Talk:Silence (Doctor Who)

Silence or Silents?

What's the authority for spelling the race "The Silence"? Isn't the race the plural of Silents? ie, one Silent, many Silents? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.99.60 (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that "Silence" and "Silents" are phonetically identical doesn't help. I believe Silence is the standard because of the repeating phrase "Silence will fall" in Season 5. They may very well have been saying "Silents will fall" but most people would write down "Silence" after hearing that phrase uttered. The spelling may have stuck, even after season 6 came around and we found out that the Silents were a species with singular form Silent. If any of that makes sense. 96.227.155.19 (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the BBC at http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/characters/The_Silence "The Silence" is the name of the alien race and "The singular form of Silence is Silent" --Zentomologist (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted material

The following material was deleted as speculation, but some can be supported by plot summarization, especially some of the material of the second paragraph. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In The Vampires of Venice, Rosanna Calvierri said that through some of the cracks in the universe, the Saturnynians saw only silence and the end of all things. She would later go on to mention that her race "ran from the Silence" in fear, through a crack that acted as a portal. Following his defeat of Rosanna, when the Doctor was preparing to leave, a mysterious silence fell over Venice and everyone in a previously busy Venitian market had mysteriously vanished.

The Silence took control of the TARDIS in 102 A.D. during "The Pandorica Opens". They forced it to land outside of Amy Pond's house on June 26th 2010, and it began to explode shortly afterward, trapping Dr. River Song inside of it within a time loop until the Eleventh Doctor saved her. Although the individual Silent behind the attack was never visible, it was heard to be speaking before the TARDIS exploded, saying: "Silence will fall!" After attending Amy Pond and Rory Williams's wedding, the Doctor discusses the TARDIS blowing up and mentions that "the Silence is still out there" before being distracted by a phone call.

One was in a restroom in the White House in 1969 and killed a woman named Joy in front of Amy Pond. It knew Joy's name and also Amy's, possibly implying that it had psychic or telepathic powers.

Original research

The editor who has suggested that this article be deleted has described the description of the on screen appearance of the "Silence":

In "The Impossible Astronaut", the Silence made their first on-screen appearance, shadowing the Doctor and his companions in two time zones. A Silent was present in the White House in 1969, murdering a woman in front of Amy Pond and telling her to inform the Doctor of his upcoming death - something she forgot about after, though she had taken a photo of the Silent. Later, River Song and Rory would discover a network of tunnels, centuries old, running beneath Florida - leading to a timeship control room, and with the tunnels full of Silence.

as "original research". Perhaps he is unfamiliar with the fact that a work of fiction serves as its own source for a summary of its plot - which is what the comment amounts to. Indeed, given that the Silence is only credited in that episode, leaving out that episode is, Frankly, absurd. μηδείς (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have (mistakenly, I'm sure) omitted to mention that the editor who first opposed deleting the article has also objected to the above material on the same grounds as myself. I'm sure you didn't mean to make quite such an incomplete comment. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 16:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, it could be argued that the first appearance was the "Preview" for the episode, rather than the episode itself. And we don't know how many Silence are down there -- 4 could be plenty intimidating, if you can only remember the one you're looking at -- so "tunnels full of Silence" wouldn't apply. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't a completely empty tunnel be 'full of silence' also? -- Avanu (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I assume, Sarek, that you don't object to

In "The Impossible Astronaut", the Silence made their first on-screen appearance, shadowing the Doctor and his companions in two time zones. A Silent was present in the White House in 1969, murdering a woman in front of Amy Pond and telling her to inform the Doctor of his upcoming death - something she forgot about after, though she had taken a photo of the Silent. Later, River Song and Rory would discover a network of tunnels, centuries old, running beneath Florida.

with the speculative qualification "- leading to a timeship control room, and with the tunnels full of Silence" left out? μηδείς (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you can't make that assumption, which is why I deleted the whole section from the article instead of just snippets. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you be specific as to what you object to and specifically on what grounds? This is a rather bland factual description of the episode which is fine so far as plot summaries of fictional works according to the manual of style. It strikes me as utterly absurd that the article fails to mention entirely the one episode in which the creatures actually appear and are credited. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Far be it for me to suggest a compromise, but if you are unhappy that the article fails to mention entirely the one episode in which the creatures actually appear and are credited then you could simply add that fact in without embellishment? For instance, "The Silence appeared in The Impossible Astronaut in 2011," perhaps? ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 16:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

More original research

At the end of Appearances, someone has attempted synthesis: "In The Name of the Doctor, the final episode of the seventh series, it is revealed that the Doctor's true name acts as the password for granting access to his resting place, where his timeline is housed. The Silence have been trying to kill the Doctor all this time because the Great Intelligence wanted access to the Doctor's timeline to rewrite all his victories into losses, erasing all the civilizations and lives that he saved/would save." This sentence is unverifiable and the Silence are not even mentioned, never mind that they do not appear in the episode. It is one possible interpretation of events in the series and as such does not belong. I am deleting the paragraph. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

sickness

should it be mentioned that when Amy and River look away from silence they also begin to feel sick?--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 16:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Voice

Do we actually know whether or not Van Den Broeke voices the Silent, or if he only wears the costume (like his role as Discworld's Death, where he wore the outfit but the voice was provided by someone else)? 82.32.90.49 (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It was stated in the episode of Doctor Who Confidential that accompanied Day of the Moon that Van Den Broeke did not provide the voice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Rescue Tag

When we add a Articles for Deletion tag to an article, it asks us not to blank the tag or remove it during the discussion. The AfD tag allows people to improve the article. The AfD discussion is open to all and continues until a consensus decision can be reached.

Now, I am fine with keeping this article, or merging this article. I'm not in favor of deleting the content in this article. But, someone came along and added a RESCUE tag, which provides suggestions for rescuing the article from deletion, along with a command not to remove the article. While I agree this is a fine goal, I don't feel that it is appropriate to have an unremovable deletion tag AND an unremovable rescue tag. One side is demanding to be heard for deletion and the other is demanding to be heard for 'keep' (rescue). This is inappropriate.

If someone needs to rescue the article, then simply do so, and tell people in the AfD that you are answering the critical comments in AfD, and willing, able, and doing what it takes for the article to survive. But adding another tag that runs counter to consensus doesn't seem to be the right approach.

No one is preventing improvements to the article, and if people recognize that improvements HAVE been made, they will likely change their attitudes in the consensus. But waving our virtual hands and saying "I'LL SAVE IT!!" without actual improvements seems to be a way to game the AfD discussion, and again, is inappropriate. -- Avanu (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, since it was added and is in dispute, I will remove it as vandalism if re-added. If you want to improve the article, then nothing in the AfD tag prevents it, but gaming the AfD process just isn't cool, sorry. -- Avanu (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Its removal has been contested by several editors other than myself. Call my edits vandalism without cause one more time and we can go to ANI.Heiro 23:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Rescue tag is a valid tag that does more than just indicate someone might be working on the article. In any case, it is in no way vandalism. Dayewalker (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention, the WP:RESCUE page makes clear what the guidelines are for adding the rescue tag to an article.

"As part of this tag's use, please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen. Your input should constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and likely benefits our readers."

The editor who added the rescue tag did no such thing. The rescue tag is there to encourage people to improve the article, not simply be added as a way to WP:CANVAS.

"canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour."

In addition, after the tag was initially added and I removed it, we should have worked together in the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. There is not a preponderance that once something is added, it *must* remain. In fact, it is the opposite. If something is added and then challenged, it should stay absent until consensus is achieved. We didn't do that. I'm as much to blame as anyone for falling down in that, although I did attempt to communicate specifically about the rescue tag through this Talk page and the AfD discussion page.

I hope this serves as a clearer and more thought out depiction of the reasons I raised objections earlier. -- Avanu (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Another new source?

Another new news article dealing with the Silence TV REVIEW: ‘Doctor Who: The Impossible Astronaut’ by Jonathan Weilbaecher, Apr 29 2011. Heiro 04:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Amy turns into one?

When was that?Dalek9 (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the above comment means, but I caution you to read WP:FORUM before explaining... ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 18:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is that before I wrote that there was a sentence on the article saying that Amy turned into a Silent. Given that I had just watched the episode (Day of the Moon) and couldn't remember that happening I wanted to know why that was their. Given that that sentence has now been removed the discussion is now irrelevant anyway.Dalek9 (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Silents

The BBC America show Doctor Who in America spelled the race's name as the Silents not the Silence. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you give a link to where they spelled it like that? Because there have been multiple comments and interviews with the creators and starring members and they've all spelled them plurally as the Silence. Most likely, BBC America just messed up. Silverseren^C 06:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Can you give a link" to how something was spelled on a TV screen? Could you come up with a stupider question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.114 (talk)

I literally just watched it on the show at 1:00 AM in the States on BBC-A, it was on one of the title cards in the show. It is available as video on demand on FiOS and Comcast. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that seems to be at odds with the [actual page for them on BBC]. I really think they just messed up with the title card. Silverseren^C 06:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, because no one makes mistakes on websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.114 (talk)

I am an Englishman. Several of us would be Englishmen, but as a people, we are the English. I haven't checked the source, but couldn't the title card have been referring to the collection of individual Silents rather than the Silence as a whole?109.158.179.94 (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a damn good point, and one I personally hope turns out to be correct one day, but it would need a BBC/production source. U-Mos (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The first line of the main article is wrong, in that "Silence" is not the plural of "silent". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.114 (talk)

Sort of how I am a human and a group would be humans, but us as a whole are humanity? That actually makes a lot of sense. Silverseren^C 20:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw the "Doctor Who in America" show and the subtitle "Silents will fall" was just meant to be a parody on "Silence will fall", I think, referring to the scene in "Day of the Moon" where they splice the "you should kill us all on sight" thing with the moon broadcast. They called them "the Silence" in the interviews on the show. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You're asking us to take your word for it. I just finished watching it for the third time, and they never once spelled the word out. Silence and silents sound the same unless you're trying to differentiate between the two as you speak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.114 (talk)

The characters are credited as 'Silent'. 'Silence' is used as a collective, not a plural. If there are three of them in a room, there are 3 Silents, not 3 Silence, but the Silence is in the room. If the race in general is accomplishing something, it is an accomplishment of the Silence, but also of a group of Silents. Also, the correct verb for use with Silence is is, not are, because a collective noun functions as singular (however, as with many other collective nouns, there is some flexibility with this rule).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Slender Man resemblance

I think someone should note the pretty striking resemblance to popular internet mythos of Slender Man.. They are dressed exactly alike, have the same build (tall and slender), and deformed arms, and the memory loss/hypnosis powers are hinted at in the mythos as well. --217.195.169.41 (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a very good idea. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 19:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a common archetype here. The Gentlemen from Buffy. The Silence from Doctor Who. Tall Man from Phantasm. Slender Man from... the internet. All have extremely similar characteristics. Nightmarish humanoid abomination that's tall, slim, deformed face, wears a suit, never speak, etc. Another similarity between The Silence and Slender Man is the ability to make those around them sick and some form of power over recorded video (tapes freak out when recording Slender man, and a video showing silents has the same amnesia-inducing powers as the silents themselves 96.227.155.19 (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I’ve noticed the resemblance, myself, when reading up the Slenderman, after hearing about the killing in the US. If there’s any kind of link, surely it would be recorded, somewhere … ? Cuddy2977 (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

References

"Like previous Moffat creations"

The problem with the statement "Like previous Moffat creations, the monsters use a psychological 'gimmick'." in the creation section is that it implies at least two specific creations when none are named in either source. I suggest rewording the sentence to attribute the claiom to the source, saying something like "Reviewers note that Moffat uses a standard psychological gimmick..." This stops the reader from demanding that the article specify which creations. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Homage to Joss Whedon's Hush (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the Silence are clearly an homage to "The Gentleman" used in the Buffy episode "Hush" written by Joss Whedon -- of whom Steven Moffat is an avowed fan. I'm not alone in this assessment, although unsure how definitive these sources are:

• "Sure, they owed more than a passing debt to Buffy’s The Gentlemen, but Joss Whedon doesn’t have the intellectual property rights to monsters in suits, does he?" [1]
• "Definitely creepy, but does anybody feel like they are just super distorted versions of The Gentlemen from Joss Whedon’s Buffy series?" [2]
• "They look essentially identical to the Gentlemen from Buffy..." [3]

--HidariMigi (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

TWoP might be a good enough source. But I'm not confident. Are there better ones? If you could source it in reception, the comparison could even make the Lead if it's significant enough.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the TWoP recaplet would be credible as an citable source-- especially since it is also used at (partner site) Zap2It.com. I'd suggest that the Tachyon-TV site, a long-established Whovian resource, might also be appropriate. I had been holding off introducing the notion into the article itself until finding sufficient sourcing-- and to avoid inadvertently inspiring others to make the comparison, based on a Wikipedia article saying there's a connection. Ideally, I'd liked to have more high profile sources-- or a direct from Moffat acknowledging drawing inspiration from Whedon, but haven't come across something like that. However, here are a couple more reactions/reviews which come from established sites (albeit some blog-like ones):

• "They're pretty damn scary, and they remind me of The Gentleman from 'Buffy.'" TVSquad.com recap
• "..[T]hey evoked memories of The Gentlemen from TV’s BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER in the superb, award-winning 4th-season episode, “Hush”" Winds of Time Reviews
• "They’re one part The Gentlemen from Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s “Hush” (4.10)..." DorkShelf.com
• A semi-heated discussion about whether The Gentlemen inspired the Silence, at DigitalSpy.co.uk

So with all that, I'd say there's enough critical mass to assert that some reviewers compared them to The Gentlemen, noting the similar appearance and creepy nature. --HidariMigi (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviews are totally credible. But to use them it would either have to be in Reception or in very couched terms which makes it clear that reviewers have only supposed a possible influence from them. (I'm very pro-crediting Buffy its influences, wherever I can source them.) Your point about Wikitruth is very astute; I used that singular source about a dementia parallel in the River Song storyline, and a friend of mine at Oxford now wants to write a little article for a magazine about how it's a portrayal of dementia on TV. It enters an "immediate" consciousness once it's Wiki'd - this is actually why I find editing Wikipedia immensely empowering. It's a sharing of but also a conditioning of knowledge and public perception.

As to a direct source, perhaps we could tweet Moffat to ask whether he was inspired by them. If he replies, Digital Spy is bound to make a boring mini-article about it :P (I'm only semi-serious, but this is normally the case with polite people like Jane Espenson who always reply to tweets).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep something like Digital Spy is a legitimate source to use for this, as long as it goes in the reception section, which can cope with other people suggesting parallels that might not have actually been in the creators' minds at the time. (Emperor (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC))

Forums on Digital Spy are not legitimate however, which is the link given. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I was referring to a hypothetical Digital Spy article, as they have notability (which doesn't make them necessarily a reliable source but a decent one for what would always be an opinion until someone from Dr Who addresses this). I don't really think the others are much use for this though as they do tend towards being of a generally bloggy format and "someone on the Internet thinks this" isn't enough for inclusion - someone from a notable site saying it might be worth a mention. So this needs to wait until something more solid appears. (Emperor (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC))

Grey Aliens?

I'm a little surprised to see no mention of the resemblence of the Silence to the popular image of "gray aliens": http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1249&bih=537&q=grey+aliens&gbv=2&oq=grey+aliens&aq=f&aqi=g3g-m4&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=890l3043l0l3408l11l11l0l2l2l0l273l1531l0.6.3l9l0 173.17.26.178 (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Has a WP:RELIABLE source written about it? If not it would be WP:OR to include it. Heiro 22:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about greys, so the acknowledgement of the trope is not original research — otherwise that article would be up for deletion, not just revision. Since the common traits between them are entirely self-evident (gray color, extraterrestrial origin, bulbous head, etc.), it is at least warranted to link the article in a See Also section. —Malnormalulo (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That article has several issues, one of them is for original research. However, the subject looks notable, so I don't understand your argument for deletion. A link between two subjects does need a reliable source, after all if it's that obvious, someone's going to have commented Edgepedia (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The sky is blue. It would be utterly absurd to require a citation before linking the article on the color blue to the article on the sky, and that is because it is self-evident. In the same way, the similarities are clearly visible between the Silence and greys. No relationship is implied by a simple link other than that the topics are similar — an indisputable fact. It's worth including. —Malnormalulo (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between describing the property of a thing (like colour) and making a connection between two things that are similar, no matter how self-evident either of them may be. So that's a false analogy. Besides, although the similarities between the Silence and the Greys might be "indisputable" to you or me or a lot of other people, it's not that way to everyone else, and that's why a citation is required. If it's as self-evident and indisputable as we think, then someone notable (reliable source) will mention it. DonQuixote (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, let me offer a slightly different analogy. It's like requiring a citation for linking cyan to blue. The former is such a near relative of the latter that there's no sense in feeling the need to demonstrate that fact. The very close similarity is readily apparent and indisputable (in a scare-quote-free sense of the word) by rudimentary observation of the two concepts. Gray aliens are aliens which are gray, by their basic definition. They also tend to lack external features like noses and ears, have large heads, lack muscular definition. It is simple deductive reasoning (a fully objective source of information) to say that most defining traits of Greys apply to the Silence, and that therefore they are at least very similar concepts. —Malnormalulo (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your deductive reasoning, but "deductive reasoning" falls under original research, even if it is as obvious as the similarities between cyan and blue. It's okay for you to do that, but it's not okay to write that up in a Wikipedia article. The thinking of Wikipedia is that we shouldn't write about what we know but rather write about what other people (reliables sources) know. DonQuixote (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Through the strictest of definitions, yes, it is original research, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The rules are meant to facilitate the goal of Wikipedia, and are not, themselves, the goal. In writing articles, we are to follow the spirit of the rules, not the letter of them, and the spirit of this rule is that all information must be verifiable. Citation is, by and large, the typical way to verify something in a secondary source such as this, but the results of deduction are verifiable by the very deductive process itself. The similarity of the two is a simple fact, yes? In conversation, you wouldn't deny the parallels, setting aside conclusions that may be drawn from them. The denial of the similarity on the basis of a technicality is not the action of a collaborative project seeking only to collect knowledge, but of a bureaucracy (which, as we have established, Wikipedia is not). —Malnormalulo (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:NOTBLUE. The Verifiability policy specifically says that, yes, not everything needs to have a reference, but a reference must be able to be produced for everything if it is challenged. I am challenging your connection between these two. If you cannot produce a reference that specifically links them together, then the info cannot be included in the article. Silverseren^C 06:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation, citation, citation, citation, citation, citation, citation, citation, citation. It's clear that the connection has been made by many people, many times. Since all I'm proposing to include is a note that they are similar concepts, we don't need to prove a creative relationship between the concepts; all that's needed is demonstration that they are, indeed, widely recognized as being quite similar. So, there you go. On a related note, I think WP:BURO should probably be either removed or rewritten; it's clearly not true as stated (although I suppose bureaucracy is to be expected in an entity as large as Wikipedia). —Malnormalulo (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

While most of those sources are unreliable, these two are fine and do connect the subjects. See, all you had to do was present those in the first place. Silverseren^C 15:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I really have a hard time understanding how Wikipedia works as opposed to how it professes to work. I suppose my issue is that I'm a mathematician more than I am a democrat; I view observation as reflecting fact, not dictating it. Turning a blind eye to anything that isn't discussed elsewhere baffles me. I do apologize for the antagonism. —Malnormalulo (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Mainly it is because we are an encyclopedia, a compiler of already published knowledge and not a publisher of original thought. You would not believe the things that would be included here if we did not have this policy. It is readily apparent to some people that covert alien forces are conspiring with the worlds governments to install a supreme neo-fascist world corporate hegemony, but we can't exactly let them add that to articles on world politics. That may seem like an extreme example, but it's what would happen if we did not have our policies on "no original research", "no synthesis of sources to create original ideas" and "reliance on citations to reliable sources". It is a constant battle on Wikipedia to keep people from adding what they heard was true or thought was true or thought was probable. I hope this helps clear things up and I hope the above conversation doesn't put you off from editing here, we really do want new editors to stick around. If you read policy pages I just bluelinked above it will explain our thinking on these matters more fully, and hopefully give you a better understanding of our function as an encyclopedia. Heiro 01:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the design may have been inspired by Greys after all. See excerpt from The Brilliant Book 2012 I found on Amazon: [4]. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Incarnation

How do we succinctly state that when the doctor is killed it is further within his timestream but the same doctor. The phrase a later incarnation is currently used and is unhelpful as it is ambiguous whether that it is a regenerated form of the doctor or just older. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9doggy (talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Tie-in with the "cracks in the universe" & TARDIS exploding?

On the Wikipedia post about the "cracks in the universe" long story arc, it says that those who are responsible for the TARDIS exploding are responsible for everything that happened with the cracks. The entry vaguely ties The Silence to the exploding TARDIS but could this be explained further along with The Silence role in creating the cracks in the universe? It all has to do with them wanting to kill The Doctor but the cracks happened in a variety of places in the universe and don't seem to be always related to The Doctor.69.125.134.86 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's heavily implied that the Silence are behind the events of "The Pandorica Opens", although for our purposes this is original research since nothing has been explicitly stated. If you find anything that says this, it can be removed on this regard, though the "Silence will fall" line before the TARDIS explodes should be noted (though not in a way in which it implies that it was the Silence who caused it; rather, a reporting of facts). (Also, as far as we saw, the cracks appeared where the Doctor was, with the exception of what's mentioned in "The Vampires of Venice", where it is inverted and he meets the product.) Glimmer721 ^talk 00:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Greatest Monsters & Villains Weekend

The "Greatest Monsters..." thing is this currently airing countdown (decided by poll), showing an episode of each villain. Is it worth noting under Reception that they came fourth in it? – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Religious order or movement

Hi! I'm not sure how best to describe the Silence in the lede. It did say "religious order or movement" as a quote from the series, where Robot Amy described the Silence as " The Silence is not a species. It is a religious order or movement." in Let's Kill Hitler. Currently, though, it just uses "religious order" per [5]. Within the article we use both interchangeably. It's not a big deal, but I'm inclined to go with the quote from the series to provide both interpretations first, and then leave the discussion of what they are in the body. - Bilby (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I changed it back because quotes in specific episodes aren't the final determinate of what something is, especially that one ("Let's Kill Hitler") for, as you said, it was the Teselecta (Robot Amy) giving the answer, and they had incomplete knowledge at that time as to what exactly the Silence were. Also, the Silence in other articles (for example the one for "Let's Kill Hitler") is described as a religious order. That's why I added the RS (which is BBC's official Doctor Who website) to avoid any confusion. Vyselink (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Silence (Doctor Who). 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/20110426001659/http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/characters/The_Silence to http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/characters/The_Silence

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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

I just found the external links go to Page Not Found errors but something deep inside me is preventing me from fixing this. User:whophd Whophd (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

(Report bug) 04:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)