User talk:Khaosworks/Archive8

Re: Benny audios

Thanks for letting me know - I'll go back and sort the one I've done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edgrainger (talk • contribs) .

Day One

What are we to call that alien in Day One, and where do we put it under?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I know but all I am asking is what name should it be under (Gasous creature?)--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 14:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Jack image

Hi, sorry to sound like a jerk but could i please ask for you to use the "Upload a new version" feature for the jack harkness image as i have a pretty good upload log and i really hte getting redlinks in it, if you dont want to then ill accept that. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey. well it doesnt overly bother me its just i have a pretty good upload log in my mind and so i hate it when a file gets orphaned and deleted (as the link in my upload log goes red you see) - but sure you can delete the one i uploaded now so OrphanBot dosnt "spam" me, hehe. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who Villains

Should that not change to "Whoniverse Villains"?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 11:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything Changes (Torchwood)

While I can understand your fair use rationale of one image per article, I cannot understand why you didn't simply leave one of the images I had previously uploaded. It was extremely rude of you to undermine another editor's work and replace it with your own. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of your opinion, of course, because no one image can adequately illusrate an entire episode and to assume that you have the only eye to understand these things is completely egotistical and arrogant. By your own rules, you've completely failed to illustrate episode 2. I'd rather not have an edit war over this. Rather than have an image deleted, I'll use it to illustrate the character's article. The other image is entirely suitable for the Eve Miles article. I expect your support. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, see, now my image is being listed as orphaned fair use. Because you've decided that your image best illustrates the article. Lovely. Why don't YOU discuss why YOUR image has merits, since MINE was the one there first? I spent a good deal of work coming up with the image I thought was best. It is in your interest to decide that your image is better, as mine was there first. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 18:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Larna

You're right: I could have sworn there was a reference to her being related to the Doctor in there somewhere, but I can't find it (I think I've found the line I was thinking of and it says student). I also could have sworn nothing happened between them, but that reference I did find... Daibhid C 23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Suzie Costello

I know she only appeared in one episode of Torchwood, but I personally think she merits her own article due to the amount she was featured in promotional material. Like the Radio Times bios and the BBC Torchwood website where she has her own section and is featured in the wallpaper gallery. Therefore I think she could possibly be considered a special case. --GracieLizzie 13:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

bogeyman bussemand double meaning

I believe you took away part of my posting of a danish bogeyman. A friend of tells me that english too has the second meaning of bogeyman : a lump of snot. Must we keep this a secret?

List of Minor Characters (Torchwood)

Would that seem like a godd idea? We can put characters such as Suzie Costello and the Cyberwoman in.--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

char template

using whoniverse as the param would be a possible solution i.e. series=whoniverse. 23:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Girl in the Fireplace

The episode just aired here in Canada and like many others I was enchanted by it. I was rather disappointed to see the "intellectual snobbery" (your words, I believe) that greeted this episode when folks tried to add something about it to the Madame de Pomadour article. I noticed you were quite active in the argument back in May. I'm on your side on this one -- I don't get why folks didn't want to even have it mentioned. (I recognized one of the "anti-GITF" editors as being one who took me to task because I'd stated Audrey and Katherine Hepburn weren't related when in fact they're cousins 3 million times removed, or something. Don't ask. I think if some people had their way, Wikipedia would be simply a clone of Brittanica and all the Doctor Who articles (and for that matter any other pop culture articles) would be shunted off to some out-of-the-way wiki. Cheers! 23skidoo 06:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Doomsday

Just to clarify why I reverted in case you missed it in the article history. We should try (insofar as the new series are concerned) to avoid references to "future" stories which are spoilery. The rationale is this: people who read down expect spoilers for the episode they are reading about; they may not want to be spoiled about episodes they haven't yet seen. We've been generally okay with the classic Doctor Who stuff because those are really old episodes but for the new series on (which includes Torchwood), we should keep in mind that not everyone has seen these at the same time. So, back references are okay, but forward references should be done in a non-spoiler way. Thanks. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted :)~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sarahsutton.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarahsutton.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 20:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fictional texts

I'd love any input or organization you might be able to put to User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction essay. I'm trying to work out on broad principle some of the popular culture issues, at least as they relate to fictional texts, so that debates over them are somewhat less sterile, and so that everyone is on the same page about things like sourcing. Phil Sandifer 18:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Singapore passport

Hi

Need an opinion here. At the above page, a user persists in adding a prod tag to the article despite the template being meant only for uncontested nominations. I've put my point across on the talk page on multiple occasions but he persists. I'm dropping a note on your talk page (and on the other 2 Singaporean admins') to see if you can assist. If the page is not notable or should be deleted, so be it. But not this way. --Rifleman 82 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest all the same. =) Mind if you take a look at my talk page? This user made comments at the top of my user page, which show the motivations for his actions. Is this user worthy of a block? --Rifleman 82 02:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Thanks all the same. --Rifleman 82 03:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Rifleman didn't see you point, BUT I saw your point. Your message is not that difficult to "translate". Let me translate what you said. You mean "it doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong, if such act hurt my benefit, then I WILL BLOCK. On the other word, it looks like there is justice here, however, it is not. Right now, the dispute is already over, it is not that necessary to waste our physical strength to fight and block." Am I right? 70.52.66.43 04:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who style guide

Hello... I saw that you reverted the changes to some Torchwood episodes. I wasn't aware that the Doctor Who WikiProject had a style guide that ran contrary to Wikipedia's standards. I'm going to follow up with this on the project page, but I thought I'd ask if you knew why it was that way. Thanks! --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, we should "assume"

don't worry, I knew "you were just being thoughful". May GOD BLESS YOU!!70.52.66.43

Meetup on 24 November

Hello, please confirm yourself for the meetup on the 24th by November 18. If you have any ideas or suggestions, please list them at the meetup page yourself. Thanks. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 04:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tainted poll?

Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives at this location. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at WT:TV-NC#Looking for anyone who objects to the last poll to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete Tyler's age

Apologies if you've answered this elsewhere. I was just wondering how you arrived at Pete Tyler's date of birth of September 15th, 1954. Thanks, Andrew

Boom Town

Hi. I share the dislike of overlong synopses. I've seen a few too many turn from effective summaries to "--then he said and then she said and then they did and then she said and then--", even though this one is relatively well-written. The point of the sadly incomplete rewrite is to significantly reduce the length of the article (even with the quotes), increasing its readability while maintaining usefulness. That said, that certainly wasn't clear from the first edits and the quotes don't have much more justification than my own personal preference. --Kizor 01:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

New Adventures (April 2007)

See my post here to make sarcastic comments about it.--Keycard ^(talk) 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Images..

FYI your the one who has violated 3RR (orig. + 1rv + 1rv. +1rv.); I was considering letting it slide until you sent me the insolent message. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

S'up?

Nice to see you're still milling about :) Hows you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRandom (talk • contribs)

Same old, same old. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Problematic edits

I'm wondering what is your hypothesis about the edits by and the editor 82.110.38.249 contribs (talk). You've reverted all of them, except one I got, they are unsourced and seem like fan cruft. It continues. Is it worth blocking the editor? Hu 15:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations on Dalek

Hey, K. I was wondering what your opinion is on the request for cite.php-style full citations for Doctor Who episodes at the Dalek FAR. I'm willing to make the changes, but it'll be a somewhat laborious process (not least because I'll have to check exactly which episode in a classic serial each reference is from). I don't really want to get started on it unless there's a clear consensus to do so, which I'm not quite seeing at the FAR yet. What do you think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'll give it a shot. I too think it uglifies the article, but since that seems to be the only substantial complaint I suppose I'll do it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Babylon 4 vs. Torchwood Four

I added an 'Outside reference' stating that Torchwood Four has disappeared, a reference to the Babylon 5 series, in which the predecessor of that space station, Babylon 4, also mysteriously disappeared (and turned up later in the series, something Jack says he expects to happen for Torchwood Four as well).

You deleted this addition stating 'needs cite'. Could you please tell me what you would like me to add? The Everything Changes article already states Torchwood Four has gone missing, and I linked to the Babylon 4 wikipedia which proves the analogy. Thanks for your help. ZachtEi 09:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

Not trying to be an ass here, but I still don't understand. How can I prove the reference without asking the writer directly? The previous two outside references are formatted like this:

Gwen explains her boyfriend's theory that psychotropic drugs were put in the water to create a mass hallucination, a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference.

The perception filter is similar to the "Somebody Else's Problem field", a fictional technology used to render a spaceship invisible in the novel Life, the Universe and Everything by Douglas Adams.

Neither of these prove the connection, they merely state that an analogy is present. Or is the problem in the phrasing? Should it be written: 'Jack says that Torchwood Four has mysteriously disappeared, but that he expects it to turn up some day. Similarly, in the Babylon 5 universe, the Babylon 4 space station mysteriously disappears shortly after completion, but it turns up later in the series. ZachtEi 09:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

account

You can block this open proxy later, but first please unlock this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leaderofall I did not do vandalism. I was unfairly blocked. 85.17.45.23

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Elisabethsladen.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Elisabethsladen.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Yamla 19:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Terence. I noticed that you added this image to Elisabeth Sladen and then removed it again. Do you have a better image that you're planning to replace it with? It seems perfectly adequate to me, and appropriate under the fair use policy. Just wondering. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I suppose their argument is that you can't use any fair use images, even a screenshot, because someone could theoretically take a free picture of her on the street. I disagree with that interpretation of fair use, but I don't really have the energy to fight it right now. Perhaps someone has a decent picture taken at a convention or something. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Runaway Bride

hello, of course it is from a press packet, I saved it from bbc.co.uk- I think you are being somewhat pedantic about this to say the least- as I acknowledge the original source which is bbc.co.uk. If you have such a major issue about this then perhaps you could correct the source- it can be found at the bbc on their doctor who webpage. Such pedantry is enough to give lawyers a bad name.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob77 (talk • contribs).

Yes indeed, thats the source, but no I can't see the statement in the link you have provided. Please provide a link to it? .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob77 (talk • contribs). Gotcha. I stand corrected! Ta muchly. .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob77 (talk • contribs).

I am somewhat intrigued though as to why you have picked on this particular picture as worthy of deletion. Other publicity photos, such as of the Cybermen, have been used and noone seems to have regarded their usage as untoward. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob77 (talk • contribs).

Why not? The BBC isn't so niave as to believe that people won't reference them- indeed from a commercial perspective it is actually beneficial, providing greater exposure and potentially generating DVD sales and gaining more viewers. I am also not quite sure what copyright law you are endeavouring to apply, as I am not an IP lawyer. Wikipedia is an international website, run by Americans predominantly, so how can displaying an item on a US server possibly constitute a breach of British copyright? And yes the main Cyberman article has a publicity photo cropped directly from the Beeb prior to the 2006 series. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob77 (talk • contribs).

hello, would you permit the use of screen captures from a BBC promo film which is broadcast? Various images have been put as screengrabs on OG here: http://www.gallifreyone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=107567- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob77 (talk • contribs).

Fine, but at least we can have an image to illustrate the story ahead of broadcast at Xmas. Rob77

Torchwood Institute

I actually let the two daggers on Suzie slide (given that she died, was resurrected "forever", and died again). I actually thought about putting more daggers, because, as Ianto said, "she had quite a few deaths in the end". Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 02:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Legal question

Hey, Terence. I know that you're "tired of fighting it out with the FU nazis", but I'd like your expert opinion on something. As a judge in Singapore, you probably have a much better understanding of fair dealing than the average Wikipedian. At Wikipedia talk:Fair use some users are saying that fair dealing in, for example, the UK, is so much more restrictive than US fair use law that it would make it impossible to publish Wikipedia content there. Is this accurate? The discussion is here, but if you'd rather not stroll across that minefield, you can just drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's quite informative. It's interesting that screenshots seem to have what looks like a blanket exemption, though, if I'm reading this correctly. What is the justification used by the FU extremists for disallowing screenshots here, like in the Elisabeth Sladen example? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks — that clarifies things. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Conradwestmaas.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Conradwestmaas.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 23:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My Images

Don't suppose you admins have a list of Images (deleted or otherwise) by Users?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 21:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just that I am trying to make my gallery page complete by making a list of my deleted images. Would you please give me a list of my deleted images please. Thanks in advance!!!--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 12:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity again, what non-deleted pics have I got please?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 14:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Message by Rob

The parapgraph makes specific reference to alien technology. and how it is often considerably in advance of that of earth. The most advanced technology which has been shown in the TV series so far is that of the void ship, which had been developed by the Daleks. To contextualize the point being made, namely that Dalek technology now exceeds even that which the Timelords built, it is extremely relevant. Rob 15:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OfT

I removed the DOG for you on the image :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Notification

Rob77 has filed a request for assistance/mediation concerning you with the AMA here. Please take a look if you can. --ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^{(тąιк|соήтяївѕ)} 22:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Delia Derbyshire image

Hi! Thanks for the photo of Delia Derbyshire. I wrote and maintain [Delia Derbyshire's Audiological Chronology]. I didn't know about the documentary "Doctor Who: Origins", and would be interested to see it to enrich that site with extra detail. If you can help, you can mail me as [email protected]. Thanks!

Doctor Who episode/serial articles

I've noticed you restructuring a lot of the episode articles - would you consider changing the wikiproject style guide to include the names of the sections, and the order you've been using? A central reference would be helpful to keep future edits consistent with what's been done - I've no real attachment to any particular order or section titles, I just think they should be consistent. (On a related note, I noticed you used "Broadcast and video releases" somewhere, which I think works very well.) --Brian Olsen 01:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another replaceable image

Image:Janetfielding.jpg is replaceable as per WP:FU. I'm sure you've heard this story before, just pointing it out. Of course, you uploaded it before the policy change was enforced. --Yamla 04:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Indira Varma

thanks for the edit Willow177 18:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Page moving

Hi, quick question about moving pages which I don't know much about but I thought you might do. User:Mhking has copied and pasted the text from Robin Hood (BBC TV series) into Robin Hood (TV series) and turned the former into a redirect. Aren't you supposed to have the page properly moved rather than copying and pasting like that, to preserve the edit history? Also the talk page hasn't been moved and it's generally a bit of a mess, so I was wondering what standard procedure on this sort of thing was? Angmering 19:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWN

Not meaning to be rude or anything, but how do you interpret WP:OWN? I've noticed a vast majority of your edits are to Doctor Who related pages, and a huge number of Doctor Who article edits are attributed to you. This looks to be flat out Ownership of articles, but I'm sure you have a different opinion on the matter. Don't take this as an attack, as I've noticed that in terms of pure vandalism vigilance, you are a damn fine editor. But you seem to undo virtually any little note that you disagree with, which undermines Wikipedia policy in general. I don't believe this is intentional, as when I brought it up on the Theme Music page, you corrected it and helped incorporate into the article better than I could. Please, what ae your thoughts?TheGreenFaerae 21:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, my observation is, that you do not seem to talk to the users themselves, and someitmes, you remove it without explanation, as I notice you did with one of my comments reagrding the Doctor's mention of humanity as optional. As an administrator, you should offer your services to the project in general, not jsut a specific area, i.e. who-related pages. I've seen a lot of pages sorely in need of observation from adminsitrators in less popular topics. Vandalism on some pages can be un noticed for several days, and to see any elevant commentay being removed within hours or even mintues, seems rather disproportionate. You are a decent administrator, so why don't yu check the project in general, rather than just the areas you yourself are interested in?TheGreenFaerae 22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That policy of choosing to favor pages over others is the minor bit of ownership I'm talking about. It doesn't seem right to me, that any administrator should focus thier efforts on a single area of personal interes. That would be like a police officer only watching over a resteraunt he eats at, leaving the rest of the world to it's own devices. I didn't mean to infe that you believe that you actually own the Dcotor who artiles, but that your polices seem t bely an unntentional focus that borederlines on ownserhip. Do you understand what I am saying?TheGreenFaerae 23:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean it like you are beng disruptive or bad in any way. I simply wanted to offer you some consructive criticisms. From what I gather, being an admin is a voluntary position, but it is alos a serious position to undertake. I've seen very few dmins edit on the level of constant editors. I do think that your editing policies come off as slighty rude, but as an admin you are ideal, to say the least. I simpyl wanted to say that you should focus more enrgy on that part of your duties. Also, if anothe user wanted to bring something against you in disupute resolution, they might be sared away due to your admin status. It can give ff the impression that you can arbitrate against them, and it would be useless to disagree. I'm not sayign that's true, but tha is the image your WP tendencies can project. I jsut don't think you are aware of how an admin saus does affect your image as an editor. I've seen very few admis that edit as rigoously as non-adins, proably for this very same reasons. Your diference i this regard is jsut something I thought you might find sueful t be brought to your attention.TheGreenFaerae 23:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome.TheGreenFaerae 03:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr Who Monsters and Aliens

Hi there, As Doctor Who fans I would believe that the time has come that we should finally sort the monsters and aliens page out. I hope you would agree with me that the article probably needs a split, however the ways we could split it are disputed. I was wondering what your views would be on this ongoing debate which I hope could be drawn to a close.

• Xdt 01:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For all your work on the Doctor Who articles. Timrollpickering 18:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The Family of Blood move

Thanks for moving the new page to The Family of Blood. I wasn't sure how to name it - I noticed that the article for Utopia would need the diambiguation, but I was unsure about The Family of Blood. Silver Nemesis 15:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Osirans / Osirians

Hi, saw you'd reverted my change to "Osirans" - looked at the note you referred me to in your comments - I don't follow, the note explains that the script for Pyramids spells it "Osirians" but surely this counts for less than the actual programme where it is clearly pronounced "Osirans" throughout? What relevance can the script have to canonicity? MarkThomas 12:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my page - then I started wondering, perhaps it's more subtle than I think, and really Sutekh had a secret pronunciation that was written in special Osirian symbols that only the Doctor could read and he was just mocking them by deliberately mis-pronouncing it "Osiran". Or am I taking this canonicity thing too seriously? MarkThomas 13:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr Who Monsters and Aliens

I think I have an idea for the page:

NB: -- is == but I didn't use it because it would appear as a separate message.... Also there could be a small image at the side.

--Gelth--

The Gelth are gaseous lifeforms that appeared in the 2005 episode The Unquiet Dead. The Gelth came from a planet beyond the rift. Their bodies were destroyed in the time war so they inhabited the dead bodies in a funeral parlour where the rift came out.

Happy New Year! Xdt (talk · contribs)