Forum:Wirrn vs. Wirrrn

We're using "Wirrn" as the primary spelling, and "Wirrrn" as an alternate. Although I personally think the three-R spelling is silly, I think it should actually take precedence.

The only canonical in-universe source for the spelling that I know of is PROSE: Placebo Effect, backed up by PROSE: Doctor Who and the Ark in Space (which should be a valid secondary source, as it doesn't contradict the episodes), and both use the three-R spelling.

However, most if not all out-of-universe sources (including the summaries of both of those novels) use the two-R spelling. That doesn't see like it should override an in-universe source; it seems more like "background information from the production staff", which should go in a Background section instead of in-universe. But I'm not sure.

Finally, I don't think this wiki has any policy involving "artist intent" (unlike many music sites like Musicbrainz), despite the weird copyright rules that mean that Robert Holmes, not the BBC, may own the rights to the Wirrn, but if I'm wrong, the fact that his script uses the two-R spelling would win. Also, Ian Marter and Gary Russell have both acknowledged that the three-R spelling was an invention of Marter's, not Holmes' original intention.

Here's what I know about each appearance:


 * Jan 1975, TV: The Ark in Space first introduces the species. I don't think the name is ever spelled on-screen. The scripts as published in Doctor Who: The Scripts: Tom Baker 1974/5 (Oct 2001) and the VHS back cover (1989) both use the two-R spelling. I don't know about the laserdisc or DVD. I assume there were closed captions, but I have no idea how they handle it (or whether they count as a source on this wiki).
 * May 1977, PROSE: Doctor Who and the Ark in Space does of course have to spell the name on the page, and it consistently uses the three-R spelling within the text. The "Publisher's Summary" only uses two, but that's out-of-universe.
 * Oct 1978, TV: The Stones of Blood has a Wirrn body, but doesn't spell the name anywhere, and its Mar 1980 novelization Doctor Who and the Stones of Blood just has an unknown alien body in its place.
 * Jul 1998, PROSE: Placebo Effect uses the three-R spelling consistently within the text, and both the Introduction in the novel and the author's website make it clear that this was intentional, to follow the novelization (although because he thought it was more "crrreepy", not because he thought it took precedence over the script).
 * Aug 1999, BBV: Homeland briefly mentioned them, but it's an audio, so no spelling, and there's no mention of them on the CD case or other printed material, so no input.
 * Feb 2001, BBV: Race Memory uses the two-R version in the name and on the packaging, but I don't think there's any in-universe spelling.
 * Jun 2009, AUDIO: Wirrn Dawn again uses the two-R spelling in the name and the packaging, but again I don't think there's any in-universe spelling.

However, I don't really want to rename the article, and definitely wouldn't do so without input from others. --173.228.85.35 06:28, August 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * I presume the subtitles on The Ark in Space DVD use 2 Rs? Tardis1963 08:33, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know; I don't have the DVD, I have the VHS. Which might have closed captions, but those may not be the same, and I don't have a CC decoder anyway.
 * Anyway, do subtitles (or CC) count as a source? At least in the new series, they're often full of the kinds of mistakes that automated spellcheckers make: "Torch wood", "Cyber men", "Jack Hardness", etc. --173.228.85.35 02:42, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, do subtitles (or CC) count as a source? At least in the new series, they're often full of the kinds of mistakes that automated spellcheckers make: "Torch wood", "Cyber men", "Jack Hardness", etc. --173.228.85.35 02:42, August 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * They're better than nothing, even if they are frequently incorrect. Tardis1963 08:19, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but if the only two sources we had were the often-incorreect closed captions, and the sometimes-intentionally-changed novelisation, and they disagreed, which one would win? --173.228.85.35 22:01, August 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure. Probably need some more confirmation. Original scripts, etc. maybe? Tardis1963 22:06, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, we've got the original scripts, from the Tom Baker 1974/5 book, and Holmes definitely used only two Rs. The question is whether scripts count as a valid in-universe source, or as "background information from the production staff".
 * However, I think we've got an answer: if anyone's got a videotape (or DVD) in better shape than mine, look at the credits. I'm pretty sure that there are two people credited as the actors for the Wirr(r)n, but I can't read it. And I believe credits count as a source. If worst comes to worst, I'll see if the quasi-illegal copies of the episodes on Dailymotion or some similar site are more readable. --173.228.85.35 16:34, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * However, I think we've got an answer: if anyone's got a videotape (or DVD) in better shape than mine, look at the credits. I'm pretty sure that there are two people credited as the actors for the Wirr(r)n, but I can't read it. And I believe credits count as a source. If worst comes to worst, I'll see if the quasi-illegal copies of the episodes on Dailymotion or some similar site are more readable. --173.228.85.35 16:34, August 29, 2011 (UTC)