Talk:Cyberman (Mondas)

To-Do List of articles to split off the main

 * Variants (photos/pictures, which stories each variants appeared in, "personality", voices)


 * History (also, a list of all Cyber-stories with known dates)


 * List of appeareances (fill in gaps in the list and give own separate page)

--***Stardizzy*** 11:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference
There's a good referance book that describes the whole history of the cybermen, not incorporating Silver Nemesis - "CYBERMEN" by David Banks (ISBN 0-352-32738-3). Smith. 18:29, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Cyberman terminology
At the time of writing this there are some errors in captioning on photos on the Cyberman page. To avoid misinterpretation and/or some kind of edit war I will try and explain this as clearly as possible.


 * Issue 1 : Use of photo with term "Original Cyberman / Cybermen"


 * Issue 2 : Description of photos of various Cyberman designs caption as being Mark ...

Issue 1 : Use of photo with term "Original Cyberman / Cybermen"

Earlier today the infobox photo had an Invasion Cyberman (Mk. IV - see below) with the caption "Original Cyberman". I altered this to read "Cyberman (Our Universe)" on the grounds that the Mk. IV from the Invasion may well be an early Cyberman, but it is not the "original" design (Mk. I from the Tenth Planet). This was rapidly changed back (I think by an un-named editor). Later on the photo was changed to show some Silver Nemesis Cybermen (Mk. VII) but retaining the title "Original Cybermen".

To avoid pointlesslsy confusing people I feel that one of two changes should be made. Either :

A) Use the term "Original Cyberman/men" and show a Mk 1 Tenth Planet design

Or

B) Use whatever other Cyberman design is desired but change the term "Original" to "Classic" / "Early" / "This Universe" etc.

The reason for this is simple; "Original" basically means "First" or "Earliest" and any design other than that of the 10th Planet is not an "Original" Cyberman. If anyone thinks otherwise please discuss.

'''Issue 2 : Naming types of Cyberman design. '''

There are several ways in which a person could categorise Cybermen in terms of Type 1,2,3 etc.

They could be categorised by :

a) Probable chronological development within a Cyberman Time Line

b) Historical dating of stories

c) The order in which the Cybermen appeared on screen (which is thus also the Doctor's Time Line)

Personally I think naming Cyberman designs following the order in which the Doctor encountered them / the stories were shown on screen makes the most sense as at least this deals with some degree of certainty whereas probable placement of designs within a theoertical Cyber time line is largely fan speculation and opinion. Just as importantly, it probably also makes the most sense to a casual reader or a new fan.

If we go with categorising the Cybermen by design changes in the order in which the Doctor encontered them we then have :

Mk I = Tenth Planet

Mk II = Moonbase / Tomb of the Cybermen

Mk III = Wheel in Space

Mk IV = Invasion

Mk V = Revenge of the Cybermen

Mk VI = Earthshock, 5 Doctors & Attack of the Cybermen (unless anyone wishes to subdivide further?)

Mk VII = Silver Nemesis (Only a minor change in many ways)

Mk VIII= A Good Man Goes to War/Closing Time (Design almost identical to Cybusmen)

Currently the page has a photo of an Invasion type (Mk IV) Cyberman marked as being MK II, Silver Nemesis (Mk VII) Cybermen unmarked by type, another Invasion Cyberman (Mk IV) refered to as a Mk III (twice), a Earthshock/5 Doctors/Attack type (Mk VII) tagged as being Mk IV (twice), some un-categorised Moonbase (Mk II) Cybermen, a Tomb Cyberman correctly tagged as Mk II, and some Revenge Cybermen (Mk VI) marked as Mk III. Personally I regard most of these as being mistakes for the reasons given above but even if some other categorisation method is being used it is not being applies consistently e.g. both Invasion and Tomb Cybermen being tagged as Mk II.

I propose edit the Cyberman entry in accordance with the above categorisation method for Cyberman types, and to change the term "Original" Cyberman to "Classic Cyberman". If anyone objects to this or wishes to change things back, please explain the reasoning rather than just editing.

Mr Pepperpot 00:54, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Merging back the subtypes
(originally from Talk:Silurian) Does anyone object to merging the articles about subtypes (CyberFaction, CyberNeomorph etc.) back into Cyberman (Mondas)? The branches might have been named in spin-off media, but they're still fundamentally the same species, just evolving over time. Ausir(talk) 18:38, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. An out-of-universe reference was a ridiculous reason to brake them up in the first place. Skittles the hog-- Talk 18:54, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Were the cybermen in 'The Pandorica Opens' Mondasian?
Apparently, the Cybermen in this story weresupposed to be from Mondas, though they couldn't afford new costumes. There are other reasons to believe this true. The Cybusmen do not have the ability to time travel, so they could not have travelled back to 102 A.D to imprison the Doctor.
 * What the creators say means nothing. They have the Cybus-logo, and thus are Cybusmen.--OS24 23:15, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * They may not have the ability now, but they may gain it in the future, allowing them to travel back from that point. Graske of the mandragora ☎  15:33, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Contradictions
I think this article needs improving since it is incorporating the original series Cybermen and the "Cyber legion" cybermen. Firstly, the article seems to be some duplication concerning "Destiny of the Doctors", it was written twice within different subheadings (one is in unknown history as well as somewhere else in history). 132.234.34.128talk to me 07:26, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

I still think the Cybermen from TPO onwards were Cybus Cybermen. True, the Brilliant Book says they were from our universe, but other sources suggest they were Cybus Cybermen--31.54.126.112talk to me 10:21, November 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, this discussion has been had and had. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 17:43, November 11, 2012 (UTC)