Talk:Scarecrow

Why was this article split?
I strongly oppose the recent split of this article. We've created three articles where one was perfectly adequate. Scarecrows aren't a race or a species in the Whoniverse. They are a common element to the English countryside which have occasionally been used as a tool by various forces. They are in fact simple, ordinary objects. Would we really create multiple articles for hammers or postcards or sinks? I don't think we would. I think we would write an article called, for instance, sink, and point out the one in Planet of Giants, and the one that Jackie had fixed in Love and Monsters, and be done with it. To put these in different articles is to be seduced by the impression that they are "monsters", rather than dispassionately understanding they are actual scarecrows.

I would also note that this rather major change to the article occurred without even so much as a summary note in the article history. It is completely opaque why this article was split in the first place.

I therefore ask for the reversion of this article to the point before it was split, and the deletion of the two new articles, Animated scarecrows (Time Lords) and Animated scarecrows (Family of Blood).

Oppose

 * Azes13 23:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC): These animated scarecrows are different than regular scarecrows and from each other. Scarecrows are inanimate objects used to scare crows. If they're doing something else, it's notable.
 * And no, we don't create multiple articles for hammers or postcards or sinks, unless there was a hammer, postcard or sink that was unique or noticeably different from other hammers, postcards or sinks. That's why we have a page like sword (general) and one Sword of Tuburr (specific). The sword article is for swords in general, the sword of Tuburr article is about a special kind of sword. It's the same for this instance: The scarecrow article is for scarecrows in general, the animate scarecrow articles are for specific instances where animate objects were made in the image of scarecrows.
 * And really, in both instances, it appears that the relationship between the scarecrows and their creators make them seem much the same as any other artificial minions, like the autons pr the slabs, which do count as "monsters" and do have their own articles.


 * --Stardizzy2 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC): I split the article because the Human Nature scarecrows, at least, deserved their own article, and so I thought that the normal kind and the Time Lord kind should as well. it also doesn't make sense to have the categories Second Doctor enemies and Tenth Doctor enemies refer to two different things or for normal scarecrows to get lumped in with the other kinds, in terms of categories.


 * Hmmmm.  I guess what I take from both of these appearances is that neither the Time Lords nor the Family of Blood actually made the scarecrows.  They're really quite unlike any other Doctor Who minion.   Both the Family and the Time Lords took what naturally existed in the fields — "inanimate objects used to scare crows" — and they temporarily gave them a bit of life, in precisely the same way that a puppeteer controls a marionette.  This is quite different from Autons or Slabs.   Autons are what results from  mannequins (and other plastic creations) coming under the control of the Nestene Consciousness — and being changed by it.  I think we can assume, for instance, that mannequins, in their natural state, do not have guns built into their hands, and that plastic flowers do not normally emit noxious gas.   They are physically altered by the process of coming under Nestene control — which is something that doesn't happen to these scarecrows.    Not only that, but the Doctor gives us the name "Auton", so that automatically generates an article title.  He/Smith never calls the scarecrows anything but "scarecrows".   Slabs aren't nearly so well defined as their article here currently suggests, but they clearly aren't being physically controlled in some way.  They're being true to their innate "purpose" in the universe.  They're following verbal orders.   And, like Autons, they are specifically named by the Doctor.  And I think that's a really important thing to reiterate.  At no time does the Doctor/John Smith call these things anything but "scarecrows".   All the scarecrows we're talking about — save perhaps for the one Son of Mine becomes — are completely normal scarecrows.  As for the category "confusion", well, we say that multiple Doctors fought the Daleks and the Cybermen.  Why can't we say that the  the Tenth Doctor (well, really, Smith) and the Second Doctor had run-ins with scarecrows?  I'm not quite following your reasoning on that one.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  05:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * --Tangerineduel 07:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC) With regards to the Family of Blood scarecrows they gain meaning and character because of how they are used, they become more than scarecrows because of their animation. Their possession lifts them beyond inanimate objects by making something of the fact they're possessed. I would suggest though that we merge the two articles into Animated scarecrowss and deal with both the Family of Blood and Time Lord varieties on the same article.

Support

 *  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC), per above