Ugh. Do we really want to name this article based on spin-off material, especially when there's two schools of thought about her name? Why not just call the article The Inquisitor (as she's actually credited) and then have a discussion about her name in the Behind-the-scenes section? A move to The Inquisitor won't destroy links, so people who want to use Darkel still can, but it will reflect the most indisputable name assigned to her. CzechOut | 07:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What's even worse about the article is that it doesn't tell us specifically where the name Darkel comes from. It just says BFA: Gallifrey, which is about as helpful as saying Frobisher appears in DWM. CzechOut | 07:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Now changing this i have a problem with, i am all for official things when it comes to TV episodes and so on but characters should be reffered to by their name were possible not there title incase someone else is called the inquisitor with no other name also while big finish audios especially this series are spin offs they are officially licenced and therefore unless contradicted by the tv series this is her name Dark Lord Xander 08:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
While it is 'spin-off material' Doctor Who isn't like other series where everything's clear cut between 'this-universe' and 'that-universe'. We know that the Master was once known as Koschei, the Rani was once known as Ushas and the Monk revealed as Mortimus. In the case of the Master and the Rani their actual names are revealed as being in the 'relative' past, while Mortimus' is the present (in terms of their appearance). Darkel's name is revealed as her name after her naming as 'The Inquisitor'. The precedent has been set with regard to the Monk/Mortimus that we use the most recent confirmed name. --Tangerineduel 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the spin off material isn't always regarded as canon (Infact hardly ever) allowing people to pick and choose what they except and with time lords nameing can be an issue say for instance the Doctors name was reviled the article(s) would still be called the doctor becuase that is what he has made his many hundreds of appearances as in spin off and tv.

the problem with the Inquisitor is she has only made (to my knowladge) two appearances the Trial of a time lord saga (which i guess can and is counted as more than just one part) and the Gallifrey audio series made up of four parts so really for me she has to have a frew more appearances before i would decide though granted more people are going to know her as the inquisitor rather than Darkel but then again it is a wiki about a fictional universe (or rather several :) )so maybe the real name is not such a bad idea Dark Lord Xander 13:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

She actually appears in all three of the Gallifrey audio series. As far as canon (it can argued to the end of the universe, but in the case of this wiki all of the main books, audio, video spin-offs are canon, except stuff like the Unbounds and one or two others which aren't). She's also present for each of the stories of Trial of a Time Lord in the court room scenes which counts as being in all four stories. I think as long as 'The Inquisitor' redirects to Darkel and there's a clear explanation up the top of the article as there is for the Master, the Rani and Mortimus, it should be clear for users. --Tangerineduel 13:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
right my bad (its getting Late) and i agree it should be left as it is as long as there are redirects and an explination Dark Lord Xander 13:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
My point about the Gallifrey series was that the article makes no effort to tell us in which specific parts of the series she appears. She's definitely not a series regular, like Romana II. So the list of appearances should take care to display her specific appearances.
I guess I see the point of using a name when one is known, even if it comes from outside the television series. It's just that in this case, according to a note on the article, that name was controversial. Don't know if there's actually some source for the contention that she might actually be Flavia. CzechOut | 05:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
She is definitely not Flavia according to the Gallifrey audios, in which Flavia is also mentioned. JagoAndLitefoot 22:26, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.