Talk:Great Intelligence

Origin?
Was it ever confirmed on-screen that the GI was from the universe before this one? I got the impression the events of "the snowmen" were supposed to be it's origins, and a tv story contradicting a novel isn't unusual.


 * It's conflicting information. One's from a TV story and one's from I believe an audio (could've been a novel...). We consider both valid sources. Until such a time when the inconsistency is explained, let's just leave it at two different accounts of its creation. SmallerOnTheOutside ☎  12:33, February 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * That's how I would leave it, if that was how it was. Currently it doesn't even mention "The Snowmen" as a possible origin.Thomsons Gazelle ☎  12:45, February 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * Really?! It used to! I'll check the history to see who deleted it, then.


 * Great, now we both adding unsigned tags to one another. I went through the history all the way back to Christmas and no mention. Which is weird, since I specifically remember reading it. Plus it doesn't list me as having done anything and yet I'm following the page. And I'm certain I didn't just click follow. Weird... SmallerOnTheOutside ☎  13:03, February 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * Can someone show me where in the episode or how it is inferred in the episode that this is the origin of the Great Intelligence as in the first serial in which it appears, the first person it possesses is Padmasambhava a person who was alive in 1630, before the time that the young Walter Simeon was contacted by the Intelligence. Yes Padmasambhava was alive in 1935 but this was due to his possession by the Intelligence. So this can’t be the origin of the Great Intelligence can’t be in this story. In one of the Virgin New Adventures it is said that the GI is part of the old gods/ones who managed to survive the destruction of the previous universe, like Fenric, and the Animus. Also this could be part of the same plan to capture the earth that was set in motion when it possesed Padmasambhava. AdricLovesNyssa 14:07, April 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, since the snow started "blank", and there was no mention of any influence except Walter Simeon's mind, the Intelligence must have originated in the snow. As for the chronological error, in the DWU time travel is an everyday thing that does happen off screen from time to time, just like anything else that might happen to a character during a long absence. Thomsons Gazelle ☎  23:30, April 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how much I might agree with you, we can't speculate and every narrative weighs the same. ComicBookGoddess ☎  01:07, April 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * No they don't. There wasn't any mention of anything involed except for the snow and Simeon, and it would be speculation to say there was. I'd also say that there isn't much speculation to saying that the Intelligence must have been thrown back in time at some point, you're practically saying a character can't appear at different places in different stories without a detailed explanation, without them being different people.Thomsons Gazelle ☎  14:44, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused as to what the disagreement is here, but let me just fly in with some general philosophy. Absolutely, on this wiki, all narrative sources do have equal weight in the sense that if a thing is mentioned in a story then it can't be wholly ignored in an article.  However, if you have five sources saying one thing and one source saying the opposite, then you can characterise that minority opinion as a minority opinion.  The classic example is the Loom concept of Time Lord procreation.  It's very much a minority opinion to suggest that Time Lords don't go through ordinary, biologic birth.  And you can quote several points in the RTD era right up to The Rings of Akhaten for evidence that the Doctor mainly seems to suggest that he has quite human-standard biological relationships. You can't just say that Looms are "wrong", but you can characterise it as "another, contradictory account".  I dunno if that helps you in this discussion—indeed I rather suspect that this discussion won't be properly ended until the series itself has wrapped up—but do bear in mind that all accounts of a given topic are valid to some degree.


 * Additionally, we don't allow speculation. Please read T:CITE DEF for an explanation of what it means when you assign a particular fact to a particular source.  Note that I'm saying we try to avoid speculation altogether.  If you're admitting, Thomsons Gazelle, that "there isn't much speculation", then what you're saying is that there is some speculation.  Thus, you shouldn't include it.   23:28: Wed 10 Apr 2013

Finally a chance to reset the the colons. As for the debate, I'm saying the Intelligence was created in "The Snowmen" and that it should be mentioned along with the other version of it's origin, ComicBookGoddess is saying that it wasn't. I'm not sure how many novels they based on the Intelligence being from another universe, but we already have two stories based on the series' version, and there seems to be more to come. I think no explantion is the "other, contradictory" one by now. Regarding the speculation, i was just an expression. My point was, a character originating at one point and then appearing earlier doesn't really need to be explained, that's just something that happens.Thomsons Gazelle ☎  08:27, April 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * There is contradictory narrative evidence. Frankly, you could even say that the Doctor's assumption that it's a brand new entity is contradicted immediately, not to mention the idea that it had to possess the Tibetan at some point. With this in mind, I really don't feel that we should present The Snowmen as a definitive origin.--ComicBookGoddess ☎  05:35, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Spell My Name with a "The"
Wouldn't this page properly be "The Great Intelligence"? It's always referred to with a "the", and we have pages like The Doctor, The Master, The Rani, etc. d ●  ●   ●   16:13, March 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * You may have a point... Hmm.... OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 17:19, March 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. If it's almost always referred to as "the Great Intelligence" or "the Intelligence," the article name should reflect that. Memnarc ☎  02:32, April 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Kizlet addresses it without the definite article, unfortunately. --ComicBookGoddess ☎  02:40, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well... She was addressing it. In the same sense that, when addressing him, everyone calls the Doctor "Doctor," yet his name still includes "the" and his article is still named "The Doctor." In fact, I bet you he's been called "Doctor" more times than "the Doctor," but that's only because it'd be awkward to address him as "the Doctor." --SOTO ☎ 03:02, April 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * Still, makes it fuzzy enough to leave off the definite article. --ComicBookGoddess ☎  05:38, April 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * Not really. No more "fuzzy" than in The Doctor's case. Title hybrid names are written with the definite article intact, that's a widely accepted policy.Thomsons Gazelle ☎  23:37, April 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * They're to be avoided when unnecessary. The Institute leaves off the definite article, that says to me that the entity himself doesn't feel that it is necessary. --ComicBookGoddess ☎  01:07, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * I should point out that the main reason for including "the" with The Doctor, The Master, The Monk, The Rani is for clarity. There are other doctors, other masters, other monks, and one much more important Rani out there.  Thus, the adding of a "the" in these cases not only complies with their credited name in cast lists, but avoids confusion without having to resort to parenthetical dab terms.  There is no particularly compelling case for retitling this article, as there are no other contenders for the crown, as it were.  23:33: Wed 10 Apr 2013
 * Oh, and the logo we see in The Snowmen is just "GI", not "TGI". Just GI.  23:36: Wed 10 Apr 2013
 * Not in the logo, but the text below clearly reads "The great intelligence". So does the text in the credits. Also, are you telling me that The Doctor would just be called "Doctor" if there wasn't others in the series?Thomsons Gazelle ☎  21:44, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

"The Shard" is the name of the building
It's one of a number of unique buildings in London that have a name, like The Gherkin.

http://the-shard.com/

The actual name of Miss Kizlet's company was not given. Considering it only had one client, it may not even have one.

Vbartilucci ☎  21:27, March 31, 2013 (UTC)Vinnie Bartilucci

Her tablet had "Cloud Inc" in the corner at one point.


 * Name on the tablet wouldn't necessarily reference the company owning it. Could be the name of the software. --ComicBookGoddess ☎  19:37, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to the constant references to "the cloud" in the episode, I don't think it is an unfair assumption that "Cloud Inc." is the company name and not the producer of the software (although I doubt the software would be produced by a separate company based on the nature of the software). Having said that, I rewatched the episode and didn't see the "Cloud Inc." I did watch it on ABC's iView player which is fairly low res so it may have been on the screen at some point and I just assumed it was nothing due to being illegible, but a screenshot (or even approximate time) would still be nice. -- Snorlax Monster  13:06, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * And they may have been intending to name it that but backed off after the solicitors found five or six companies by that name that might not like the reference. --ComicBookGoddess ☎  21:42, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * If it actually was on her tablet at some point, then they did name it that and didn't back off; if it wasn't, then we have no idea what it was going to be named, or if it was going to have a name at all. -- Snorlax Monster  00:33, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Plan D
Considering Miss Kizlet's age, and that she was taken by TGI as a child, may we connect the dots to say that she was captured shortly after the failure of the London Underground plot? (It is even possible she was involved as a child during the events of The Web of Fear, but that's far more speculative.) d ●  ●  ●   19:52, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't remember them giving her an age in narrative, so it would probably be too speculative. Nice thinking, though. It would need a new goto, wouldn't it? --ComicBookGoddess ☎  02:38, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * She didn't get an age specified, true. It was more going off roughly how old she looks (which would suggest she was taken in the early 60s). d ●  ●   ●   14:46, April 8, 2013 (UTC)