Talk:Pyramids of Mars

Sutekh is a combination

Sutekh(in Dr. Who) is actually a combination of Set (mythology) and Sekhmet. Set was the brother of Osiris who killed Osiris and is the Egyptian Mythology god of evil. Sekhmet was the lion-headed goddess of destruction & war that killed everything in it's path. She is also thought to be an avatar of the cow goddess Hathor .

Also Sutekh's entrapment is very similar to the entrapment of Loki in Norse Mythology .NicholasPrakash 05:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

To say nothing of Xenu. ^_^ --207.245.10.222 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sutekh doesn't necessarily come from a combination with Sekhmet. Ancient Egyptian was written without vowels and Sutekh is entirely consistent with the Egyptian spelling of Set: s-t-kh. 63.82.98.50 (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A question about Stargroves

A note to khoasworks, Josiah Rowe, 23skidoo and all of the wikipedians who oversee the Dr Who pages here at wikiP. The note both here and at the Image of the Fendahl page state that Stargroves is in Berkshire, but the wikipage for the estate has it located in Hampshire. The wikipage for East Woodhay mentions the Dr Who filming and also lists itself as being in Hampshire, but being only six miles from Berkshire so I am guessing that the home may be very close to the border between the two. I perused the net a bit and could not find a definitive answer. Now I know that this is a true nitpick but if any of you have the answer I am wondering if we shouldn't correct whichever set of pages are in error. Thanks ahead of time for any help that you can bring. MarnetteD | Talk 19:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In looking at the various maps available I found this [1]. As you can see Stargroves is southeast of East Woodhay which is south of Berkshire, which actually puts it deeper into Hampshire and not really close to the border of the two. Based on this I am changing the two citations. However, if any information more accurate than this comes along to change it back please post it here also. MarnetteD | Talk 20:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Osirians/Osirans

I've been having a think about this: in the Television Companion David J. Howe lists the fact that "Sutekh is an Osirian" under "Myths". The Virgin MA The Sands of Time uses the Osiran spelling rather than the Osirian one. For these reasons, despite the fact that the Osirans' homeworld is identified as Phaester Osiris (making Osirian a more logical construction), we should take Baker's on-screen pronunciation as the proper one rather than the one on the paperwork (which is also inconsistent anyway). Feel free to revert if there are disagreements and then we can hash it out in talk. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The section thereon is currently extremely bewildering. I quote:

*Although the name of Sutekh's race is pronounced "Osiran" throughout the serial, the scripts and publicity material spell it as "Osiran" in some places and as "Osiran" in others. Many fans use the "Osiran" spelling, as do some reference works such as The Discontinuity Guide [...

I guess one of these should be Osirian, but I'm not enough of an expert to be sure. In its current state it's throwing my brain into recursive loops. --Mike 23:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad. That's what happens when I do a find and replace! --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the Guardians' Puzzle

The concept of the Guardians, one who always lied, and one who always told the truth, I've seen in other contexts before, as though it's a classic logic puzzle of some sort; does anybody know where it originated? I seem to recall the Doctor making reference to the "riddle of the Sphinx" when the robots' attitudes were explained to him, but I don't think that's the same thing. B7T 23:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wathced the episode, I believe they called it the Riddle of the Osirans. I'm gonna try to research it a bit myself. -- RoninBK _{T C} 02:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Found it! The original puzzle is called Knights and Knaves, and I've even edited a mention of it into the article. -- RoninBK _{T C} 03:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the Measurement Puzzle

Sarah mentions that it reminds her of the City of Exalons (sp?) - does anyone understand this reference? 74.89.66.34 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question occurs if you watch the Jon Pertwee story Death to the Daleks. In that story the Doctor has to get past several tricky puzzles to get to the center of the City of the "Exxilons". The wonderful continuity error that Sarah's mention of it in this story brings about is that she wasn't with the Dr when he solved the puzzles in that story. An Exxilon named Bellal accompanied the Dr on his journey past all of the tests. That is not to say that (if this stuff was real) he didn't tell Sarah about this at some point but we never saw that onscreen. MarnetteD | Talk 05:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruby Sunday/Empire of Death

In line with the Doctor Who Manual of Style, referring to future episodes is discouraged. In principle, the article should be written from a 1975 perspective, as there could be no knowledge at the time of production of 2024 broadcasts. References to Sutekh's revival in "The Legend of Ruby Sunday" and "Empire of Death (Doctor Who episode)" should be avoided. Personally, I'm comfortable with one single mention in the lead section, but any further additions are likely to be challenged. Cnbrb (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That's only the style under any Continuity section. If the content is sourced, then it is appropriate. Is there any site-wide policy or guideline stating that the article should be written from a 1975 perspective? -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a general principle that comes up time and again in film articles like Star Wars. It became a matter of dispute in "The Tenth Planet" when "The Doctor Falls" was broadcast, and some editors wanted to add 2017 references to the article about the 1966 serial. WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:WHO/MOS are usually cited. If you fill Pyramids of Mars with 2024 material, even if it's not in a "Continuity" section, it's likely to get removed by other editors, that's all. Best avoided, although personally I think a single, minimal reference should be acceptable. Cnbrb (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)