Talk:Spitting Image/Archive 1

Archive 1

A note

No. of series 18? can you prove this? It does seem there were only in fact 12 at the very most! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.127.126 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The recent Series 6 DVD has only five episodes on it instead of the whole eleven episodes that aired in 1989. The next seven will presumably be released as Series 7 rather than "Series 6.5". The DVDs themselves say there were eighteen series anyway, and as the episodes are coming from the copyright holders, I'm sure Network was told how many series they'd be releasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.139.86 (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Another note

Could the US show Crank Yankers be considered to be influenced by Spitting Image? Rhymeless 00:35, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the puppets, it seems closer in (visual) style to Sesame Street, which predates Spitting Image by years; besides, Spitting Image wasn't shown in America. Also, "be considered to be" is clumsy. You should have said "Could it be said that the US show Crank Yankers was influenced by Spitting Image?". Also, what was the world like back in May 2004? Was the world any different then, were people different? It's odd talking to somebody from the past. Also, -Ashley Pomeroy 21:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Russian Spitting image info found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/s/spittingimage_7775945.shtml.

Kopspijkers is not spitting image related: The imitations only last for about 10% of the show.

I remember Norman Tebbit wanted to buy a leather jacket until he saw his puppet wearing one. Also, I seem to remember him buying, or wanting to buy, the puppet of himself. Can anyone verify this?Nfras 04:02, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sptting Image was shown in America during Reagan's period of office. They did three shows for NBC with David Frost as a producer and Tony Hendra (the manager in Spinal Tap and an early collaborator in the UK Spitting Image) as chief writer. The series bombed, mostly due to interference with the scripts. There were also puppets made for series in other European countries.

This was shown in Canada, and was wildly popular there during the 80s. --Kickstart70·Talk 22:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't there a Spitting Image Academy Award's Special show in the US one year featuring Mr. Spock? --Slapout 19:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't vouch for the Tebbit anecdote but I remember Michael Heseltine wanting to buy his puppet. Roger Law said he could have it for nothing on one condition: it had to be delivered to 10 Downing Street in a coffin. Surprisingly, this offer was never taken up

According to the "Tooth & Claw" Spitting Image book, Norman Tebbitt liked his puppet but didn't like the fact it wore a leather jacket as he was planning to buy one. Also, it mentions Michael Hestletine, but rather than delivering the puppet in a coffin, Roger Law said he could have the puppet if Hestletine "stopped using cruise missles". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.130.102 (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Although the original assistant of Fluck and Law in their work as illustrators (they aren't really cartoonists) Steve Bendelack wasn't a caricaturist as such. In the early days he must have done an awful lot for Roger and Pete but on the tv show his main contribution (before his heady rise to stardom) was in the paint shop.

The recent attempted revival of the show did not fail due to Roger's lack of involvement (he was asked to do a feasability study and spent some time talking to former senior Spits employees). It fell through due to difficulties and complications in finance. Spitting Image was a very expensive show to produce.

Spitting Image/Split Image/Spit and Image

Can anyone explain how a Deep South American saying propagated itself across the UK and Ireland, Australia, India, Canada etc? And how does that explain the use of the term "the very spit of him" in the early 1800's, "spit and image" in the late 1850's and the Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs listing its origin at least as far back as 1400's (regarding fathers 'spitting out' their sons) pre-dating "spirit and image" by ooo, say half a millenium at least. The idea that English immigrants would travel to the US, create a phrase, bastardise it through the accent, then have sufficient enough influence to return the phrase to not only their homeland - but to every English speaking country of the Commonwealth (and that simultaneously France and Germany would create identical sayings) before the invention of radio and proliferation of literacy is absurd. I find it amusing therefore someone states the alternative origins are given 'perhaps too glibly'. Perhaps the author should consider that the origin of the term may well lie with the original inventors of the language instead of attributing it to a "foreign" nation.

The truth of the matter is that traditional sayings often have more 'coarse' origins than they're given credit for and it's entirely likely 'spit', whilst referring literally to saliva (or in other words 'physical', but not our flesh), probably was something of a coarse reference to ejaculation. Children then would literally be formed of the very 'spit'. The fact "he's the very image" is common on its own, as is the use of "the very spit" to mean the same thing (i.e. to look alike, be alike, take after etc) suggests "spirit" is far fetched. Especially as "he's the very spirit of his father" if used, isn't popularised. And if we're talking 'corruptions' of words - it'd be more amusing to say it came from "spit" came from "spurt". no?

---

In his audacious (not to say outlandish) paper on "The Madonna's Conception through the Ear" Ernest Jones makes a similar point. The mouth is most frequently seen as a female (receptive) organ, he states. "It's capacity, however, to emit fluids (saliva and breath), and the circumstance of its containing the tongue... render it also suitable for portraying a male aperture; the idea of spitting, in particular, is one of the commonest symbolisms in folk-lore for the male act (hence, for the instance, the expression "the very spit of his father")".

So the impulse to spit, which is both expressed and held in check by the nervous cough, may symbolise ejaculation.

---

"Spitting image" is first recorded in 1901; "spit and image" is a bit older (from the late 19th century), which seems to refute the explanation "splitting image" (two split halves of the same tree). An older British expression is "He's the very spit of his father", which Eric Partridge, in his Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (Routledge, 1950) traces back to 1400: "He's ... as like these as th'hads't spit him." Other languages have similar expressions; e.g., the French say C'est son pere tout crache = "He is his father completely spat." Alternative explanations are "so alike that even the spit out of their mouths is the same"

---

Several phrases have been used down the years to indicate that one person is the exact likeness of another: 'spitten image', 'spit and image', 'the very spit of', 'dead spit for'. There aretwo main theories about this, both of which suggest that our modern phrase is, via one or other of these forms, a corruption of 'spit and image'. This contains the even older 'spit' which existed by itself in phrases like "He's the very spit of his father". The dispute comes over the origin of 'spit'. One view is that it's the same as our usual meaning of liquid ejected from the mouth, perhaps meaning that one person is as like the other as though he'd been spat out by him.But another view is that 'spit' here is an abbreviation of 'spirit', suggesting that someone is sosimilar to another as to be identical in mind as well as body.

---

traces the phrase back further: "The germ of the idea behind this phrase has been traced back to 1400 by Partridge, who cites the early example, 'He's .as like these as th' hads't spit him.' Similarly, in England and the southern U.S., the expression 'he's the very spit of his father' is commonly heard. This may mean 'he's as like his father as if he had been spit out of his mouth,'

---

Spitting Image is an expression that lacks a clear consensus as to its origin. The Morris' (Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins) cite one authority who thinks that spit in this context comes from the Anglo-Saxon spittan, meaning "to eject from the mouth," and that the phrase means 'speaking likeness'. He quotes a source dating back to 1602 to support this notion. Harold Wentworth in the American Dialect Dictionary take a different view. He has documented a common phrase in the Southern United States, "He's the very spit of his father ," and suggested that 'spit' is probably derived from 'spirit'. His reasoning is the tendency of Southern dialect to soften or lose the letter 'r'. Thus, spitting image would have originated as the spirit and image. Hey, you be the judge.

Excerpt

spitting image n. A perfect likeness or counterpart. [Alteration of spit and image, from spit, an exact likeness, as in the very spit of. . . .]

—The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000

A child who bears a striking resemblance to a parent is frequently referred to as a ['spItn 'Imd] of that parent, orthographically represented variously as X is the spitting image/spittin' image/spit and image of Y. But which of these (if any) is the original representation, and which the altered form and imperfect likeness?

---

Is it "spitting image" or "spittin' image" or "splitting image" —and why?

—Norma Brown, Denver

We vote for "spittin' image." Some scholars contend the phrase is a corruption of the term "spit and image," meaning so-and-so is so much like someone else that he could have been spit out of that person's mouth. Others suggest that the original phrase was "spirit and image," as in "he's the very spirit and image of his father," identical in spirit as well as in looks. The latter seems a bit more genteel, don't you think? In any case, the g should be silent.

We return below to Brown's genteel alternative, splitting image, and the role of the silent g.

---

Halma, 176: Hij gelijkt zijnen vader als of hij uit desselfs troonie gesneeden was; Tuinman I, 89. Te vergelijken is nog Campen, 76: Hy is hem also gelyck, als oft hy hem wt der huyd ghesneden waere, dat bij Agricola luidt, 639: Er ist yhm also ehnlich, als were er yhm aus der haut geschnitten. Thans zegt men in het nd. dat Kind is sinen Vater ût de Ogen krôpen (Mecklenburg); hd. einem wie aus den Augen (of aus dem Gesicht) geschnitten sein; eng. I'm sure he is the very moral of you, as like as if he had been spit of your own mouth (Smollet; zie Prick, 2); he is the very spit of his father; in het Friesch: hja is hir mem ut 'e mûle stapt, eig. zij is haar moeder uit den mond gestapt; in Vlaanderen: 't Is zijn vader gedraaid en gesponnen of gewisseld en gedraaid (De Cock1, 225).

---

For the majority of language columnists,1 spittin' image is a euphemistic alteration or "corruption" of the original expression, spit and image:

---

So, in conclusion, I think you'll find the general consensus is "spirit and image" is the answer given 'too glibly'.

Apologies for the extended slashing of the comment.--82.42.56.236 22:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Sincerely, Koncorde

---

There is a French expression which very closely relates to the term "Spitting Image" : "Portrait craché", where "craché" refers to the practice of spitting in order to seal a promise, an oath, a swear, or other solemn statement. Popular practice includes spitting on the ground, or in the palm of one's hand before shaking hands with the other party. The expression "portrait craché" is to be referred to statements like "C'est de lui, tout craché", where the person who pronounces this sentence would swear-and-spit on his statement. The title "spitting image" gives a twist to this expression, as in : this image is actually not "sworn & spitten", but actually "spitting at you".

The Racist song concering South African people

Could it please be noted that this song is very offensive to members of the Afrikaner race and that the sweeping message conveyed is in fact highly racist. Just to put it into perspective if the BBC were to broadcast a show saying that a song about never having met a nice Pakistani/black person or American would probably lead to riots and the destruction abd boycotting of them so this show was very racist to Afrikaners.

JBAK

That's not to put it in perspective. That's to throw it wildly out of perspective. The song is "satirical" and notorious for lampooning and exagerrating the qualities of those at the centre of its attention. Spitting Image was routinely as scathing against all who raised the heckles of those who wrote the scripts. Everybody from Mao to Reagan, to Gorbechav to Thatcher and beyond took full brunt with some close to the knuckle stuff.

In the end the song reflected worldwide opinion of what Apartheid South Africa was about. Was it racist? Only in so much as having all the Scots drinking and wearing kilts is racist. "Stereotypical" is perhaps more accurate.--Koncorde 19:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did it End?

The "Why did it End?" section is garbled and nonsensicle. It also appears that such history fits better in the "Puppets" section as it is. I really want to just delete "Why did," but I'm restraining myself. --Amanaplanacanalpanama 02:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be better if I just tag it.--Darrelljon 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That's more rational. --Amanaplanacanalpanama 22:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This section of discussion was completely removed by Tiswaser with no explanation. Some edits have been done to Why did it end and the inappropriate tag has been removed by an ip address. I'm still not sure if it's inappropriate tone so restoring the tag should be considered.--Darrelljon 14:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I can remember watching Spitting Image when it was new and the novelty of seeing notable 'serious' people being lampooned as foolish, vain, stupid, idiotic, ignorant, with all the usual human vices, was quite exciting. After a while though, one came to realise from media reports that the lampooned figures were, for the most part, exactly like that. After one realised this, the programme stopped being funny and just came to be a slightly-exaggerated view of what was actually going on in Britain.

Making fun of pretentious people is good entertainment, but once one saw what many of the lampooned politicians and personalities would actually do in real life if asked-to or paid to do, then the programme stopped being funny. A bit like kicking a cripple's crutches away, really. Not really funny portraying a prominent politician as being a corrupt, lying bastard, if a court subsequently convicts him of being all these and more.

The programme only worked when the people being lampooned had any public credibility. This credibility had almost disappeared from public figures by the time of the programme's demise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

YouTube

YouTube

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 15:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed and added a hidden comment that it should not be put back. Halsteadk 11:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this NPOV?

Just wanted to know if this can be regarded NPOV, because I'm thinking of adding something to the article along the lines of: "Spitting Image will be returning to our screens soon in a CGI version focusing on the world of celebrities rather than politicians. It will have no satirical value, unlike the original version, and in all other respects it will be complete and utter shite."

Yes. But you're probably right, I think the only people who will enjoy it will be people who never saw or liked the original. I was quite saddened that someone has added a reference to the CGI bit, I was hoping it was a joke. Halsteadk 11:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Characters section requires clean-up

If nobody has any objections, I'd like to completely rewrite the list of characters given here. In my opinion, it's impossible to list every single Spitting Image puppet and whatever personality they were given, which is what whoever's editing this page seems to be doing. Really, the page only needs to list characters who were actually popular, like Maggie, David Coleman, Steve Davis etc. Characters who appeared *frequently* and were developed with catchphrases or notable quirks.

The list given is just a huge boring chunk of text, and some of the descriptions of the characters are... lame. "Lovable" Robert De Niro? "Complaining" Paul McCartney? "Countryman" David Bowie? In Bowie's only notable appearance, he's in a Japanese-styled living room wearing a kimono - I'm surprised the writer didn't put "Weeaboo David Bowie", it would've been just as descriptive. After this sketch, the puppet is restricted to just appearing in the background - the Bowie puppet is hardly the most memorable of characters.

Some of the descriptions are based on character appearance alone (like "tiny Noel Edmonds"), and others are based on only one sketch ("fact-distorting David Attenborough"). Attenborough appears many times in the series; his description could be expanded upon. Also, why does the person writing this page feel the need to include Ted Kennedy, Bette Midler, Bill Cosby etc. - they barely appear in the show (the UK version at least), and when they do, they're once again only in the background, never doing anything notable.

If a list of every puppet is really that necessary, it should go on a different page, like most "List of Characters in So-and-So Programme" pages on Wiki. In the meantime, I will go about condensing the list, and going into some more detail about the characters than just one-word descriptions. If necessary, I will create an account before I begin.82.46.139.86 (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Please do. This is all an unmanageable mess that no-one is ever going to read. However, also bear in mind that editors' opinions of the puppet's characteristics should go as well, unless cited. It's not up to any individual editor to decide, for example, that the Bill Clinton puppet was "a fat, stereotypical Democrat". Stick to facts about the puppets, not opinions about the puppets. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There we go. Did the best I could, but I feel it's still a bit waffly. I may have missed a few notable characters, but the popularity of a character can't be accurately measured. Still, it's much better than what it was - nothing more than a mumbled, lame mess of names. If somebody else wishes to make my version shorter, then go ahead. I'll be adding references later (most of them come from the Spitting Image: Tooth & Claw book).82.46.139.86 (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So, are we creating a seperate list of characters or celebrities, politicains, etc. lampooned on "Spitting Image"? (i.e. "List of celebrities parodied on Spitting Image") - Ernie and Bert fan (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ronettes Da Do ron ron

"The first single from Spitting Image, released in 1984, was a rework of the Ronettes' Da Do Run Run." I can't seem to find this, is this information correct? There's the Banettes or the crystals. No such thing as Da doo ron ron by the Ronettes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.25.239 (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

similar shows elsewhere?

Catalonia is not a recognized country. It should be placed into the Spanish shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.223.81.24 (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as i know, the "Polonia" show is not a puppet one. If I don't find data about puppets, I'll delete it in a couple of days. --Ignacio Egea (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Earlier than 1984....?

I moved to Canada in 1983 and I am pretty sure I watched Spitting Image at least a few years before than 1983 in my old country Holland. Can we verify the time line please???? thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagittaep (talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding to the Songs section

There is a CD album "Spitting Image – 20 Great Golden Gobs" (1990).[1]

Among other songs there are:

• "The Atheist Tabernacle Choir" ("If You Don't Believe in God…) – series 3, episode 14
• "I've Been Very Lucky" as a send-up of "I Should Be So Lucky" by Kylie Minogue – series 5, episode 3
• "Estate Agent Song" ("Kill an Estate Agent Today") – series 5, episode 6
• "Queen Mother" performed by Alastair Burnet – series 6, episode 2
• "Our God (Is Bigger Than Your God)" – series 6, episode 5
• "Green Fever" a rap song about the popularity of environmental talk – series 7, episode 1
• "When You're 65" – series 7, episode 4
• "The Jails Are Packed" performed by Elvis Presley – series 8, episode 2
• "We All Hate Jeremy Beadle" – series 8, episode 3

(more to be added later) --212.15.133.246 (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Social Issues Section

Perhaps there should be some sort of Social Issues Section because sometimes some highly important questions were raised in the form of satirical sketches. 212.15.133.246 (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Argentine section

The Argentine section seems quite strange. I am new to wikipedia so I have refrained from editing it but I do believe it is worded a bit oddly.

"Besides, the former president is known as a person with an ample sense of humour." for instance is quite POV, I searched for infomation on this fact and could not find any mention of him being reknown for his humor in his wikipedia page nor could I find any mention of this fact from a google search (although most pages were in Spanish so I could of missed it)

Also "Unofficial rumors say that Kanal K was cancelled on behalf of former President Carlos Saúl Menem because the programme depicted him in a derisive manner" is unsourced and so seems a bit dubious. Who said these rumours?

I would of removed/cleaned this section but since I am new I would feel best if a more experienced editor can give it a look over. Mishka Shaw (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right - highly speculative and unsourced. I've removed it pending sources for its reintroduction. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Similar Shows

I'm of the opinion that the "Similar Shows" section should be drastically cut down to size, leaving just those that are;

• cited
• have clear linage to Spitting Image, rather than being just "similar".

The problems with the list at present are;

• This is not a "List of.." article. It's about Spitting Image.
• Much of the mentioned TV shows are unsourced.
• the criteria for inclusion seems to be "a Wikipedia editor is of the opinion it's a bit like Spitting Image". So POV plays a large part in its construction.
• For the most part it's all trivia anyway.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with this removal, leaving just the American version, as it was clearly related. Other that that, we just had a list of "satire puppet shows that someone thinks were a bit like Spitting Image", which is original research, unsourced, based on personal opinion, and of little relevance to the article subject.

If any one has cites that connects one of these shows to Spitting Image, or can even demonstrate the creators of them were inspired by Spitting Image, then please re-add. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spitting Image. 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/20080723030207/http://www.itv.com/BestofITV/comedy/SpittingImage/default.html to http://www.itv.com/BestofITV/comedy/SpittingImage/default.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd suggest merging Spitting Image with Spitting Image (2020 series), as they're fundamentally the same concept by the same creator, and the content could easily all be included in one article. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. Makes sense to me. Cybersub (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - I disagree with the suggestion - they are separate entities, with different creative teams, production companies and distributors. In addition, keeping them separate would make for easier searching and cataloguing for readers/editors, rather than clustered together on one, already quite expansive, article for the original series.--SavageEditor (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

But there's bound to be a different creative team, etc, for this Spitting Image, because it's been so long since the original run ended. It is, though, still the same programme. It's a continuation of the original rather than a reworking of it. Co-creator Roger Law is even an executive producer. I don't believe it'd be a great hardship for readers/editors to have it as one article, either. As it's the same programme, it seems sensible to keep all the information together. Cybersub (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Combining both would limit the expansion of the 2020 series, this article is structured entirely around the 1980s/90s incarnation of the show with different voice actors, writers and production history than the new revival. The two series are different, not the same, even if in-universe continuity stays the same. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Rebuttal - I disagree with Cybersub's 'continuation' argument: first series of the new one is labelled as Series 1, not Series 13. Press surrounding the series, as can be evidenced on the articles linked on the page, do not use any version of calling the programme 'Series 13'. In addition, the programme has been renewed for a 'series 2', not 'series 14'. Once again, reaffirming it as the start of a new show. Law's involvement does not strengthen the claim that it should be regarded as one continuous entity - outside of the exec producer credit, which does not indicate he is directly involved with the series on a creative level, simply that it's his IP, it's also not an indicator of direct continuation. According to that, should all Spiderman films and TV shows be regarded as direct continuations of each other, because Stan Lee created the property and took producer credits on several?--SavageEditor (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

No - They're different series, explicitly listed as season 1. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons as other opposers. There is already precedent for this; we have separate articles for
  • Porridge (1974 TV series) and Porridge (2016 TV series) -- same situation, same title and writers
  • Open All Hours and Still Open All Hours -- different titles but essentially the same show, same writer, same location, several same characters
  • The Morecambe & Wise Show (1968 TV series) and The Morecambe & Wise Show (1978 TV series) -- same show made for different TV companies

-- Dr Greg  talk  16:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• • • Should Doctor Who therefore be split into separate entries, namely, one for the show's original run from 1963 to 1989 (seasons 1 to 26), one for its 1996 reappearance (TV film), and another for the version that's been on our screens since 2005 (series 1 onwards)? Cybersub (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Lack of merging justification - With due respect to chessrat and cybersub, neither has supplied a meaningful argument in favour of merging the pages, beyond personal taste. There is no comment on lack of notability, content or citations that would warrant merging the two as one. As discussed above, the 2020 page stands on its own and justifies its existence in these three categories, which are key criteria in article creation. If this were, say, an entire page on the Ant & Dec puppet controversy, there would be more ground, as it would be lacking in all these areas. However, the reboot does not.--SavageEditor (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry SavageEditor, it's not personal taste that's behind my reasoning, just what I believe to be common sense. It's the same programme (albeit with a big gap between its initial and current runs) so would be better served with the same entry. And again, although there may be a precedent for having separate articles for other programmes, that doesn't necessarily make it correct. Z-Cars is another example of a show that was brought back yet has just the one entry. The policy as regards coverage therefore strikes me as being inconsistent. Cybersub (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Claiming 'common sense' is still not an argument against any objective or quantifiable merit for the article's existence.--SavageEditor (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Request to close discussion - Could Wikipedia admin please resolve this and make a decision about the article?--SavageEditor (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.