Forum:Unknown species

The discussion on Talk:Blue Humanoid has brought something to my attention. I agree that Blue Humanoid and White Humanoid are not needed articles, firstly because we do not know that they are definitely separate species, and because the individuals of that species that exist are included in the "Individuals of Unknown Species" Category. However, if you look at Red Humanoid, there is no individual. Should that article be deleted, there will be absolutely no record of that type of humanoid having existed in the Doctor Who universe. And since we are meant to document everything we possibly can, surely we should be documenting their existence? Mini-mitch suggested an article for every unidentified species, but it was thought that it would be too long. However, should length really stop us from documenting the information? If Matt Smith decided to stay until he was 50 years old, we would most probably end up with an article ten times the size of the tenth Doctor's. But we wouldn't miss out parts of his history just because it was that long. Every type of article should be treated just the same. They need to be documented somewhere, and if they're not, then we are not doing our job correctly. --The Thirteenth Doctor 14:23, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Not every type of article should be treated the same, there are very distinct differences. A list of unknown species is just ridiculous. The only way to order it properly would be chronologically in the Doctor's time line.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 16:11, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell me then, why should certain articles be treated differently than others? The order is in the details of the article once it's created. The one thing we're here to discuss is the fact that no species in the DW universe should be treated any less than another just because more information is known. --The Thirteenth Doctor 16:40, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

There are loads of types. In-universe, out of universe, species, individual, actor. Having a list of unknown species is completely different to a biographical account of an individual.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 16:51, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * When I say they should be treated the same I mean they should all exist, and should all have all the information we know about them. Why should one species be completely ignored just because we don't know it's name? I'll say it again, we are supposed to document everything in the Doctor Who universe, not just what we can get to fit our policies. Otherwise this wiki isn't the best it could be.
 * Actually look at the Red Humanoid article. There is more information there than there is on Howling Halls, but you want to delete that, even though the history of the red humanoids ranges from 2010 all the way to the year 5 billion. That information is part of the DW universe, therefore relevant to the wiki, and should be noted. I'll ask you this question then; where else is this information supposed to go? Or should it just be wiped from the wiki completely? --The Thirteenth Doctor 17:29, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Right, so skin tone defines a species does it? What about all the white near-human species? They are certainly not the same. You have no evidence these appearances are individuals of the same species.Skittles the hog-- Talk 18:56, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's most probably a duck. If you really want to go with the "just because they look the same doesn't mean they are the same", you should go through the articles of everyone who hasn't actually been called Human, but is still listed as it. They might look like a Human, but unless they're called Human, how do we know for certain they are the same species? I'll say it again. We are supposed to document everything, not just what fits in with our policies. --The Thirteenth Doctor 23:21, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Look at this category. Many of them are indistinguishable from one another. Red Humanoid is not the definition of a species. Do you know how many types of Duck there are?Skittles the hog-- Talk 10:13, February 20, 2011 (UTC)