Talk:Cyberman

Cybermat

The Cybermen also used small cybernetic insect-like creatures called Cybermats? (usually Cyber-converted from rats or other rodents)

I don't recall this being the origin of cybermats??? I don't think where they came from was ever explained. quercus robur 10:00, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Page edit

I've never felt comfortable with having all that non-canon information from the David Banks book mentioned in the article, especially since it's a substantial chunk of it (and formatted in an ugly manner to boot). Is there any way to fix it? Or shall we just remove it? -khaosworks 05:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the following information as it is a) non-canon, b) not even universally regarded as the right explanation and c) ugly in format. I'm placing it here just in case we can find a way to reintegrate the information into the article.

 The book "Cybermen" by David Banks offered the explanation for the differing appearance of the
 Cybermen that each was a separate subspecies of the Cyber race. These were detailed as follows:
 Cyber Faction: This consisted of three separate groups;
 *Early Cyber Faction - from the story The Invasion, featuring Patrick Troughton as The 
 Second Doctor.
 *Later Cyber Faction - from the story The Moonbase, featuring Patrick Troughton as The Second 
 Doctor.
 *Late Cyber Faction - from the story The Wheel in Space, featuring Patrick Troughton as The 
 Second Doctor.
 The Cyber Faction was described as being a group of Mondasians who sought complete cyber-conversion, 
 as opposed to simply replacing worn out parts as the majority did. So, as Mondas passed "Planet 
 14" in the Sol system, they transferred there from Mondas to begin their own culture. The Early 
 Cyber Faction retained a "humanoid" form, with five-fingered hands, but as less and less organic 
 material remained to be stimulated, a less humanoid version, with only three fingers, evolved.
 Cyber Telosian: These were identical to the Later Cyber Faction, and appeared in the Second 
 Doctor serial The Tomb of the Cybermen. The Cyber Telosians came about when the Later Cyber 
 Faction split in two groups; one which remained in the Sol system while the other went out to   
 explore the Universe. Low on energy, this group landed on the planet Telos, 
 removed the Cryon indigenous population, and went into hibernation until revived centuries later.
 Cyber Mondasian: These were those who had remained on Mondas after the first split, and appeared 
 in The Tenth Planet. These were the most primitive of the subspecies, retaining a visible element 
 of their organic predecessors in their unconverted human hands.
 Cyber Nomad: These came about through a division of the Early Cyber Faction, appearing in the 
 Fourth Doctor serial,  Revenge of the Cybermen. The Early Cyber Faction split in 
 the same way as the Later Cyber Faction, with one group leaving the Sol system. They became nomadic, 
 existing in their spacecraft instead of colonizing a new homeworld, and explains the 
 similarities in appearance between the Cyber Nomad and the Early Cyber Faction.
 Cyber Neomorph: These evolved from the amalgamation of the Cyber Telosians with a group of Cyber 
 Nomads, and appeared in the serials Earthshock, Attack of the Cybermen and [[Silver 
 Nemesis]], featuring Peter Davison, Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy as The Fifth, Sixth 
 and Seventh Doctors, respectively. The Cyber Telosians, still entombed on Telos, were discovered by a 
 group of Cyber Nomads. The two factions combined, and rebuilt themselves into an form that combined 
 the best parts of both designs, producing the ultimate Cyberman.

Just wondering whether these (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/doctorwho/webcasts/realtime/gallery/cybermen/index.shtml) should get a mention. Personally, i think they look appalling. The 1980's ones are much better. (I'm not an old-timer, just 14, but i think they look cheap)

We do mention Real Time but not much detail on it. Trying to keep track of all the different Cybermen designs would require an article on its own, really. --khaosworks 14:43, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Fictional is obvious

Why insert "fictional" here? Extraterrestrial aliens are obviously, unmistakably fictional in a way that say the place names in William Faulkner's works are not. Who thinks otherwise? Consider the problem differently. Would it not be more informative to identify those elements of science fiction stories which are real but unknown to most readers as "real" rather than to say that a particular element is "fictional." Perhaps science fiction needs to be treated differenty in this respect. Just an idea. But then on the other hand I do see the value in imprisoning an interesting exception like sci-fi in a deathly embrace of a useless rule made for other genres. Flugku.

This is in answer to my following comment on his talk page: Please stop removing that phrase from the respective articles. It makes it sounds as if we're saying that these characters are real. The phrase makes it clearer, and should be there - your original placing of the additional "fictional" phrase in Slitheen was redundant once the fictional nature was established, that was why it was removed. See WP:POINT. --khaosworks 22:57, July 25, 2005 (UTC) --khaosworks 01:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

New look

http://images.gallifreyone.com/newsgraphics/newcybermen.jpg http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/images/cyberman2006.jpg

The links above have the new look for the Cybermen in series 2 of the revival Who. Someone may wish to upload it?

who on earth designed that - far too much like Maria from Metropolis (1927 film)GraemeLeggett 18:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Call me nuts, but Art Deco cybermen in a world where the rich and powerful live in zeppelins owes more than a bit to Metropolis, yes? Pnakotus 58.162.247.52 06:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

I think the images on the page could be better chosen and/or organized. (I'm inept when it comes to sizing and uploading images, or I'd do something about it myself instead of just kvetching about it here.) Specifically, I think the page ought to have an image of the Cybermen as they first appeared in The Tenth Planet: something like this, if it can be done within the bounds of copyright. (That's the other reason why uploading images intimidates me, I don't really understand what's fair use and what isn't, and how you do the copyright tag and so forth.) Anyway, if we could get an image from The Tenth Planet (preferably something better than the one with Cutler on The Tenth Planet page), that'd be great. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Jonathan Ross

According to OG's news page, Jonathan Ross will be making a cameo appearance as a Cyberman next series. It's pretty trivial, but I thought it might be fun to mention on this page — but I can't find a suitable section. Should we start a "Trivia" section, or will that just be too much of a fancruft magnet? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Something best suited for the individual story, I think. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

2006 Reboot?

Codenamecuckoo is keen to add a note about the possibility of a reboot in the 2006 series. I think that it is speculative, and shouldn't be included. As an aside, the fact that Cybermen have been referenced in the 2005 series (the head in Van Statten's museum) implies somewhat that they're not going to go for a reboot. But this is itself also speculative.

However, I can possibly see why it might make sense to insert some kind of note about the 2006 appearance within the history. I just don't see how it can be done while retaining the editorial style of that section, which is written as if the events actually occurred; any fictional references (e.g. episode titles) are kept in parentheses. An explicit reference ("The 2006 series...") breaks the mood of the section.

It would seem a bit twee to incorporate a "speculative future history", even if we restrict ourselves to what we actually know.

Any ideas? --DudeGalea 12:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, on further inspection, the mood isn't perfectly maintained throughout. There are occasional un-bracketed episode titles, but it seems clear what the intended style is supposed to be. --DudeGalea 12:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The solution is simple, once the episode airs and we know the date the episode takes place in (more or less). We start, "In the 2006 of a parallel Earth..." in the "Earth invasions" section and take it from there. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Page order

I just added a bit of info from Spare Parts to the Cybermat section, and was going to edit the subsequent Spare Parts mention and link accordingly, but then I started thinking that there might be a case for completely rearranging the order of the sections of the article. The sections are currently ordered "Physical characteristics", then "Technology" (including Weapons and Cybermats), "Costume design", "History within the show", etc. Since the "technology" section is as much about changes within the fictional narrative as it is about changes in production, would it make sense to rearrange the sections to "Physical characteristics", "Costume design", "History within the show", "Technology" and then "Other appearances", etc.? That way the fictional information doesn't interrupt the production information as much. Opinions? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a better order would be to simply move "Costume design" to below "Physical characteristics". Then the flow goes from discussing a mixture fiction/non-fiction into of how they look, then how the look has changed, then into the fictional tech, then the fictional history. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Josiah, that's quite scary... I just listened to Spare Parts yesterday and was thinking that there was some useful cybermat info that could be added... and today you added it :-) Tim! (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Warped minds think alike? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Must be something like that :) Tim! (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Origins

I was just reading one of the sci-fi magazines(TV Zone). In a section on Doctor Who they speculate that the parallel Earth in the upcoming two-parter, as well as this Cybus Corporation converting humans with cybernetics(their words, not mine), may be an attempt to retell the origins of how the Cybermen came about. This might mean that the parallel Earth might replace the twin planet notion. Anyone got any thoughts on this, as I can't see this happening without screwing up Cyber-continuity. User 130.159.248.1

I speculated something similar a while back on Outpost Gallifrey's forums, but I don't have anything solid to base it on. My view was that since Mondas was originally a "twin planet" to Earth (down to the shapes of the continents), and that idea doesn't really hold much water these days, it might make sense to revise Mondas into being a parallel Earth which somehow ends up in our universe/dimension/timeline/whatever, in a slightly different physical position but on a course for our Earth in 1986. This would be a change to the Cybermen's back-story, but no more so than Genesis of the Daleks was a change to the Daleks'. Of course, the idea is ridiculously fanwanky and will probably never be seen on screen — the most I'd expect to see would be a short piece in the Doctor Who Annual 2007 about the history of the Cybermen or something.

Needless to say, this is all speculation and by rights we shouldn't even be discussing this here, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Naughty us! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Either the parallel Earth is Mondas, or the Cybermen go to Mondas afterwards and convert the population. We are naughty, but only fans read the discussion page anyway!

Several points: (1) perhaps Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel is set on the mirror universe's version of Mondas, not Earth? (2) The unofficial cybuscorporation.com website implies that Lumic adapted that universe's cyber technology, captured by humans after The Invasion (1970) and The Tenth Planet (1986). So the cybermen of that universe still originated from Mondas, and Lumic's creations on Earth are a further subspecies/evolution? (3) If the Daleks are being brought back for a war with the cybermen in the last two-parter, as several papers have reported, then a logical way of bringing them back would be to bring them over from the same parallel universe The Age of Steel is set in, with the war extending inot our universe.

I am wondering - are the Daleks and the Cybermen aware of each other's existence? I'm not keyed up on the entire old series!

They never met in the television series, although there've been a couple of pieces of fan/pro art depicting the Cybermen and Daleks fighting each other. In 1967, there was a story proposal where both races were to appear alongside each other but Terry Nation vetoed it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

They did meet once, in a stage play called The Ultimate Adventure, which featured both races teaming up to kidnap human diplomats. Or something like that. Needless to say, they were shooting each other by the end of it. SMegatron 18:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, anyone seen the countdown on the Cybus Corporation page to the start of Army of Ghosts? Final proof, as if you needed it...SMegatron 18:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems between TOS and 2005 is that we had the Time Wars. The implied info from RTD is that the history of the Universe was written and re-rewitten during this period, only the 'Higher Races' knowing what was going on (When the Daleks became 'Higher Races' is unclear to me) Thus the only individuals in the Post-Time War Universe would be The Doctor, The Face et al who knew Mondas ever existed. As was seen in Father's Day, time tends to try to rebalance itself, so who knows what is and is not 'canon' even if we saw it on TV... Father Shandor 20:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Deconstruction

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with your view that it's 'just another fanfilm', Khaosworks. Reactions to Deconstruction have been very positive and it would be an idea to have a link to the film as well as a reference. Just my opinon here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.124.16.28 (talk • contribs) 00:09, March 19, 2006 (UTC)

"Positive reaction" isn't a criterion for notability. Has it been reported in the wider media, like say, "Troops" or "George Lucas in Love" were? Or is it even special, like "Devious" which had Jon Pertwee record stuff for it? What's so special about "Deconstruction" that sets it apart? Fan films are not generally notable unless there's really something to be said for them. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As an additional note, I've seen the film and think Deconstruction is very well done, but that still doesn't make it notable enough. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Army of Ghosts/Doomsday

Is it worth putting these stories down as Cyber-appearances, as both RTD and Julie G have both mentioned that Mondas's finest shall make theirn prescence known in the final two-parter? NP Chilla 16:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If the producers have publicly stated that the Cybemen are in those episodes, we can mention them in the article. But I'd be careful if they've only hinted it ("...we might see them again before the end of the season"). Personally, I'm sure they'll be in the last story, but we should wait till it's irrefutable. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Realise I'm a bit late with this, but the issue of the Radio Times celebrating the new series had Russell T Davies confirm that the Cybermen were in Army of Ghosts/Doomsday, no buts about it. SMegatron 20:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, thinking back, the exact quote was somethhing like: "It wouldn't be giving away too much to say the Cyberman will be in it". No word on the Daleks though. SMegatron 20:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• • And the "next week" trailer on tonights Who confirms presence of Cybermen and possibly Daleks too. At the very least the Dalek death ray with sound effects and appearance of victim is back

You would think Russell T Davies and co would have learned not to spoil the surprise of the season finale after Boom Town last year( Next Week - Alert! Alert! We are Detected!) but noooo... SMegatron 16:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that the Cybus Industries cybermen made at Canary Wharf/Torchwood Tower would NOT be sucked into the void, having not travelled there in the first place (including the turncoat Yvonne Hartmann one)?

It's called a plot-hole: Scott_W

The Cybersuits would have come from Pete's world. Wiki-newbie 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Could* have come from Pete's world... It's most likely.Father Shandor 20:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyber controller

According to the Radio Times, the redesign of the Cyber Controller gives him glowing eyes, a transparent scalp (the brain can be seen through it) and large plugs or sprockets for the life support systems. However, I'm not sure if this should go in or where it should go. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 08:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Failed FAC

That this had been nominated was news to a lot of us in the project, I think. It's very obviously not ready, and even if it was, it should be have been put through peer review first. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

How about a direct link or copy to here of the criticisms for others to read. GraemeLeggett 16:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The link is in the failed fac box. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Main Picture

I reckon we should use a picture of the origial cyberman. I think every who fan would agree that they are a better rep of the cybermen from the series not the RTD re-hash. jimmy93211 9July 10.11pm

Parallel Earth/Cybus Industries

I've been trying to trim the section down because it seems disproportionately large compared to the other bits in the history section and most of the detail could be referred to the episode article(s). This isn't being helped, however, by the presence of the Cybus Industries box, and I and wonder if it's entirely appropriate to place it there. The section isn't really about the corporation, and it's awfully big to have it there for what I feel is a tenuous reason. Any thoughts on either of this? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Cybus Industries box is a bit superfluous. It's pretty, but could probably be cut — after all, Cybus appeared in only one two-part story (were they even mentioned in Army of Ghosts/Doomsday?) and the corporate divisions of Cybus Industries aren't that important — they were more background color than vital information. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Connection to The Avengers episodes

A note that some might find of interest. I seem to remember reading, in an article written somewhere around the Doctor's 20th Anniversary celebrations, an author who noted some similarities between the Cybermen and the Cybernauts, who had appeared in two episodes of The Avengers. In particular they both used a form of a "cyber-chop" to dispatch their enemies. Now I know this is pure fan speculation (which is why I did not try to put it in the main article). But, it is true that, under the time constraints of TV production, designers crib from each other all the time. A comparison of the air dates of the episodes shows the following:

• The Cybernauts 16 Oct 65
• The 10th Planet Oct 66
• The Moonbase Feb-Mar 67
• The Tomb/Cybemen Sept 67 ending 23 Sept

and just one week later

• The Return/Cybernauts 30 Sept 67 !

I'll bet some youngsters who were viewers of both shows thought that they were seeing the same scary enemy in both.MarnetteD | Talk 01:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Could they actually borrow props from one another? The Avengers was ITV after all. Wiki-newbie 09:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that they would borrow props. The statement was more along the line of this, designers crib ideas from each other all the time. A set or costume designer might have observed a given episode of a show and, when it came time (days, weeks or months) for their new project they may have been influenced by what came before. They may not necessarily be copying (or stealing) on purpose, although that happens too, they just are using everything in their brains and memories as a part of the creative process.MarnetteD | Talk 17:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick note on GA nomination

Forgive me for not reviewing the article in its entirety at the moment for time constraints, but I have just noticed it on the GANominee list nad wanted to leave a few important comments to the editors and nominator.

I see two important reasons why this article's nomination should fail in its present state - very small number of inline citations coupled with quite a lot of OR. An example of pure OR is the speculation on the connections between Borg and Cybermen. I also see this article is a past FAC, and I believe for the most part the objections raised in the FAC hold true in case of GA, so it is not the best practice to try at GA when attempts at passing as FA fail. I have read the article in its entirety some time ago, and actually having accidentally stomped upon it, and I must say it was really enjoyable, so I must say I appreciate the work of the editors, but I am afraid the efforts were not concentrated on all aspects of an encyclopedic article it is supposed to be.

I believe this article might have perpetual problems passing as either GA or FA and being "fully accepted" as a Wikipedia article, despite its editorial qaulity, and this might actually concerns all Doctor Who articles. Therefore, I would propose considering setting up a separate Doctor Who wiki, and transferring the content there, while leaving out smaller, "encyclopedic" versions of articles in WP that would direct the user further to the dedicated Doctor Who Wiki. Bravada, talk - 00:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, very little to nothing in this article is original research: we've been quite strict with that, and almost everything is verifiable or cited to on-screen or off-screen sources. That, however, is another issue apart from the GA nomination, which was made independently by one editor. As noted above, this article is not FA-ready and will not be FA-ready for quite some time. I don't know the criteria for GA, so I won't comment on its suitability in that regard. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, could you point out any other points that could be called original research apart from the Borg connection? A quick look over doesn't reveal any, although I admit that the History section could use some cites. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Until referenced, almost all statements can be suspected of OR, and in case of an article dealing entirely with fiction, it is not apparent whether they actually are or not, so very good inline referencing would be recommended. Not having seen a single Doctor Who episode, I can't possibly tell what is OR and what isn't. Skimming through the article again, I have found the bit on expressing emotions suspect of OR too (unless the claims of Cybermen displaying emotions can be referenced to a source rather than simply to editor's observation).

Given the length of the article, and the fact that your goal is, if I understand correctly, actually to reach FA, I would withdraw the nomination. The GA process is the most effective for shorter articles, which are not suitable for FAs because of e.g. limited content, than for "unfinished Featured Articles". In many respects, the review of a long GA and FA is the same, but it is very time-consuming for a GA reviewers. Therefore, I would recommend keeping working on it, and perhaps submitting the article for Peer Review rather than GA, which would be much more effective in helping it attain the FA status. Bravada, talk - 01:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That particular example is referenced, albeit in a general way to their appearances in the programme. We have references for nearly everything; they may not be footnotes, but almost every statement points to a source except for the most general of statements. I'm not saying they can't certainly be improved, or more cites made, but really, it's there.

As to our ultimate goals, well, any article certainly should strive for FA status, but I don't believe anyone's in any particular hurry to see this article go for FAC. I know I'm not, and frankly, I probably wouldn't support it if it did, especially in its current state. I suggest you drop a note to whoever nominated it for GA to get them to withdraw - it's probably not appropriate for me to withdraw it for them. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Torchwood Trailer

Was that a Cyberman in the Torchwood trailer last night, electrocuting someone? Mr. Garrison 16:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Partially converted, definitely. Wiki-newbie 16:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

{{spoiler}}

A partially cyber-converted woman of African ancestry. So much for the return of Yvonne Hartman, then... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's probably gonna be during the finale of torchwood when the Cybermen Actually return. Don't forget that Yvonne hadn't crossed the void in any way, so couldn't have been sucked back into it with the rest. I suspect that somewhere there are a small contingent of Cybermen left over from Canary Wharf remaining.James Random

Image clean-up

As some of you know, this article has failed FA due to one element: too many images claimed as fair use. I have removed some of them in this effort. Wiki-newbie 09:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There are bigger problems than simply the profligacy of fair-use images. There's the lack of referencing and even more glaring the paucity of real-world material. I think we should be asking ourselves given the current regime of FA criteria, do we even want FA status for this article. I think discussing exactly how to move forward with a FAC would have been preferable to simply removing pictures and thinking that will solve the problem. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, but it's a step. Wiki-newbie 13:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyber Vomit

In "The Five Doctors," during the scene where the Raston warrior robot completely annihilates the squad of Cybermen, one of the Cybermen is briefly seen apparently vomiting a greenish/grey viscous liquid before keeling over and dying. What was that? My sister thinks that it was the actor getting too hot under the suit, and that it wasn't part of the planned performance. I'm more of the mind that it was part of the performance, but if so, why was the Cyberman vomiting, and how can they vomit, when they're mostly robotic? --Promus Kaa 03:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There are organic bits under all that metal. The idea of fluids leaking out when a Cyberman dies has its precedence in The Tomb of the Cybermen where dying Cybermen exude what looks like foamy shaving cream from their chestplates. So, there's gunk underneath that could conceivably account for such "spillage". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If i recall correctly it was coffee that David Banks spat out in that scene. PMA 04:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So, does that mean it was intentional (as that's what Cybermen do when they die), or was it accidental and not planned, and only happened when the actor spit out coffee? Or that the coffee thing was simply the way they created the planned effect of the Cyberman death? It's odd how there's even a "vomiting" sound for the Cyberman that you can catch if you listen closely. Perhaps I should listen to the commentary during that scene... --Promus Kaa 17:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it was simply their way of making the death a bit more graphic; I doubt it was accidental. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there. Just dug out the old A Book of Monsters. There's a quote from David Banks (the Cyberleader) on pg 33.

"I had the idea of holding some milk in my mouth and then spitting it out when I was attacked. I was fitted up with explosive charges and I sucked up the milk through a straw. If anything had gone wrong I really could have choked."

So there you go. Seems to be a deliberate effect.SMegatron 13:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Weaponry

Now i wouldn't want to add this myself, since some smarty-pants will, like as not, come along and remove it again with some rubbish excuse. But i do think that it should be added in the charactaristics that the Cybermen from the alternate Universe still had that whole electrocuting arm thing despite the fact that they had the guns.

My canon for this?

Good question.

In the episode Cyberwoman in the spin off Torchwood we become aware that the Cyberwoman herself was left over from the battle of Canary Wharf and we also learn that she was not "cyberified" enough to have had her gun fitted and yet we witness her take use of her powers of electrocution in this episode. This leads us to conclude that the cybermen, although with guns, still had the electrocuting arm jobbie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRandom (talk • contribs)

Borg

Has anyone else noticed a similarity between the Cybermen and the Star Trek Borg?

Yes, Everyone.

Cybermen in bondage gear to be exact... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Father Shandor (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Series 3 Trailer

Was it only me, or did I see a below-head only shot of Cybermen firing ray guns in the trailer for series 3 at the end of The Runaway Bride? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.194.5.18 (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I believe that was the Judoon blasters. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

cyber drone

should cyber drones be mentioned in the article? in case im the only one who knows what they are i shall describe them. they appeared in doctor who battle in time magazines in the comic strip section. they look like a person with the top half of there head like a cyberman head and with there body cyberman. some also have arms and/or legs like a cyberman. they are controlled by a hypnotic ray and if it is turned off there human personalitys take over. they also appeared looking a bit differnt in some battle in time magazines. these ones had wires going along the top of there heads going from back to above the eyes and have cyber man arms and legs with there right arm ending with a drill. they all wear fur over there bodies so i dont know what that part looks like. presuambly they are also controlled by a hypno ray but if there mental implants (the wires) destabilies there human personalitys also take over, before they die.86.112.212.2 16:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like something created for Battles in Time — it's certainly not from the television series, and I don't think it's from any other spin-off source. They could have a brief mention in the Cyberman#Spin-offs section, with a proper citation, but if it was just something created for a feature in the magazine we probably shouldn't go into too much detail. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes

I found an image showing two Cybermen really from Attack of the Cybermen when it said that it was from Earthshock. The reason you can tell is that in Earthshock they had the perspex Jaw panel but the same chest plate [from Attack of the Cybermen], but in Silver Nemesis they had the painted jaw panel but a different chest plate, and in Attack of the Cybermen they had a painted jaw panel but the same chest plate sa Earthshock. Max Valentine 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyberwars

Just a small point I dont have time to correct it, but it has the events of "revenge of the cybermen" after the events in "earthshock", yet the cybermen mention the "revenge of the cybermen" in "earthshock" [They discus the doc and say something like: (pic of 4th doc) It was in this incarnation that he defeated the cybermen in their attempts to destroy voga the planet of gold] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.131.57.84 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

This is why I think it's best to avoid trying to do a chronological presentation of Who continuity. The flashback to Revenge is one of the main reasons Earthshock is often dated post Revenge, even though the Cyberwar it precedes naturally slots into Revenge's backstory, as does the dating (although confusingly Revenge is dated by dialogue in the Ark in Space, which you can understand people not checking when compiling a Cyberhistory). Jean Marc L'Officer's chronology has Revenge preceding Earthshock, Parkin's has Revenge as the final Cyberstory (with a note of speculation that the timeship from Attach has been on Telos a while and used to investigate the future). Take your pick as to which works better. Timrollpickering 13:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

- Most reference guides from the time - including the 'Terrestrial Index' by Lofficier, which you mention before, set this story at the start of the Second Cyberwar, rather than the First (before Revenge), and 'Cybermen' by Banks makes the same conclusion. This makes the most sense when it comes to costuming and the actual story (the Cybermen are not as powerful as they were during the original Cyberwar). 'Earthshock' only makes sense when it is set 'Revenge...'. The Ark in 'The Ark In Space' has an interior that is different to that of the one in 'Revenge...' too with the Doctor noting that, due to the differences, it comes be hundreds of years before. The costuming of 'Revenge...' are a lot more contemporary than they usually are for stories set as late as some fans erroneously think 'Revenge...' is set. 90.210.63.227 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Why has this section not been deleted? ;-)

On the dalek page, I added a section just like this article's 'Television appearances' section. However, I didn't notice the drop down thingy at the bottom of the page, which showed similar information. Thus, my section was 'Deleted', and I couldn't help noticing that this page has got a drop down thingy, and a section like mine! Why has this not been deleted aswell?..... DA Tardis 19:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Any decent people would have answered this query by now.

Sorry, DA Tardis by the way, but, because I'm not a major contributer to this particular article, I can't help you there. Happy editing Lradrama 08:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You two need to remember to Be Bold. Go ahead and change something if you feel it needs to be changed. If someone doesn't like it, they'll revert it back. Also, I'm not going to make any assumptions, but whoever wrote the second paragraph needs to remember to refrain from personal attacks. -- trlkly 17:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Conceptual History" lacks new series info

It strikes me that the Conceptual History section could go some information on the 2006 version. Personally I'm curious as to whether they ever explained why they made a new species of Cybermen (possibly even retconning out the originals? Haven't seen any sign of them so far), but in general, it wouldn't hurt to include some information in general. Darien Shields 15:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Original (Mondasian/Telosian) vs. New Series (Cybus/Parallel Universe) Cybermen data

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that certain facts that have been discovered in the new series about the Cybermen (the Cybus ones) are being applied to the Mondasian ones? Perhaps the article should be seperated into original Cybermen and new series cybermen, as they are wholly different in their creation, even if they do look similar. Perhaps I'm a bit biased as I am not a fan of the Cybus-cybermen, but a fan of the Original ones, but I think that some distinctions should be made. Also, why should we assume that the weaknesses that Original Cybermen are also the weaknesses of the new series ones? Am I being too picky?--C.J. (talk • contribs) 05:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, reading above, speculations have been made based off of articles and interviews and such, but those items are not cannon, Cannon is what we see on tv, not what is in print.--C.J. (talk • contribs) 17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but remember that most secondary sources (the kind Wikipedia likes) are in print. Also, for your own edification, the word is "canon", not "cannon". -- trlkly 17:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't mean that in print means canon for the series. Most fans of series only consider what is actually on tv as canon. And thanks for the "edification", though I do know what the difference is, I wasn't paying attention to spelling when I wrote it.--C.J. (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is a bit of a hodgepodge. It desperately needs to be split between classic and revived series sections. The mentions of different species going back and forth as if they are one race, which it has been established as not the case, is dizzying. The delineation is even more necessary, since the Mondasian version does make an appearance in Dalek. Let's not revise history, but just document it. --69.124.112.126 (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is not about a particular fictional species but rather about the concept of Cyberman as it evolved in the course of the show (real world perspective!) and then, as such, should discuss the new Cyberman in the context of their reintroduction. Splitting it into two articles is ludicrous and will lead to us including all sorts of trivia about the biology/technology of Cybermen or whathaveyou. I agree that the article is disastrously written, however.Zythe (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't infer that I wish it to be split into two articles. To reiterate, I feel there should be separate sections covering each within this one article. --69.124.112.126 (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That would still obscure the fact that it is not two species, but one concept. Also, it's ambiguous which Cybermen actually appear in Moffat's ones; the concept is introduced to the new audience, so he need not bother with explaining either Cybus or Mondas every time.Zythe (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Humanity is a concept, yet there are disparate races within with notable differences. Your latter point, inferring a disparity between RTD and Moffat is as great as with Lambert, is ludicrous. Moffat need not explain their origin for every appearance since the Cybus design is used. It's the same reason he doesn't need to give Amy's backstory during every episode, since the same actress is playing her. --69.124.112.126 (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Spaceships. And the intentional removal of the C. In any case, let's not have a forum style discussion. And you have not grasped my substantive point; you reached for, and dismissed, what appears to be another. heh.Zythe (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Page History Problem

The page says the last time the Mondasion Cybermen appeared was during the fourth Doctor's run. But they also featured in the episode Silver Nemesis, which was during the era of the Seventh Doctor. could someone fix this, please? Bluecatcinema (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Borg vs. Cybermen

This section has been removed from the Borg page. Maybe it should be removed from here aswell? TheProf07 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there was no objections, i'll remove it. Thanks TheProf07 (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cyberwoman (character).jpg

The image Image:Cyberwoman (character).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Article name

The first sentence uses "Cybermen", the article concerns the race of "Cybermen", the infobox says "Cybermen", the vast majority of conceivable sentences would take the plural form of the word. So why on earth is the article at "Cyberman"? U-Mos (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Because article titles should never be in plural form; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). Cybermen still redirects to this article though. — Edokter • Talk • 22:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I still maintain that the article is about the race of creatures, the race being called "Cybermen". I'm trying to think of a similar example but I can't off the top of my head. U-Mos (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Human (not Humans), Dalek (not Daleks)... Races are always titled singular. — Edokter • Talk • 12:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's not the point! The race is called "Dalek" not "Daleks", and the race is "human" not "humans". This article is about the race "Cybermen", not the race "Cyberman". At the very least the article should match the title, even if it does remain at Cyberman. U-Mos (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the race is indeed "Cyberman", as race is never plural. — Edokter • Talk • 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We also use the word 'man' (in the sense of the race or mankind) not men. Races are indeed never plural. --Cameron (T|C) 10:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cyberlords

After seeing mention of the Cyberlords from one of Hinton's books I haven't read, The Crystal Bucephalus, I decided to add in a bit from another of his books that I have, The Quantum Archangel. Hinton has a habit of trying to jam all sorts of continuity references and retcons into his books and this is no exception. As usual, they are sometimes baffling.

He periodically mentions the Cyberlords in passing over the course of Quantum Archangel and without much substance or obvious point of reference. Not wanting to overcrowd this article with sparsities from the book, I only included what I took to be the most relevent detail.

Objectivity Check (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Special "Titles" Making The Rounds

Just a shout-out to any mods and editors around the article that want to keep original research additions out until valid confirmation by the series or the BBC. The titles for the Christmas Special making the rounds on the internet are "Ghosts In Machines" and "The Other Doctor". I'm sure the latter is the final title, but this has'nt been confirmed yet, you may see these titles frequently doing the rounds here. This is advance warning Dr. R.K.Z

As usual, the title will be revealed at the end of this series' last episode. — Edokter • Talk • 15:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

At least nothing else has been indicated. --Cameron* 15:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating article for anyone interested in improving this one

From Balaclavas to Jumpsuits: The Multiple Histories and Identities of Doctor Who’s Cybermen by Lincoln Geraghty, University of Portsmouth~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Above link broken, try http://www.atlantisjournal.org/ARCHIVE/30.1/2008Geraghty.pdf. HairyWombat (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Cybershades

Shouldn't there be a section about the Cybershades, from The Next Doctor. There is a section on the Cybermats. In fact it think I might make it myself. It's just in case anyone doesn't find them notable enough. Spongefrog (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Cyberman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Delisted

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. Although a few inline citations are present, there are multiple sections that lack citations throughout the article. In addition, several of the non-free images in the article are lacking fair use rationales. Add additional citations from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc. Although the article has been delisted, the article can be return to GA status by addressing the above points. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you need assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:GAR, there should be enough time allowed for comments before delisting. Since only 4 minutes have passed between starting reassesment and delisting it, I am inclined to undo the relisting, but I will await ohter editor's comments first. — Edokter • Talk • 23:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked the article over before adding the tag which didn't equate to four minutes. If you disagree with the assessment, feel free to list it at WP:GAR where community consensus can be reached in relisting the article if necessary. I, however, would recommend sourcing the statements within the article and renominating so that it meets the GA criteria. If you need assistance in helping to find sources let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You should have added the tag before looking over the article, and only delist it after allowing editors to comment and improve the article. I agree the article needs work; my problem is that the delisting was out of process. — Edokter • Talk • 10:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For the vast majority of articles I review, they are left on hold for reviewers to address the issues. However, in some cases, the article has multiple issues or is so far from meeting the criteria that it needs to be delisted. Looking through the history of the article, it looks like there had been some talk of sourcing the article more, but it didn't really expand beyond that. There is no recorded GA review, the reviewer just changed the template. But rather than determine how this article became an GA, it's better to see how it can return to it. Are there documentaries, DVD commentaries, newspaper articles, etc. that cover Cybermen? These would be great sources for citing the information present. If the article is sourced and the fair use rationales are added, I'll be more than happy to re-review the article for you so that you can bypass the month-long queue at GAN and hopefully return the article to GA status. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The process

I can't seem to find anything here about the conditioning and process of human becoming a Cybermen. Any chance this could be added in somewhere or small section about it? --Victory93 (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Cybermat.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cybermat.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fictional history should be replaced with a real-world perspective summary

The article treats it like there is a definitive singular story for the creatures, and not as it really is—that they are a concept utilised by different writers making choices on how to respond to the existing continuity at every stage. The article reads like a fan's attempt at explaining them. It should focus on the real-world factors instead of what was said to have happened fictionally on-screen. There shouldn't be a section on any Wikipedia article with the heading "Cyber-Wars". Instead, referring to the real-life era (e.g. 1970s, Jonathan Nathan-Turner, Russell T Davies, etc.) should be the way to go.Zythe (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Earthshock is set after Revenge - Evidence.

1. The series specifically stated so with the inclusion of 'Revenge' as a flashback in 'Earthshock'. This is more important than the intent at the time 'Revenge' was made, because there is no evidence that it was set before 'Earthshock' at that time (for obvious reasons...and because no date was given in the story).

2. The Doctor notes that the interior of the Ark is different from that of the Ark in 'The Ark In Space'; the interior in 'The Ark In Space' was dated by the Doctor to be from the 29th Century, which has no relevance to the different interior as seen in 'Revenge'- which was in reality the same sets but reorganized, slightly changes and lit differently, but in the context of the show different enough for the Doctor to declare that teh events going on happened possibly thousands of years before!

3. All official guides and material from the time stated that this story was set before 'Earthshock' including Jean-Marc Lofficier's 'The Terrestrial Index', which specifically states that 'Revenge' followed the First Cyberwar and 'Earthshock' was during the start of the Second Cyberwar (the events were partly in revenge for their defeat in the first war). David Cyberleader Banks's 'Cybermen' also takes this view.

4. The costuming makes more sense if 'Revenge' is set before 'Earthshock' as the Cybermen in 'Revenge' are almost the same as in 'The Invasion' (but badly put-together and with awful changes that made them look too clunky...my opinion) whereas those of 'Earthshock' and 'Attack' are clearly upgrades.

In short, there is no reason to believe that 'Revenge' is set before 'Earthshock' and the fact 'Revenge' is featured as a flashback in 'Earthshock' speaks for itself. 90.210.63.227 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your original research. Please cite a reliable source that reproduces any of the above, otherwise it cannot be included in this article. Regards. DonQuixote (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, completely missed point 3. For that one we can mention that author Lofficier places Revenge before Earthshock in his book The Terrestrial Index. DonQuixote (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

futer and past desingns

each redesign cybermen looks simailer to the last one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.216.75 (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

They're meant to be recognisable as Cybermen, rather than just different humanoid robots. As such they always share similar design to the previous. Just like the Daleks. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Version history?

I've noticed a few times that the headers get renamed in the Appearances section and so i've just changed them to Mondas Cybermen and Parallel universe Cybermen. Can we get an agreed consensus on wording to prevent the constant renames? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I would avoid in-universe designations altogether and just go by the real-life production history, which breaks neatly into classic series (old, tin foil monsters) and modern series (attempts at reintroducing to a new audience, CGI). I think this is the approach that is most consistent with our Writing About Fiction guidelines; anything else seems a little too fannish.Zythe (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Your change is simpler. Anyone else want to chip in? I think we should get at least 3 people in agreement for something like this. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, your edit summary said "modern series sometimes uses Mondas Cybermen". When has that ever been true other than in flashbacks? I wasn't aware of their appearance at all in the revived series. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It had been this way for a while; not sure you need to do anything but revert the unhelpful alterations. And yeah, "Nightmare in Silver" was implied to be Mondas Cybermen, and possibly everything from 2010 onwards might be. Neil Gaiman in an interview said he believed his Cybermen were the merged product of both races. Steven Moffat doesn't want to deal with the exposition, so has just left it ambiguous -- hardcore fans can theorise, and passing fans can just enjoy.Zythe (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the explanation ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Mad Norwegian reference

Can an unauthorised reference book be considered a reliable source for information here? At that rate, the 'I, Who' series could be used too. Using such sources would seem more apropos for the Tardis wikia, not Wikipedia. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 18:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we'd be limiting our pool of knowledge enormously if we only allowed ourselves to draw from sources that one particular corporation endorses and supervises. As long as they're by reasonably notable writers, I don't see a problem. —Flax5 19:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like also to politely say that this book is definitely reliable as in it each piece of info is referenced with the episode from which it comes. Moreover, it is a very popular book among who-fans, to whom the slightest error would be noticeable, and it is a culmination of over a decades research on this subject, hope this clears the matter up for you user:Ebyabe, though your point was definitely valid and I am glad to see that such things are checked. Thanks for justifying my source user:Flax5, very kind of you. Sorry I didn't reply sooner.

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Telos

I have added Telos to the home planet section of the infobox (mentioning that it was adopted) several times now and each it has been removed by the cryon user:Edokter. Telos ought definitely to be included there as is is a massive part of who history, two episodes being set on telos itself and based around the cybermen's exploits there and at least 6 episodes featuring telosian Cybermen (the Cybermen in general featured in 10, so it was more than half. Many Cybermen were created there, there was a large cyberconversion facility, thus most Cybermen, after the tenth planet in which most of the pre-existing ones were destroyed, originated there and the cyber controller rules from there. Thus, it is definitely a cyber-home planet and I see no possible justification for not including it on the section of the infobox. I did reference the second time so this cannot have been the issue.

Thanks for your time,

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

As I haven't received a reply, I shall go ahead and re-instate it it really ought to be there. Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

History section

I would like to suggest unifying the appearances and other appearances sections into one single history section, I feel this would be more convenient and bring all info regarding the cybermen's exploits to the same place. I think that if this were to go ahead, possible a single appearances section should remain on the Cyberman page, but only as a list of all episodes and spin-off media in which the Cybermen have appeared. I though I ought to post on here rather than undertaking it myself immediately as it would be a large change. Please consider it, I feel it would improve the flow of the page if you see what I mean, make the info more quickly and readily accessible and the list would be a better reference point with regard to their appearances. Doctor Who wiki has lists of appearances like these which I find massively useful. If this appears too time consuming, I am happy to do it myself. Hope you can consider and thank you for your time.

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not Wikia. We write articles from a real-world viewpoint rather than that from a fictional universe. Please review WP:FICTION and WP:REALWORLD regarding writing about fiction. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Edokter This can be simply remedied by calling it fictional history, as on the dalek page on this wiki, thus putting all info in the same place making it more accessible. And why delete Telos? (See previous section) Wikipedia is a wikia, why do you think is is call wikipedia?

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The fictional history within the series is convoluted, and in places contradictory, as well as made more complex by the officially licenced audio drama. Even omitting the latter any kind of fictional history would tend towards a case of original research in attempting some sort of chronology or coherent treatment. The "history" of the Cybermen evolved (just as the design did) as a result of the real world production of the stories and it is best treated in real world terms. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Same with Daleks but they have a fictional history section and that page isnt said to have issues at all, even regarding perspective. Moreover, it can still be called appearances if you are going to be pernickety, just it seems daft and inconvenient to have them in multiple sections (appearances and other appearances - the content of the latter of which is hardly suggested by the title for what is classed as other is very ambiguous) and a list of episodes would also be convenient. Moreover, while often contradictory, each of the additions to cyber history needn't and indeed oughtn't be reconciled merely stated. However, I do see your point. Thanks!

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Issues

Removing issues tag, see no probs on page and no complaints on talk page. Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyberman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060502115541/http://cuttingsarchive.org.uk:80/comics/cuttings/rt_strip/dnough01.htm to http://www.cuttingsarchive.org.uk/comics/cuttings/rt_strip/dnough01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyberman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120923001724/http://cybusindustries.net:80/lumic.htm to http://www.cybusindustries.net/lumic.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090625000810/http://boxcutters.net:80/blog/2009/04/12/ep-177-alexandra-tynan-gloria-jeans-and-ingham-chicken-ads-ladette-quotes/ to http://boxcutters.net/blog/2009/04/12/ep-177-alexandra-tynan-gloria-jeans-and-ingham-chicken-ads-ladette-quotes/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Update File:Cybermen costumes.jpg

Under the section Physical Characteristics is an image of all of the different cybermen throughout the show's history, except the image currently doesn't include the latest version of the cybermen seen in 2013-present. Could someone please add them in?

Cheers everyone, did it myself. Please let me know if there was an issue with what I did, the old photo is still up, named File:Cybermen costumes.jpg -CannyCapybara27 10:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete!

Just a fly-by comment: I'm surprised there's no mention in this page of the use of "Delete!" as a kill-word of the Cybermen, akin to "Exterminate" of the Daleks. I've not looked for sources, or can remember when that cry first came in, but some reference to it would seem on-topic - especially in the 'Voice' section, which is all about tone, rather than characteristic words used. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

"Delete!" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Delete! has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Delete! until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)