Talk:Cyberman

message: 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)
thread_title: Cybermat

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: New look

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2006 Reboot? 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Warped minds think alike? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Must be something like that :) Tim! (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page order 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Deconstruction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *Could* have come from Pete's world... It's most likely.Father Shandor 20:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Army of Ghosts]]/[[Doomsday (Doctor Who)|Doomsday]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cyber controller 

message: 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)
replies: text: How about a direct link or copy to here of the criticisms for others to read. GraemeLeggett 16:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is in the failed fac box. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed FAC

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Parallel Earth/Cybus Industries

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Connection to ''[[The Avengers (TV series)|The Avengers]]'' episodes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image clean-up 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cyber Vomit 

message: 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)
thread_title: Borg

message: 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)
replies: text: I believe that was the Judoon blasters. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Series 3 Trailer

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  cyber drone 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cyberwars 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Conceptual History" lacks new series info 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Original (Mondasian/Telosian) vs. New Series (Cybus/Parallel Universe) Cybermen data 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page History Problem 

message: 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)
replies: text: Since there was no objections, i'll remove it. Thanks TheProf07 (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borg vs. Cybermen 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Human (not Humans), Dalek (not Daleks)... Races are always titled singular.  — Edokter • Talk •  12:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: In that case, the race is indeed "Cyberman", as race is never plural.  — Edokter • Talk •  21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cyberlords 

message: 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)
replies: text: At least nothing else has been indicated. --Cameron* 15:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Christmas Special "Titles" Making The Rounds

message: From Balaclavas to Jumpsuits: The Multiple Histories and Identities of Doctor Who’s Cybermen by Lincoln Geraghty, University of Portsmouth~ZytheTalk to me! 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Above link broken, try http://www.atlantisjournal.org/ARCHIVE/30.1/2008Geraghty.pdf. HairyWombat (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascinating article for anyone interested in improving this one 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cybershades 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The process 

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:Cybermat.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fictional history should be replaced with a real-world perspective summary 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Earthshock is set after Revenge - Evidence. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  futer and past desingns 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Interesting. Thanks for the explanation ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Version history?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mad Norwegian reference 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Telos 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Update File:Cybermen costumes.jpg 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Delete! 

message: 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  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 01:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Delete!]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]