Talk:Earth and other real places

Something for everyone to think about. When we do articles on real planets like Earth or Mars, real stars like Alpha Centauri or Mimosa, real galaxies like Andromeda, or other real locations such as London or Loch Ness, do we give only information as mentioned in or pertaining to the stories, or do we do as Memory Alpha does and also give the sort of real information one would find in a Wikipedia article on these places? --Freethinker1of1 14:11, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

thoughts
I do not feel strongly about it either way. I think we have enough work ahead of us without having to add real world information and making sure that it stays consistent with facts in the new series. "Translations" from 1960's/70's/80's terminology to what we use now could work, if the nomenclature has changed. Links to real world information could work.

This relates to a matter I had pondered. For the Sol System do we add information on planets and moons not mentioned in the series?

Several planets in our system never even got a mention as far as I know. Mercury, for instance, and just about all of the moons. Sideline it always bothered me that in the original series Earth's moon always got referred to "the Moon" and never ever as Luna, the correct scientific designation even as late as the 26th century. Sow whether we call it the Moon or Luna also falls into the domain of real world versus WHO world.--Stardizzy

I think the focus should be on Doctor Who content, although if an editor wants to tie that in to real-world information that's fine. One should give enough context to make the article make sense, but most of the content should be Doctor Who-related (e.g., a London entry should probably begin, "London is the capital city of the United Kingdom...", but I don't see any need to go to great lengths about the real-world history of the city). A link to the relevant Wikipedia article can be provided for more real-world information. --Josiah Rowe 17:46, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)