Talk:Human Nature (Doctor Who)

message: This episode is supposed to have an enimy called Jack Straws (straw men with pitchforks), im not sure but I was wondering if anyone else thought it should get a mention.--Wiggstar69 18:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Straws 

message: Is it worth mentioning that she's followed Spaced co-star Simon Pegg to Doctor Who, considering the scifi flavour of the sitcom (including a few Who references), and that it is what made the two of them famous? Kelvingreen 12:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jessica Stevenson/Spaced 

message: I've removed this image from the article because it's unclear what it illustrates.  I see a fat old guy with a mustache standing next to what looks like a black dummy or mannequin.  Unless the significance of this to the article can be explained, in the text of the article, it probably cannot be legally used in the article.  Its application appears to be purely decorative (articles look nicer if there'a a picture in them). --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Human Nature (episode).jpg]]

message: I was just wondering why Harry Lloyd isn't listed here, only on The Family of Blood page. IMDB and other places list him for his episode. Did it say somewhere that he wasn't in it? GusF 21:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry Lloyd

message: Going by when the series started this episode should have aired last Saturday?
:There were complications risen up due to the Eurovision song contest so one week Doctor who wasn't aired meaning every episode is going to be a week behind.--Wiggstar69 14:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why hasnt the page been updated yet? 

message: Does the fact that the 10th Doctor adventure 'Human Nature' is essentially a TV adaptation of the 7th Doctor Novel 'Human Nature' effectively confirm that the novels take place in a separate continuity to the TV series? Or am I reading too deep into things? Chris Evo
:I'm sure they'll find some way to keep the canon vague. Remember, the NAs have been refered to earlier on, meaning they could be canon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.2.107 (talk • contribs) 
::The way I look at it, everything Doctor Who-related is canon unless the TV series contradicts it directly. --QUADRATUS (speak to me, human) (yes i've been here) (vote saxon) 19:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Canon until contradicted, for me personally. Or canon unless just plain stupid. *cough*. --QUADRATUS (speak to me, human) (yes i've been here) (vote saxon) 08:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How the novels fit into the continuity 

message: Anyone get the feeling that the young boy, I forget his name, is also a timelord???? Hmmm just wondering. --89.240.169.111 19:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He opened the fobwatch containing the Doctor's past identity, so I suspect that as in the book he starts taking on Time Lord traits, although he is not an actual Time Lord.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk • contribs) 
This isn't really what this talkpage is for. It's for discussing what goes into the article, and speculation like that certainly can't.--Rambutan (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I apologise, I was just wondering wether this clearly vital section of the plot should be at least speculated over before someone else brings the matter to hand. Thank you for your time. --89.242.49.211 20:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not significant, his precogness is a bit like how Madame De Pompadour was able to reverse the Doctor's powers.Samx 20:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Timelord??? 

message: Do you suppose the left/right reversal is deliberate, to give the images the Doctor would have of his selves -- from having predominantly seen himself only in mirrors ?  Jheald 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left/right reversal 

message: The name John Smith has been used before (in the 1996 movie) but for some reason when I put it on the continuity section it keeps disappearing!? Help please..?
Dan-the-man278 19:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Source it.  It's worth mentioning if you can make sure it's a deliberate reference. Mark H Wilkinson 20:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's been used loads of times, that's why it's not worth mentioning.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk • contribs) 
Okay, my bad.... :)Dan-the-man278 08:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name John Smith! 

message: I know this is unciteable, but I'm very sure that the melody (which I don't know the name of) used when the girl is going down to the path is the same one used for the girl in Remembrance. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 19:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam from the Fear Factor thinks so too (or at least the tune is familiar). Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 03:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five, six, seven, eight, there's a Doctor at the gate... 

message: I've had a go at writing a plot summary compliant with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (WP:WAF).  It's "out of universe", which is a bit different from the stuff we have on most Doctor Who articles.
: The story is told partly in flashback to scenes in which the TARDIS is being pursued, under attack using some kind of energy beam weapon and the Doctor tells Martha that those who are pursuing him could trace him across the universe, and he must undergo a transformation to turn him into a human.  His Timelord configuration is stored in a pocket watch and Martha is charged with guarding it.
: As a human, John Smith, the Doctor becomes a schoolteacher in a private school in England before the Great War.  He is unaware of his previous life as a Timelord, and his character is quiet, a little timid and introspective.  He still has dreams of being a Timelord and sometimes sketches them in a notebook.  Martha is his maid.
: His pursuers finally show up on earth in an invisible spaceship and start to take kill humans and use their bodies.  They also use creatures which are apparently under their control, which resemble scarecrows, to attack and kill their victims.
: The Doctor is cajoled by the school nurse to visit a dance. Martha is distraught, noticing that she never appears in the Doctor's notebooks, and now realising that the Doctor has fallen in love with a human who is not herself.
: Meanwhile, one of the Doctor's pupils finds and takes the pocket watch.  The climax comes at a dance where the pursuers locate the Doctor.  Martha is unable to restore him to his Timelord configuration because she cannot find the pocket watch.  The pursuers crash the dance and take Martha and the nurse hostage, asking him to choose which they will kill, his friend or his lover.
It may also be said that it's very brief.  There are legal problems with blow-by-blow plot summaries, because they're essentially derived works.  I don't think this is perfect because there is too much in-universe exposition there and not enough analytical stuff. But still, it's a go. --Tony Sidaway 21:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be inclined to keep everything as it was - I've been editing Doctor Who articles for a few years now, even before I made this account, and "back then" we always had italics for episode names and long, detailed plot summaries. We never had a single legal complaint. And then people started making them shorter and vaguer. I ask, who would want to read a synopsis like that? You'll only be on the article because you want to catch up with what happened, or look at the trivia notes after watching the episode. Thus, the synopsis should cater to the desires of Group 1.--Rambutan (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If people want to catch up on what happened, they have the recourses of Torrent, YouTube, internet forums and blogs.  Wikipedia is none of these things.  A plot summary's purpose is to summarise a plot, nothing more. Sorry, but Tony's on the right lines.  Mark H Wilkinson 09:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <cough> legal. Torrent doesn't happen to be legal, and if law-abiding people wish to catch up, then what's wrong with WP helping them? That's what we're here for, to enhance people's experience of life.--Rambutan (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we're here for is to produce an encyclopedia. Gossip for fans belongs in forums.  Mark H Wilkinson 10:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sidaway and Wilkinson, teaming up to run roughshod over consensus and tradition.  Color me surprised.  -- AvatarMN 09:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that I agree that it is rather brief; if you go and look back through previous episodes, from series 1 and 2 as well as 3, the plot "summaries" were still a lot more detailed, and did give a good explanation of what actually happened in the episode. This one is a bit vague, more vaguely descriptive than explanational and detailed. One needs to bear in mind that this is an episode in its own right, and is simply based on the book, and therefore should be treated like any episode previously. E.g. look at the Rose artile from series 1; it seems impossible long compared to episode articles nowadays, and I'm not saying we need go into such detail now, but we should still try and provide a good, fairly detailed plot. Gammondog 15:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the plot summary is "more vaguely descriptive than explanational and detailed."  This is intentional.  The long blow-by-blow accounts in most of our episode articles are unencyclopedic and will need to be rewritten to conform with Wikipedia policy.  The existing content may be exported to a more suitable site such as TARDIS. --Tony Sidaway 20:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Editors on a single article or project cannot overturn a guideline, in this case Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (WP:WAF).  Since I wrote the above, the plot summary has been expanded with a massive amount of nitpicking detail, rendering it almost indigestible.  I've reverted it in order to keep this article readable and within Wikipedia policy.  --Tony Sidaway 20:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fascist crusader.  You can't win this, it's how thousands of articles on TV episodes are kept, you can't stop that many editors.  -- AvatarMN 09:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh I'm not trying to change all TV episode articles on the wiki by myself.  You'd be surprised how effective a good example can be. --Tony Sidaway 11:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing about fiction

message: Was the synopsis taken from another source? Because if it was then i'm not complaining but if it was is it maybe a bit too vague?
I just mean that it sounds too much like a blurb ie. there is too much suspense/not knowing. Should it not explain that Smith is the Doctor?
Dan-the-man278 08:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the official BBC synopsis for the episode.--Rambutan (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay yeah that's fine then :) Dan-the-man278 08:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We shouldn't be using official synopses because they're the copyright of the BBC.  All Wikipedia articles must be free, it's in the license. --Tony Sidaway 19:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis 

message: Smith's journal clearly has 'Maius intra qua extra' written on one page - Latin for 'bigger on the inside than on the outside' (sort of) and the school's motto in the original book. Is this point worth noting as a further link between novel and TV adaptation?
: That's amusing, I didn't know about that term.  This sort of thing is probably a little too nitpicky and original researchy for Wikipedia, although if someone would like to start a proper section (not one of these bulleted lists) describing the relationship between the novel and the TV episode, it might have a place in that section.  --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone did do it as a bullet list. I thought of some things to add, and tried to change it into more of an "article format" in the process. It'll probably need rewritten after part two shows how everything fits together. Daibhid C 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One page has the following: "2 A.M. I am awake.  For some reason I am utterly afraid that my watch is broken.", which, I don't know about the novel but, is a good little tidbit from the episode.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.123.87.82 (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: And for how long? 86.156.45.61 20:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that someone got annoyed at people changing Smith to John Smith all the time. Besides, you should register. :P --QUADRATUS (speak to me, human) (yes i've been here) (vote saxon) 08:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was because people kept making tenuous links to the classic series (like The Lazarus Experiment was protected because of the Master OR) Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 15:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing where, after the trailer, everyone thought John Simm'd be in 42? --QUADRATUS (speak to me, human) (yes i've been here) (vote saxon) 17:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Similarly, I protected Army of Ghosts after the squeefest after "Fear Her}" aired. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 19:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So why protected? 

message: I've copied the long, blow-by-blow version of the plot summary from the history of this article to the TARDIS wiki under the terms of the  GFDL.  The article is at wikia:tardis:Human Nature (TV story).  See the talk page of that article for license compliance information. --Tony Sidaway 14:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TARDIS

message: Okay, so the bottom of the page has a 'more information' link to the TARDIS Index File (Wikia wiki at tardis.wikia.com) but the page there has less, and some copied, information from the page we have here.
I'm all for linking to specialist Wiki's, but this seems pointless. I'll remove it unless someone gives me a very good reason. --Quadratus 08:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, no good reason. The only places I think that links to the TARDIS Index File should be are on the "List of Doctor Who Xs" pages, next to parts which have very little detail on the list but plenty on the Wikia. ~ User talk:Ghelae 08:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was rather hoping the people who keep adding cruft to the Wikipedia articles about Doctor Who might be lured there. Alas, perhaps not. --Tony Sidaway 10:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Until the TIF has a more substantial article on this episode, the link doesn't fit. I don't know what policy that was, but I know that you are only allowed to link to a different wiki if it contains substantially more information than the wikipedia article does. --Quadratus 10:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh I do agree. While there are some articles on TARDIS that are more complete or better written than their Wikipedia counterparts, the articles on newer episodes are far less complete, and are usually just placeholders like this one.  Removing it was the right thing to do.  --Tony Sidaway 11:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TARDIS Index File link. 

message: Somebody removed a comment about Tim seeing Martha through the Doctor's eyes because they were "citing a 10 year old boy" (namely, Samuel from the fear factor page). Behold the actual quote:
Tim follows Martha, and when she bumps into him he starts to see her through the Doctor's eyes. "He's got the Time Lord thing!" declares Samuel, amazed.
So it isn't 'citing a 10 year old boy' at all. It's citing the person describing what's happening in the episode.
:Exactly. The description comes from whoever compiled the page for the BBC, not the kid himself. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry! It was me who removed the sentence. Misread the Fear Factor bit. I think it's wrong by the way; When does the Doctor see Martha like that and what is Tim doing in the flashback? --OZOO (vote saxon) 18:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know yet, but I'm guessing it's a premonition, like the battle scene. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 18:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "citing a 10 year old boy" 

message: Is it just me, or was that John Simm playing one of the schoolmasters? Gallifreyan Summoner 23:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presently, it's just you.  Mark H Wilkinson 07:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Presently? Gallifreyan Summoner 18:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Simm 

message: The two images from A Journal of Impossible Things, both used in this article, are current up for deletion on an either/or basis at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 13. Although I grant that they are similar, they illustrate different points and are both specifically discussed in the text, here and on the Doctor Who items page. Other editors may want to weigh in on whether they are both justified under fair use. I personally think that they are. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 22:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting us know. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 06:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Didn't we use to have a different image for the plot summary? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 07:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there were a number of them we cycled through, especially before air date.  There was definitely a scarecrow group shot at one time. It's probably been deleted by now. Something like that would probably be better from the plot summary than either of the Journal images. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 07:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm rather for keeping the full journal image for illustrating the continuity note: it's a damn sight more useful than trying to describe Smith's scribbles, and it's a significant note from the POV of the series history. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just been examining procedure.  Whoever made the nomination has been in too much of a hurry to actually follow procedure by alerting the original uploader and adding all necessary notices etc.  I've made a comment in the nomination discussion to that effect. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 11:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done!  Will you be notifying Sceptre, since the IP did not? --Karen | Talk | contribs 12:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If it's invalid, can't we just wipe it? It's not our responsibility to go round mopping up other people's messes.--Rambutan (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had wondered about that.  It might be better to ask at the relevant talk page instead of blundering in and deleting stuff (it might be an admin's responsibility) -- besides, while it's still there, we at least get to be seen to be playing fair. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've notifyed Sceptre.--OZOO (What?) 12:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that.  There's an actual Doctor Who marathon on UKTVdrama today, and I'm trying to concentrate on that. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't do screenshots, but I agree that ultimately the remaining image should go back into Continuity and something else into Plot summary. Smith and Joan would be fine, or scarecrows attacking Mr Clark or Lucy, or the chameleon arch sequence, or Tim and the watch, or Baines and the spaceship would all be good. --Karen | Talk | contribs 18:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm, that doesn't actually follow.  Images are allowed to be used for more than one article, provided there's a valid fair use rationale for each article. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What I mean is, using a picture of a book (The picture used isn't even from the episode, but from a website), on both pages, seems like overkill, when a picture showing an event from the episode could be used instead.(Black Dalek 12:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image provides a useful illustration of an important metatextual moment in the new series history.  I'm not sure an image from the episode could trump that. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 14:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What I'm trying to say is: the better version (Showing Doctors 9 and 10) is already on the list of items, so why do we need the cut down version with the plot summary. Sorry if I'm being awarkward, but I still belive an another picture would be better for the plot summary. No offense.(Black Dalek 18:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images for deletion 

message: In the Seventh Doctor episode "Delta and the Bannermen" the Doctor encounters a sort of time-tourist company that is taking some aliens called "Navarinos" (sp?) to 1950's Earth Disneyland. The Doctor is concerned that they will stand out because they are "squat wrinkly purpley creatures".  The tour guide assures the Doctor that all will be fine since the Navarinos have been through a "Transformation Arch", and we see wonderfully cheesy rubber suit alien transformed into a human.  Perhaps worth a mention under the Continuity section? Or is that too tenuous?Zozoz (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delta and the Bannermen 

message: It seems to me that Tennant's accent as John Smith is different from his regular Doctor Who "Estuary" accent. Can someone shed any light on this? 24.46.159.137 (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Smith's Accent 

message: This article appears to be full of original research and trivia. The sections Continuity, Comparison with the novel, and Historic and cultural references in particular appear to be entirely someone's analysis of the plot that is not sourced from anywhere, and is frequently entirely speculative.  Original research is not permitted in Wikipedia, so this should either be cited from an reliable source or removed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full of Original Research 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Human Nature (Doctor Who). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701182612/http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/ebooks/human_nature/adaptation.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/ebooks/human_nature/adaptation.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Human Nature (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/20080324200739/http://www.denvention.org/hugos/08hugonomlist.php to http://www.denvention.org/hugos/08hugonomlist.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Human Nature (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/20110720192140/http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2007/05/doctor-who-38-human-nature/ to http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2007/05/doctor-who-38-human-nature/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified