Talk:Near-human: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
m (moved Talk:Near-Human to Talk:Near-human: upholding tardis:Manual of Style#Human) |
|||
| 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}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">'''17:12:09 Mon '''13 Jun 2011 </span> | |||
==Unnecessary image== | ==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) | 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) | ||
Revision as of 17:12, 13 June 2011
Is this term actually used?
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 /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">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
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)
