Talk:Near-human: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
m (Sorry for having to do this, but I'm being forced to change my sig, and clean up after it, by Wikia Staff) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:Nope, I just added it for convenience. -<[[User:Azes13|Azes13]] 14:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)>- | :Nope, I just added it for convenience. -<[[User:Azes13|Azes13]] 14:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)>- | ||
::I find it hard to believe that the term has ''never'' been used anywhere in the great body of DW fiction. I don't know of an instance offhand, but surely it must've been used in some novel or BFA. The problem with the article, though, is the way in which some part of the DWU has defined the difference between a near-human and a humanoid, so if anyone comes across a reference, please list it here. It's hard to know what species to include in the article if we don't have a valid defintion from canon. Personally, I think it's that a near human is someone who is externally indistinguishable from a human, so even those with slight differences, like Logopolitans and Futurekind, aren't near-human. But I don't really have any DWU ref to back that up. So I just quietly removed those two species from the article, pending the discovery of a definition that allows them back in. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}'''17:12:09 Mon '''13 Jun 2011 </span> | |||
==Unnecessary image== | |||
I removed the image of Sarah Jane as unnecessary as the article is about near-humans. Having her there not only confuses the issue, but suggests at first glance that Sarah is herself near-human, which isn't the case. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 19:21, January 8, 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Opinion: About this cliché == | |||
This is, in my honest opinion, the single WORST cliché in D.W, if not in all of science fiction. The idea that an almost identical humanoid organism could independently evolve on another planet is ludicrous. It's fine if there is ''some'' distinction (such as star trek's klingons or the time-lord's internal ability to re-incarnate) but if they look 100% identical such as the [[Drahvin|Drahvins]] or the [[Segonaxian|Segonaxians]] it is absolutely in-excusable. In fact, I think one of the un-written rules of sci-fi should be that all alien races should have at least '''SOME''' distinction between humans, either internally or externally. Who agrees? - [[User:Tehtumpi|Tehtumpi]] <sup>[[User talk:Tehtumpi|talk to me]]</sup> 22:38, December 24, 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:28, 28 August 2012
Is this term actually used?[[edit source]]
I've only ever come across the term "near-Human" in Star Wars contexts: is it actually used in Doctor Who as well? —Silly Dan (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, I just added it for convenience. -<Azes13 14:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)>-
- I find it hard to believe that the term has never been used anywhere in the great body of DW fiction. I don't know of an instance offhand, but surely it must've been used in some novel or BFA. The problem with the article, though, is the way in which some part of the DWU has defined the difference between a near-human and a humanoid, so if anyone comes across a reference, please list it here. It's hard to know what species to include in the article if we don't have a valid defintion from canon. Personally, I think it's that a near human is someone who is externally indistinguishable from a human, so even those with slight differences, like Logopolitans and Futurekind, aren't near-human. But I don't really have any DWU ref to back that up. So I just quietly removed those two species from the article, pending the discovery of a definition that allows them back in.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 17:12:09 Mon 13 Jun 2011
- I find it hard to believe that the term has never been used anywhere in the great body of DW fiction. I don't know of an instance offhand, but surely it must've been used in some novel or BFA. The problem with the article, though, is the way in which some part of the DWU has defined the difference between a near-human and a humanoid, so if anyone comes across a reference, please list it here. It's hard to know what species to include in the article if we don't have a valid defintion from canon. Personally, I think it's that a near human is someone who is externally indistinguishable from a human, so even those with slight differences, like Logopolitans and Futurekind, aren't near-human. But I don't really have any DWU ref to back that up. So I just quietly removed those two species from the article, pending the discovery of a definition that allows them back in.
Unnecessary image[[edit source]]
I removed the image of Sarah Jane as unnecessary as the article is about near-humans. Having her there not only confuses the issue, but suggests at first glance that Sarah is herself near-human, which isn't the case. 23skidoo 19:21, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
Opinion: About this cliché[[edit source]]
This is, in my honest opinion, the single WORST cliché in D.W, if not in all of science fiction. The idea that an almost identical humanoid organism could independently evolve on another planet is ludicrous. It's fine if there is some distinction (such as star trek's klingons or the time-lord's internal ability to re-incarnate) but if they look 100% identical such as the Drahvins or the Segonaxians it is absolutely in-excusable. In fact, I think one of the un-written rules of sci-fi should be that all alien races should have at least SOME distinction between humans, either internally or externally. Who agrees? - Tehtumpi talk to me 22:38, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
