cybeusmen only want to upgrade humans, but the Mondasian Cybermen are much less picky. Whether a Cybermen in the "real" universe was originally from Earth, Sto, Dulcis, or any of the other planets of humanoid, they are still Mondasian Cybermen. Unless you are suggesting that the Cybermen were created independantly on multiple different worlds in our universe, which, as I said, seems incredibly unlikely.Icecreamdif talk to me 18:21, December 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * even if the chance is 1,000,000,000/1, that still means that there would be a possibility for much more than 2 different kinds of cybermen in existence. and who knows, maybe there is another dalek-like race in the whoniverse that we haven't seen yet? Imamadmad talk to me 01:54, December 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Icecreamdif, since you clearly have no idea what a parallel universe is, please either read the Pete's World article in this wiki or go look up what a parallel universe is before you come back to this discussion. It's quite pointless to discuss something when you don't even understand what the subject is.--222.166.181.78talk to me 02:00, December 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * I know what a parallel universe is. That still doesn't make it any more likely that the same people can possible be born and have relatively similar lives in such a radically different environment, but at this point that's not even what you're suggesting. You're saying that there may be more Cybermen in the Doctor's universe. That seems ridiculously unlikely. Maybe there are other universes with Cybermen in them, but in this one, it would just be silly to assume that there is more than one brand of Cybermen. Maybe there is also another Gallifrey in the other constellation of Kasteborus in the Doctor's universe, with another race of Time Lords on them. By that logic, we can't be sure of anything that we've seen. Is Strax from the same species of Sontaran that we've gotten used to, or has an identical species evolved on another planet called Sontar and started reproducing by cloning after becoming obsessed with war? I think we have to assume that there is only one brand of Cybermen per universe.Icecreamdif talk to me 17:00, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Icecreamdif, can you just read the articles first. The fact that you keep saying it is unlikely to have Pete in Pete's World contradicts the definition. There's no discussion if you don't understand what you are discussing.


 * Your examples also suggest you don't really understand other people are saying. Non-Mondasian Cybermen does not in any way equates to having another Sontar and another race of Sontaran. Sontar is a planet and Sontaran is a race specifically from the planet. Cybermen on the other hand is used as a generic name. It would be more similar to Sensorites vs Oods, Minotaurs vs Nimons, Foamasi vs Slitheens, Humans vs Non-Earth Near-Humans...the examples are plenty. Daleks are a also clone species, so I have no idea what is your point. --222.166.181.144talk to me 18:40, December 25, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you disagree with me Czechout. I thought this might do better in the howling, since this is really straying away from a policy discussion, and is really moving more towards just speculating about the Cybermen. While I am happy to argue all day on the Howling that the Cybermen in the new seasons must be the Mondasian Cybermen, as a matter of policy, I would say that we should stick with the system that we have now until an episode gives us a more concrete answer. Maybe we should have a discussion here and one on the Howling. Anyway, Cybermen are still a distinct being created by one species. Other races of Cyborg species may be possible, and have been seen on a few occasions, but there are distinct characteristics of the Cybermen, gold-allergies, the handlebars on their heads, that are unlikely to be randomly duplicatd by another species. It also wouldn't be even remotely related to Sensorites vs. Ood, or Minotaurs vs. Nimons, unless the Mondasian Cybermen had something to do with their creation. I have never seen The Sensorites, and it has been a long time since I've seen The Horns of Nimon or The Leisure Hive, so forgive me if I misunderstand, but aren't the Sensorites and the Ood just from the same star system, and the Doctor said that the Nimons and the Minotaur were related. What you seem to be suggesting about the Cybermen is completely different. You are saying that there are two races of Cyborgs that independently evolved to be almost exactly the same. That is completely ridiculous, even in a universe with two Loch Ness Monsters and three explanations for the destruction of Atlantis. Apart from that, you have no evidence to back up the idea of there being multiple versions of Cybermen that appear in the Doctor's universe, and it just makes the whole thing needlessly more complicated. If you don't agree with any of my other arguments, then we have seen two forms of Cybermen, so there are two forms of Cybermen. To assume anything else would be wild speculation.Icecreamdif talk to me 06:45, December 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody ever said the Cybermen have to be unrelated. All everyone above are trying to tell you is that the show mentioned Cybermen, the category Cybus Cybermen and Mondasian Cybermen used in fandom are just denotation of origin, the instances where the origins are ambiguous, then they are ambiguous. There are just Cybermen, a generic category of villain augmented by cybernetic mean with certain similarities. Cybus Cybermen and Mondasian Cybermen are not two forms, they are two races with similarities. The only instance that suggests gold aversion in Cybus Cybermen are in the games and they only mentioned it occurred in the prototypes only, so I have no idea where you get your facts from. The Cybermen with ambiguous origin could be of either origin or neither or combination or offshoot, etc. Labeling Cybermen with uncertain origin as generic Cybermen would not at all be a wild speculation; it would be a wild speculation to assume they must be either. What you are saying is akin to saying grouping every near-human as "human" because the chance of another organism looking human is slim or saying Slitheens are Foamasis because they are technologically similar.


 * Not labeling the generic Cybermen as Cybermen of Mondasian or Cybus origin makes 1 less assumption and is basically just taking what the show gives us. Labeling them as either would require 1 additional assumption, so I don't see how making more assumptions would make it a less wild speculation. --222.166.181.115talk to me 09:11, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a point of order, when I say I "disagree", I meant that I was disagreeing with you in the sense that a policeman "disagrees" with you driving 70 in a 35 zone. I understand your inclination to suggest the Howling because there is an element of speculation to this discussion. But that's the fault of Moffat and company.  Any policy solution we come up with is necessarily going to be based on speculation, cause the narrative gives us only visual references, not dialogue. There are a number of speculations we make just to be able to have some sort of organisational order.  We assume, for instance, that a rabbit is a mammal, just so we can have some sort of categorisation. But there's no narrative which explicitly says, "Rabbits are mammals".


 * Same thing here. What we're trying to do in the thread is to hash out which bits of the visual narrative should receive primacy.  That requires comparison with other species, opinion, and counter-argument.


 * As an admin, I do have to enforce the rules. And in this case, any tip-toeing over the line about speculation is far outweighed by the fact that this is a genuine effort to find a policy.  Policy can never arise from the Howling, because a number of our editors won't touch the Howling with a barge pole.  We absolutely cannot force people into a part of the wiki where spoilers are allowed.  That's the major point of T:SPOIL FORUM, so I will ask you not to have a parallel thread to this one at the Howling.  We cannot go on with this "unspecified" idea to Cybermen.  We need to decide here on some other way forward, cause it's going to be a long time before we get a proper explanation.   14:56: Mon 26 Dec 2011

The "all on one page" option
The most sensible thing would be to merge the two Cybermen articles and just specify the instances when they have clearly identified their origin. For the ones specified in The Brilliant Book, just note it in within the article. Moffat clearly makes very little attempt in specifying which Cyberman race is appearing on screen, the problem is just going to accumulate and the unspecified Cybermen appearances will probably end up more than specified Cybus Cybermen's appearances. There's absolutely nothing wrong with just calling them Cybermen, we don't even know if the Doctor knows or cares if they were form Pete's World or our World. --222.166.181.210talk to me 15:20, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we know the Doctor knows the difference. He demonstrates such knowledge  in Rise and The Next Doctor.  He'd probably care, too, because they have different weaknesses.  For "our world" guys, it's gold; for Cybus Industries, it's removal/compromise of the emotion chip. I'm not actually opposed to the idea of one big Cyberman article, though.  I mean, that's already happened at Cyberman, really.  I say we either do that, or the suggestion in the next section.  These articles which stress origin, though, need to go.  Cyberman (Mondas), and the ilk, need to go.   15:35: Mon 26 Dec 2011


 * Yeah, I understand that you were overruling me and not just disagreeing. I just figured that it might be difficult to make a policy out of all of this speculation, some of which is much more wild than others. I obviously wasn't suggesting to use the Howling to make policy, but it is commonly used to discuss topics like this, and this has come to look much more like a Howling discussion than a Panopticon one. Anyway, if you don't mind all of this speculation on a Panopticon page, then I'll drop the issue. Anyway, I might be a bit confused about your suggestion, 222. Are you suggesting that we have seen other groups of Cybermen than the Cybus and Mondasian versions? I think that we should really assume that every Cyberman that we have seen has to belong to one of the two groups, even if we don't know which. If we were still on the Howling, then I would say that we must assume that any Cyberman whose origin was not shown on screen must be a Mondasian Cyberman, because the Cybusmen are locked in another universe. However, as far as the articles are concerned, I would say that we should just stick with what we are doing now. Keep the Mondasian and Cybus pages, and the Cyberman page that discusses both of them, with a section that mentions ones of "unknown origin." Right now, the season 6 Cybermen are discussed on the Mondasian Cybermen page, with the Brilliant Book 2012 as a source. I'm not quite sure of what the policy is. Can the Brilliant Book be used as a source for something like this?Icecreamdif talk to me 17:03, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. That's the first question in the thread, and it was answered at the top of the thread.  20:51: Mon 26 Dec 2011

Well then, I'll go move the references to A Good Man Goes to War and Closing Time from the Cyberman (Mondas) page to the Cyberman page, at least until we come to some kind of a consensus on this page, because the page cites the Brilliant Book 2012 as its reason for putting them there.Icecreamdif talk to me 01:00, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

The disambig proposal
Here's an idea to consider. Why don't we just follow standard disambiguation policy? We're so focused on origin, we've forgotten our own rules. By rights, the following should be happening: Yes, it's longer to type (though autosuggest will help), but that's actually how our rules go. And it avoids the question of origin entirely. 15:25: Mon 26 Dec 2011
 * Cyberman (Mondas) should actually be Cyberman (The Tenth Planet)
 * Cyberman (Pete's World) should actually be Cyberman (Rise of the Cybermen)
 * The guys with the gear logos should be Cyberman (Blood of the Cybermen)
 * And the series 6 guys should be Cyberman (A Good Man Goes to War)


 * I have to admit my surprise when I read this whole thing through. I didn't see one person bring up the classic cybermen's weakness to gold and the modern cybermen have no apparent feeling about this one way or the other. So would it be inaccurate to say that all DWU Prime Cybermen have a gold weakness?


 * The gold weakness was never mentioned until Revenge of the Cybermen I think, but that doesn't mean that it didn't exist before then. Anyway, the disambig idea has pretty much the same problems as the ideas that deal with origin. Since the Cybermen in Blood of the Cybermen and A Good Man Goes to War are presumably either Mondasian Cybermen or Pete's World Cybermen, they would still have to be in either the Cyberman (The Tenth Planet) page, the Cybermen (Rise of the Cybermen) page, or a generic Cyberman page. It would just be speculation to assume that they are a new form of Cyberman. Unless you also want to create Cyberman (The Invasion), Cyberman (Revenge of the Cybermen), Cyberman (Earthshock), etc. then we shouldn't create a new page for the season 6 Cybermen. Maybe we should change the names of the pages that we already have to fit that policy, but I don't think that we should create new pages.Icecreamdif talk to me 20:21, December 26, 2011 (UTC)