Talk: People from the real world encountered by the Doctor

Proposed deletion

This category and all its subcategories should be deleted. From the DWU perspective (that is, the in universe perspective), almost all of the people the Doctor encounters are "real world people". The category proposes to catalogue the people the Doctor meets from the real world, but out of universe categories are never to be applied to in universe pages.

In addition, this category has been placed inside the Category:Real world people, which is an out of universe category.

These categories should be immediately deleted. Shambala108 ☎ 13:32, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Someone tried to add similar categories a while back (historical figures encountered by the Doctor) and those were all promptly deleted. Slughorn42 ☎ 14:06, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just tghoug it would look good alongside the "Places visited by the {?} Doctor"BananaClownMan ☎ 16:20, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

I think deletion would be unwarranted here.

Historical figures encountered by the Doctor was deleted for a very different reason, inapplicable here. On a television show about time travel, everyone is historical, if you go far enough into the future. Thus the name was vague, and the category failed because of T:CAT NAME.

But that's not the case here. There are very definitely "real people", in the sense that Agatha Christie lived on this mortal coil, but Reg Arwell didn't. And we categorise plenty of things based upon whether they exist in the real world. The issue here, it seems to me, is not that these categories have bad content. Their names simply need a tweak.

Real world <whatever> means that the thing exists only in the real world. So, RTD would be a part of category:Real world people, via a subcategory. Category:People from the real world, by contrast, are people who lived in the real world, but are also a part of the DWU. So what needs to happen here is not a deletion of these categories, but a renaming to People from the real world who met the Doctor".

I'll wait a week to perform the rename, though, just in case anyone can find some other reason that these categories actually fail some part of T:CAT.

Please do not attempt to perform the renaming yourself, and do not start new categories along the lines I've suggested. This will complicate the renaming process. And time should still be allowed for people to comment upon this plan.

czechout ☎ ✍  03:35: Thu 26 Jun 2014

I'm not entirely sure with this one.

Everyone who is in the DWU is a fictional version of their real world-equivalent.

Richard Dawkins, Gillian Anderson, Alan Yentob, Jarvis Cocker and Richard Branson weren't at a party in 1997 (it happened in The Dying Days)

Their DWU equivalents were. They're certainly real people. But they're not "real world people".

They don't bring everything of the real world into the DWU.

Renaming it to People from the real world who met the Doctor I think gives too much weight to their ties / relationship both to the DWU and the real world.

I also think creating a category for People from the real world who met the Doctor opens up the possibility to create categories like Locations from the real world that the Doctor visited. --Tangerineduel / talk 08:25, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. We have a longstanding tradition of categorising people from the real world by any number of qualities. Not sure off the top of my head how many sub cats there are in people from the real world, but I think it's safe to say it's scores. This would just be another characteristic that people from the real world have, along with being journalists, actors, and scientists from the real world.

And I'm not sure what would be wrong with "locations from the real world that the Doctor visited". It's a pretty unambiguous category title, whose contents one could easily understand. We could argue utility, but in terms of adherence to categorical guidelines, it'd be hard to construct an argument against it. I mean if we have moons visited by the Fifth Doctor, I don't think there's much wrong in having cricket grounds from the real world visited by the Fifth Doctor. At least the real world category speaks to Five's actual character.
czechout ☎ ✍  03:59: Fri 27 Jun 2014

Excuse me, but, it's been over a week. So, is the category a no-go or what?BananaClownMan ☎ 12:00, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

This category has been here for several months now but the deletion tag is still visible. So is there any consensus? Delete or keep? Slughorn42 ☎ 14:51, October 15, 2014 (UTC)

I think that these categories should be kept as they complement the "Cities / Planets / Countries visited by the Xth Doctor" categories well. --GusF ☎ 20:33, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

Well, the wording needs to be changed to "People from the real world encountered by the Doctor" at any rate, but I'm in favour of deleting these categories. 'Encountered' is far too ambiguous a term to be encyclopaedic, whereas, to take your own comparison, visited is not. Unless we decide upon some arbitrary definition, there is no place for these categories.--Skittles the hog - talk 20:45, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

How about, "People from the real world the X Doctor met"?BananaClownMan ☎ 18:28, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time we made a decision about this category. Does it stay or does it go? MystExplorer ☎ 22:03, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

If we're taking a vote, I say "Aye" under the title of "People from the real world the X Doctor met" BananaClownMan ☎ 22:25, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

I vote "No". I'm sorry but I don't feel this category is necessary. MystExplorer ☎ 22:27, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

I'm firmly against it. It's untenable, with no definable parameters.--Skittles the hog - talk 22:30, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of voting, it's a matter of whether it violates policy. If it does violate policy, it has to go.

So the question becomes, does it violate policy? Yes, I think it violates Tardis:Category naming conventions. As Skittles says above, it's untenable, it has no definable parameters. And adding a definition to the category pages doesn't solve this problem, as very few users ever visit the category pages. Shambala108 ☎ 23:50, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

I too think it violates policy. Time to get rid of this category already. It's becoming ridiculous. MystExplorer ☎ 21:52, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

Category move

I am about to move this category, and its proponents, to a "people from the real world" naming scheme.

"People from the real world", and indeed, "Anything from the real world", is an established convention here at Tardis. "Real world people" means something different, but "People from the real world" is very much defined: any DWU character who also exists/existed in the real world. Any individuals who might go in People from the real world, who have also encountered the Doctor, belong in these categories.

If somebody would like to bring up deletion again, they can do so in a new section below. But in the meantime, at the very least, the current name should not stand.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 04:45, January 1, 2016 (UTC)

Deletion 2

On deletion, I do get the argument that "encountered" is a bit too vague a term to stand, unlike "visited". But I won't be entirely convinced until I've been presented with an example where we really can't decide if it's an encounter or not.

If the Doctor mentions meeting someone, or getting a gift from them or whatever, that's an encounter. If we see/read/hear any sort of exchange, that's an encounter. Simple as that.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 04:53, January 1, 2016 (UTC)

Almost a year later and no one has added anything. I don't see any problems at all with these categories. Any objections to the deletion tag being removed by Christmas?
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 02:31, December 6, 2016 (UTC)

Four people have objected above. Why do we need to repeat our arguments in a new section? Shambala108 ☎ 02:39, December 6, 2016 (UTC)

Specific concerns with this category (and its descendants): how are we defining encounter? Does the Doctor have to talk with the person? Or is just seeing them at a distance enough? What if the person is in the story but never interacts with the Doctor? Does the Doctor have to know the person is nearby? And if it doesn't happen in story but is mentioned, does that count (I mean we have in-universe evidence that the Doctor lies, don't we)? Shambala108 ☎ 00:07, May 30, 2019 (UTC)

This is getting silly

Are we gonna delete this or nah? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by NightmareofEden (talk • contribs) .

I think I'm with SOTO in the section above in that I would want a specific example of an ambiguous "encounter" before being fully convinced the deletion is worth-while. On Shambala108's argument regarding the Doctor's lies, I think that would definitely require a forum thread when they are back up. If we don't take the Doctor's word at face value in the majority of cases then hundreds if not thousands of pages would be affected. Obviously there are exceptions but I think it would be a very dangerous precedent. --Borisashton ☎ 11:32, November 19, 2020 (UTC)

I also think that the point about "from the real world" not really working as an in-universe name is sound. As much as I love this page, the strictest implementation of the wiki's policy should exclude this. NightmareofEden ☎ 12:02, November 19, 2020 (UTC)

Okay, this deletion tag has been here (and been discussed) for years. Since the star, User:CzechOut has rightly pointed that we do have several "from the real world" categories, so this one is no exception to our categorisation system.

As for Shambalas's concern of "what defines an encounter"... well this is obviously something that will require case-by-case discussions, if any arguments feel needed; otherwise, we just apply common sense on the story basis. Did the person and the Doctor bump into each other? Had a chat? A fist or sword fight? Those are obviously "encounters". Both are on the same party but never chat, meet or otherwise interact? Well that can't mean anything other than a "non-encounter".

Lastly, concerns about the Doctor "lying" are impossible to deal with in this regard more than any other. If we're to suspect the Doctor saying he met [insert famous Actor name], we'd also have to doubt them when they say he's visited planet X or Y, at which point it becomes impossible to document anything. Unless the Doctor themselves admit they're lying, or the story otherwise tell us so, we have to believe what is stated.

All in all, the category stands. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 14:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)