Forum:Are the Invisible Enemy clones characters in their own right?

Now, I notice that, despite all the Ganger pages, as well as the Martha and Second Doctor clones, there aren't individual pages for the clones of the Fourth Doctor, Leela or Professor Marius that entered the Fourth Doctor's mind in DW: The Invisible Enemy. Is there a specific reason for that, such as their connection to one another or somesuch, or are they not there just because no-one's got round to it? -- Tybort (talk page) 19:30, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Given people's inability to understand the difference between signgifcant and insignificant details, I would say it's because the people who watch the older series are a small percentage of the people working here. In terms of story, I would claim that these do not operate as separate characters, certainly not the way that most of the gangers in the two-parter does. Given my druthers I would not sepaate out Amy as a Ganger, nor Rory as an auton, although the Ganger doctor does operate as a separate character. However, the purpose of Ganger Amy was to act as a linking device for the season arc -- had she been kidnapped at the end of The Almost People instead of being dissolved, there would have been no effective difference to the arc. So I would not have these separate pages.

However, as I say above, given the inability of the majority of contributors to understand these distinctions, it's an oversight. I suggest we continue to overlook it. Boblipton talk to me 20:05, January 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * What's your reasoning for the ones inside the Doctor's mind not counting, may I ask? You sort of got off track mentioning the Gangers, which wasn't really my main point (besides, the Amy Pond (Ganger) page was deleted some time back). Tybort (talk page) 22:13, January 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * They acted as the characters.... under bizarre circumstances, mind you, but there was clearly a continuity of character. Whent hey left the brain, they resumed continuity -- at least the Doctor did. I'd have to take a look to be sure about the others. Given the tangled continuity of the entire series when examining the Doctor's timeline, this is relatively straightforward. Boblipton talk to me 22:20, January 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think most named clones in the DWU, including the Ganger Doctor, have "continuity" in memory with their original's memories pre-divergence. I think K9 Mark IV might have with Mark III as well, but don't count me on that.


 * Was it implied they (the originals) retained knowledge of the deceased clones' functions? Because if not, I think they're more-or-less individual, albeit unstable individuals that last 10 minutes. (Didn't really get a "Buzzer in The Rebel Flesh's teaser" vibe) -- Tybort (talk page) 23:44, January 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been a while and I'm working from memory, which means the details elude me. Identity is a difficult enough concept in the real world.  In the Whoniverse it becomes very nuanced That being said,  the miniaturized doctor never seemed  more than a nonce character at best, with no sense of an identity separate from the "main" fourth Doctor. Is this particular case really an issue with you or are you trying to  define the borders of what calls for a separate page? I am very conservative about granting independent statuse.  It's all about telling the story of the character to me, and a separate page interrupts that story, so I would prefer a sense of necessity --- a disinct personality, a sense of  two distinct and importantly different storylines -- this is beginning to sound like the discussion about whether we should have different pages for each of River Song's incarnations. Do you think  separate page would be useful rather than simply an expression of the details of some implicit policy? Woud it tell a significant story that might otherwise be lost?   If so,  the question to ask is not whether this should not be done, but to show us what could   usefully be done with a separate page All too often, the important matters of a story -- plot and character --  are overwhelmed in a whelter of detail, and then a separate page is a good idea if those details are worth noting without overwhelming the story.  What are the details that are worth saving that would risk overwhelming the story on the main page? That seems to me to be the key question, no matter how official policy is parsed. Make the case for a separate article without reference to "policy" Boblipton talk to me 00:19, January 7, 2012 (UTC)