Talk:Human Nature (Doctor Who)

Jack Straws

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)

Are they those wierd thing with the bags over their heads that were in the extended trailer? Because they didn't look like they had pitchforks or anything...--Sekhmort 19:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

no there just some scarecrows made of straws posessed by aliens, 28 may 2007

Jessica Stevenson/Spaced

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)

Image:Human Nature (episode).jpg

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)

I completely agree, even if the shot appears in this episode. This is a two part story therefore it could appear in either. It's the same situation as the debate over the Mr Saxon photos in the Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords--MrWez 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How about that shot of David tennant with that device on his head whlist screaming?. Illstrustes the plot quite well. It also makes sense that it would be in this episode(81.79.14.199 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)).

Harry Lloyd

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)

Army of Ghosts Clip

In, what looks like a dream. a clip from Army of Ghosts when the doctor is looking for the cybermen withe sonic scrwdriver

What? There's a clip in the story where the Doctor recalls something from Army of Ghosts? Possible, given the story's events.

Why hasnt the page been updated yet?

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)

How the novels fit into the continuity

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)

Good luck reconciling the various 8th Doctor stories.

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)

Personally, I think that both stories could fit into the canoncity. The 10th Doctor just have to become human like the 7th Doctor for the same reasons, just different companions. The Core-Man 13:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

BBC Fear Factor

So what's up with all the repeated references to classic stories on the BBC fear factor preview?

   There a refrence to "The Master" in the fact file

There's a reference to the fact he once dressed up as a scarecrow, doesn't mean he's coming back.

Another Timelord???

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Ten Doctors

Is there any chance of getting a screen grab of the notebook page featuring the past Doctors? I think it would be a useful addition to the page, given that it's the first time we've seen any of them in the new series. Kelvingreen 19:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not this early. One'll probably appear tomorrow, but by then I'll be on holiday! Muahhahaha!--Rambutan (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who keeps removing ((fact)) from the note about the previous Doctors, because it's there on screen for all to see, so I'm not sure why it needs a citation. But I won't remove it again, if you think it needs to be there Rambutan. Kelvingreen 19:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a pic on an Outpost Gallifrey thread (as the site's very slow right now it's quicker to provide the image URL): http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p7/lifegrown/OG/doctors.jpg

Big Question; Bottom Left: Colin or Tom? --OZOO (vote saxon) 20:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks more like a hurried Tom; if he was doing Colin he would have done the hair lighter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk)

It could be either, although I'd lean to Tom. However, the BBC site says it's Colin. One good way to check for sure is to see if we can find the original picture; the sketches appear to be based on photos of the Doctors (particularly McCoy, Hartnell and the Mysterious Baker). Kelvingreen 21:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:10dr19.jpg

Looks like the sketches were based on these images, so based on that, I'd say the BBC trivia page is right, and it is Colin Baker. Kelvingreen 21:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Check this out : http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h101/DoomsdayZone/WHOWHO.gif

Could you make that a little slower? The way it flashes now makes the sketches quite hard to see. Or at least give us the sketch and the photo frame seperately. --QUADRATUS _{(speak to me, human)} ^{(yes i've been here)} _{(vote saxon)} 23:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not made by me, found it on another forum.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.144.222 (talk • contribs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Doctors.jpg The hair and the nose look more like Tom to me. Doctornumberfour

Compare the sketch with the picture of Colin Baker from above. It's been mirrored, but it's clearly him rather than Tom. Kelvingreen 14:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the new BBC page? DW home page, 30/5/07 You can see the full page of the notebook (if you're quick). Can see all the other doctors pictured. Tom Baker is clearly one of the others; Also: I reckon they are all taken from the Ten Doctors collage. Anyone any good at freezing shots, so we can keep the full version? Gwinva 12:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just press [Print Screen] and--voila--you copy it to your clipboard. Anyway, here's the image. http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa131/DonQuixoteWiki/HumanNatureJournal.jpg DonQuixote 14:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. Does everyone agree that the images match http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:10dr19.jpg ? Too much of a coincidence for them to be chosen independantly, surely? Can we use the full image on this page or must we stick with a screengrab? Gwinva 15:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's quite obvious that the journal pictures are taken from the photo collage. Kelvingreen 20:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The two-page version with the ten Doctors is shown in the Continuity section (and should be, based on the context), but people keep changing the screen grab in the Plot section as well. Please leave the screen grab in Plot, both per the style guide and because it more accurately reflects what happened on screen. Also, the description used is important both informationally and for fair use purposes. Please do not shorten it or change it to a quote. Thanks! -- Karen | Talk | contribs 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need the journal picture twice? Surely the jounral picture could go with the contintity notes, with another picture for the plot summary?(Black Dalek 11:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)).

Left/right reversal

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)

john smith/smith

In the cast list somebody's changing 'Smith' to read 'John Smith'. The cast list is a list of the cast and how they were credited, so it should stay as 'The Doctor/Smith'.

The cast list also removes the first names of Baines. We're also going for clarity; putting in "John Smith" is clear than "Smith", as John Smith is a frequent alias of the Doctor, while Smith is best known for the Matrix character. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 20:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not going to be immediately obvious? The cast list is the list of cast members and their roles from the episode.

It has been changed to John Smith again; can somebody please change it back to just Smith?

I personally think that it should just read 'Smith', as that was how he was credited. I'm proceeding to chamge it back - Weebiloobil 15:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Verity and Sidney

The reference is obvious, but why? Is this supposed to imply that the Doctor is not real even within the fictional world of the series? It would certainly explain a few things, like why the Doctor doesn't mend the TARDIS' chameleon circuit. -88.109.254.28 19:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's a simple reference to the show's creators.

Its just a fun reference. 86.153.145.144 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt that's the intent of the production team, so I wouldn't think too hard about it! It's just a neat reference for those who know about Who. Kelvingreen 21:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cant believe anybody is actually reading anything into that. It was just an in-joke that the fans would laugh at, like Mister Saxon being an anagram of Master no Six. Theres nothing deeper to it.

Or that it's an anagram of Master No Sox, which I hope is unintentional. --QUADRATUS _{(speak to me, human)} ^{(yes i've been here)} _{(vote saxon)} 08:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In the book, interestingly, John Smith remembers Verity as a lost girlfriend, but she's actually a symbol of everything about being the Doctor that Smith couldn't remember, but which wouldn't go into the biodata module. This is a double-pun, the Verity Lambert reference, and also "verity" meaning "truth". Daibhid C 20:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Name John Smith!

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)

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)

Its been used as far back as Patrick Troughtans Doctors. 86.153.145.144 19:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Five, six, seven, eight, there's a Doctor at the gate...

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)

It certainly is the same. 86.153.145.144 19:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Writing about fiction

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)

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)

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)

<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)

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)

Sidaway and Wilkinson, teaming up to run roughshod over consensus and tradition. Color me surprised. -- AvatarMN 09:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That 'flash'.

When Martha runs into the little kid (who has the watch) there's a quick flash of her doing the exact same thing, just contemporary. Is this in any of the previous episodes, does it signal that the kid is starting to inhabit the ability to time travel? Is this in the book?

Also, should differences between the novel and this episode be mentioned? --QUADRATUS _{(speak to me, human)} ^{(yes i've been here)} _{(vote saxon)} 21:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a flash of when Martha bumped into the "tieless" Doctor in Smith and Jones is it not?

No, it's not, because he didn't actually bump into her in that. (The bumping was with the Slab.) But the implication is certainly a memory of a 21st century encounter of some sort, something that, like the battle scene, may not have happened yet. But like so much of this, it's still too speculative to put in now. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 05:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was just a way of signalling the kid's awareness that Martha was from the future - seeing as how he seems to have some psychic sensitivity. PaulHammond 10:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

2007

The Doctor implies that Martha is from 2007, is this a significant continuity note? I can't remember if it was said before. -- AvatarMN 03:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Actually, he said that his dream featured Martha and himself in 2007...as in the scenes that we see in The T.A.R.D.I.S. after they've run into it away from The Family are set in 2007...as in sometime between 42 and Human Nature's 1913 scenes, the two visited 2007. Why is irrelevant, but they did! [User: Stripey].

It's going to be UNIT all over again... Martha says in Utopia that the Cardiff earthquake, which happened in September 2006, was a couple of years ago (Friday Night with Jonathan Ross clip). My two interpretations are that:

1. He's going by the airdate of the episode
2. He's also dreaming of the second season episodes, which take place in 2007.

Take from that what you will. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 03:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, Rose could've been set in 2004, making Aliens of London 2005, The Runaway Bride 2006, etc. I can't remember though - was Rose explicity stated to be set in 2005? ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The section on Rose's age lays out the somewhat contradictory timeline of the first two seasons pretty well. -- AvatarMN 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't do this fan stuff on Wikipedia. Doctor Who is a work of fiction written by writers, who are real and human and make mistakes. If you find some unsourced speculation about Rose Tyler's age or anything else on Wikipedia, remove it at once. --Tony Sidaway 02:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So, if I find anything else on Wikipedia, I should remove it? But that's vandalism? :P --QUADRATUS _{(speak to me, human)} ^{(yes i've been here)} _{(vote saxon)} 17:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Anything else" is a clause governed by the word "about". --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure in Series 1 it was mentioned it was set in 2005. In Aliens of London Rose and the Doctor speak about what she misses out on in the year. Either way the Doctor Who universe is set 1 year in advance.--°wɧoɳɪvɛʀsɜ 00:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis

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)

It's the official BBC synopsis for the episode.--Rambutan (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay yeah that's fine then :) Dan-the-man278 08:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Trivia

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)

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)

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)

So why protected?

And for how long? 86.156.45.61 20:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Plot section

I wrote this section of the plot summary:

This episode establishes Martha's love for the Doctor, her devotion to him, and her anxieties about being a distant competitor to the mysterious Rose, and now Joan Redfern.

It was removed by Anguirus111 with the edit summary "I doubt this edit needs explanation".

Actually while I don't mind the edit being removed, I do think it needs an explanation. --Tony Sidaway 11:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't get why it was removed, it certainly isn't obvious to me, I thought it described an underlying theme in the episode quite well. (Long time reader, first time commentor, so apologies if I'm posting this incorrectly!) Helen Murdock 14:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that it was probably removed because it's kind of a subjective statement. Martha says something like 'The Doctor's gone and fallen in love and it's with someone who isn't me' - so from this we can determine that Martha is in love with the Doctor. Nowhere is there a mention of her devotion to him or her anxieties about being a distant competitor to Rose or Joan Redfern.

Sure yeah it seems kind of obvious but it's still interpretive and... just doesn't sound right, to me, for an encyclopedia article. That's my theory on the removal-that-need-not-be-explained. --user.lain 07:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the party. I mainly got rid of it because it seemed out of place in the plot section of the article.--Anguirus111 06:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That and I thought fangirl wrote it, sorry Tony. You can put it back in if you like, it just seemed very extraneous to me.--Anguirus111 06:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not put it in if others find it inappropriate. It's along the lines of some stuff I've been doing with other Doctor Who article plots. The idea is that I attempt to describe the plot in a way that's compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines, rather than just following the "He said, she said, then the monster appeared and then he hit the monster and she jumped on it" recipe.

The statement is pretty uncontroversial, I think--though perhaps some editors might quail a little bit at the use of the word "love" here, and the I'd settle for devotion. Here she is, feeling perhaps like the unnamed narrator in Rebecca, perpetually in the shadow of the Doctor's beloved Rose, of whose exploits she only catches glimpses, and of whose relationship with the Doctor she can only imagine. And the Doctor turns now, not to her, but to another woman. Adrift in time, without even her companion to confide in, she is the loneliest person in the world. I think we can agree to put at least some of that into the article, because from the point of view of Martha's character development, that is what the story is about. --Tony Sidaway 08:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's rather cleaner, and more encyclopaedic, for the plot summary section not to blur objective plot summary with more subjective story analysis. As I have written elsewhere, an appropriate model for us to take would be a serious resource like the British Film Institute's Sight and Sound magazine's articles of record on films, see eg for The Lives of Others or Zodiac (spoilers!). These articles start with plot summaries giving a straight, "in-universe" summary of what is seen on screen, with analysis and discussion held over to the review which follows. It seems to me that this is useful to readers, by clearly separating a summary of what is actually shown on screen treated separately from anyone's take on it. I think it may be helpful for WP also - in particular wrt point of view and verifiability concerns, by separating out material which can be verified from the work itself, from comment and analysis which may need to be supported by other sources.

Of course, quite correctly per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (WP:WAF), it is important that the article as a whole present a detached and analytical "out-of-universe" perspective. But as the S&S articles demonstrate, a straight unvarnished summary of what is seen is entirely compatible with retaining this critical distance, particularly when it is clearly sectioned off and headlined "Synopsis" – or, in our case, "Plot Summary".

Interestingly, Tony, you seemed to accept this point when I raised it at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler#Non-encyclopedic?, writing "This is good thinking. We can probably go with this." -- your only concern being that the summaries should not be so long and so detailed as to constitute copyright infringements ((a "significant taking" from the original work, as UK copyright law puts it)). Jheald 09:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I found the point intriguing, but the situation with the Doctor Who episode articles is that they contain incredibly robotic and frankly unreadable plot summaries--the current episode is very much an exception.

I take your point about the danger of introducing subjective elements, but one can take caution too far. Martha finds herself alone, and expresses anxiety that the Doctor had not planned for the eventuality of his leaving her for another woman. This is literally what she fears. It is also shown each time the mysterious Rose is mentioned, that she feels herself to be always in Rose's shadow. So finding the right words can take some time and discussion, but it is possible to describe character development objectively. Since it can be done, I see no reason not to make the attempt. --Tony Sidaway 10:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

TARDIS

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)

TARDIS Index File link.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

picture being used

The picture being used in the plot summary is taken from the BBC website and not the episode itself. I'm for changing it back to the picture of the journal actually from the episode.

"citing a 10 year old boy"

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)

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)

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)

John Simm

Is it just me, or was that John Simm playing one of the schoolmasters? Gallifreyan Summoner 23:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Presently, it's just you. Mark H Wilkinson 07:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Presently? Gallifreyan Summoner 18:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Images for deletion

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)

Thanks for letting us know. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 06:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we use to have a different image for the plot summary? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Well done! Will you be notifying Sceptre, since the IP did not? --Karen | Talk | contribs 12:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I've notifyed Sceptre.--OZOO (What?) 12:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Since the close-up shot of the Journal of Impossible Things has been deleted (and I reluctantly agree that having two images of the journal was redundant), I think we should get a different screenshot for this episode. (The remaining picture, from the BBC website, can remain under "Continuity".) I'd suggest a shot of John Smith and Joan, perhaps from the scene where they're in his study and he's showing her the journal. Anyone care to make a screenshot? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

I agree that the image currently used, the journal is just on this page as novelty that this episode showed an image of all the past Doctors. The image has little to do with the Doctor becoming human and leading a normal life in 1913. In my opinion in recent light of the significance to the watch later in the series, I suggest actually an image of the Doctor with the watch, either as the Doctor at the beginning of the episode, or as John Smith.--Brinstar 10:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This image is already being used on List of Doctor Who items, so a different picture should be ued for the episdoe page.(Black Dalek 10:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)).

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)

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))

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)

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))

Some technical matters

The text "The recent Second Boer War and the subsequent British occupation of South Africa" is wrong, at least technically. I'm just not sure if it amounts to quibbling in this context.

Here are the problems:-

- Britain didn't occupy South Africa, just the Boer Republics (South Africa only existed as a geographical expression until the end of the war was finalised with union/vereeniging).

- The occupation wasn't subsequent to the war, it was part of it and ended when the war did.

- A large British presence continued, of course, but not as an occupation, at least technically.

Is there a less misleading way of phrasing all this? P.M.Lawrence

Delta and the Bannermen

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)

John Smith's Accent

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)

Full of Original Research

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human Nature (Doctor Who). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 (Report bug) 10:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 (Report bug) 12:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)