# Talk:Dinosaurs on a Spaceship

I have noticed that the robots that appear in this episode bare a striking resemblance to the Roboidz of Mission: 2110! Anyone else noticed the similarities? Visokor (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
They also look a bit like the Mondoshawan from The Fifth Element and the red/yellow robots from The Empty Planet. I think chunky robots are just "in". Also aren't they're actually suits? I think there's a clip of Rory's dad inside one in one of the series trailers. David (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
My theory is that BBC realised those Roboid suits were gathering dust all alone ever since Mission: 2110 finished, so they had to make good use of them, don't u think? Visokor (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like you're right - it might not be directly the BBC's doing though. Doctor Who and Mission: 2110 both use Millennium FX for prosthetics and costumes. David (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You would need a reliable source. Edgepedia (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned in the development section about the Roboidz being recycled for this episode, then? Visokor (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not until a reliable source is found.IrishStephen (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The reviews keep mentioning Peep Show... Glimmer721 talk 15:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
There are cyborgs on Mission 2110 (I forget what they're called) who were made from cyberman props
188.141.41.93 (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC) (Sorry I'm not signed in)
They were indeed re-used from Mission 2110. I asked [Clive Mitchell], who worked in the prop department on that show. If someone else who knows the rules wants to get some kind of official verification, that's the sort of thing that prop nerds like to know. 2601:646:8301:C942:14A0:6EDC:61CB:958B (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In the episode, when Amy asks if Nefertiti and Riddell were just replacements for her and Rory, the Doctor says that he just wants a 'gang' together.
Should we class them as companions for that episode also? Charlr6 (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not unless someone, a secondary source or the production team themselves, classifies them for us. DonQuixote (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know that thank you very much. But who put Brian, Rory's dad into companions? The source for that doesn't confirm he is a companion. And "The Long Game" for Adam's character doesn't have a source saying his a companion. Same goes for Rose, Martha, Jack and Sarah Jane Smith on "The Stolen Earth" page. They are just returning characters more than anything else. Charlr6 (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. As for the Adam, "Russell, Gary (2006). Doctor Who: The Inside Story. BBC Books. p. 164. ISBN 978-0-563-48649-7" (from Adam Mitchell (Doctor Who)). As for the others...I don't recall exactly, but I think it was "companion for the programme and not companion for the episode". You can always bring this up again for discussion. DonQuixote (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I personally (although not massively knowledgeable on the subject) would only class someone as a companion when the actor;s name appears in the opening credits--TimothyJacobson (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
So are you saying there were no companions in the classical series? As it was just the theme tune and the title to appear on screen and then sometimes the actor who plays the Doctor's face. Charlr6 (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The Radio Times review discusses including Brian as a companion, as he travels with the Doctor at the end. Glimmer721 talk 15:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Should we state Solomon was killed by the missile attack or apparently killed in the missile attack? Previous adversaries were apparently killed, only to resurface in later episodes having escaped. Thoughts?Wzrd1 (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So what would be considered a reasonable citation for the dreadnoughts singing "Daisy Bell" as they powered down being a a reference to Hal9000 singing the same thing? Can we only mention obscure and interesting points like that if the writer owns up to them on Twitter? Davorg (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Some notable commentator (WP:RS) mentioning it is good too. DonQuixote (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"The Doctor uses the ship's computer to locate the engines, accidently transporting he, Rory, and Brian to the engine room ..."
If it was only the Doctor, it would be, "The Doctor uses the ship's computer to locate the engines, accidentally transporting *himself* to the engine room ..."  
I am no perfect grammarian, but the sentence as it stands in the article sounds wrong with the word *he*, even with the other people: it certainly seems wrong with the Doctor alone.
Comments?  Thanks.
208.72.123.186 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
And *him* is probably a better word than *himself*.   Thanks for improving the grammar.  This episode is repeated Sunday in Canada on "Space", BTW: so I will be watching it again.
208.72.123.186 (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"a big other' story".
Is there a reason for the apostrophe/inverted comma after the word <other>?  Or is it extraneous?  Thanks.
208.72.123.186 (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. It's a mistake from copying and pasting. Glimmer721 talk 23:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The first time the initials CGI occur in this article are : "The two robots were of a size that normally required CGI..."    I looked up and down in the article to see, so I hope I have the 1st occurance of this term here. Then I had to figure out what CGI actually means.
So, it might be an an improvement to write this: 
"The two robots were of a size that normally required computer generated imagery (CGI)..."   
Or, it might be even better to write "...that would normally require computer generated imagery (CGI) ..."  Maybe that is better.... 
But, I think that for the first time that acronymns are used it is nice to have the full words given out beforehand.  Some people don't know what KFC means.  Nice article, whoever is doing most of the work:  I am just seeing things that I wonder about.  Cheers,    Rob.
208.72.123.186 (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. I put the abbreviation after the first occurance of "computer-generated", where it was wikilinked. Glimmer721 talk 23:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The Dr sees spiders and says there should be no spiders in space.  Hmmm  wince when?  and it seems to be an empty comment in this episode.  Is there any reference to spiders further in this episode?  Dinosaurs, yes.  I waited for something about the spiders.
208.72.123.186 (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The mention of spiders was obviously a clue before the reveal that this ship and its cargo came from earth, where spiders have existed for millions of years.  The Silurians placed entire ecosystems on the ship, including other plants and animals for the dinosaurs to eat.  I guess a few escaped and crawled around the circuitry. Jac12358 (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Both spellings coexist in the article. Which one is correct ? Hektor (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. My mistake. Glimmer721 talk 23:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why Nefertiti refers to her husband as Amenhotep, rather than the more familiar Akhenaten ? In that this episode supposedly shows why Nefertiti disappears from Egyptian history, he would already have undergone the name change that went with his new religion before she entered the Tardis. RGCorris (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's in our reality...the reality without Time Lords and TARDISes. DonQuixote (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Or an error, like movies and TV shows do. Charlr6 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't the event that precipitated the Silurian hibernation the approach of the moon? That would have been millions of years before the meteor strike that wiped out the dinosaurs. Which was actually the spaceship Adric was on. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 17:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
When was it ever suggested previously that the Silurians were capable of space flight and had escaped the earth? When first shown they and their cousins were hibernating in underground caves and under the ocean, respectively. It seems unlikely that their clunky stone technology during Pertwee's era would have resulted in such a complex space craft, which looked like nothing that would be aerodynamic or be able to escape earth's gravity.  But it would also have to have been floating through space for millions of years undetected, with the dinosaurs never running out of food or EVOLVING into something else - unless the whole system had been in hibernation... Jac12358 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I had this moved to the "writing" section because that was better than a one-line section under "plot". Can we have a consensus on this? Glimmer721 talk 00:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I thought it made more sense there.  You have to put yourself in the shoes of a reader looking for a particular piece of information. It is not obvious you would find that under 'production'Mezigue (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
But otherwise it is a trivia section. I'm all for keeping it in the article, it just needs to be relocated. Glimmer721 talk 01:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the suggestion that "Siluria" is a planet, given the lack of information to support such a claim. There are just too many unknowns. It could be a different planet, one that the Doctor used as a new home for the dinosaurs. Or, it could be in Earth's past. For that matter, we don't even know if it is from Rory's dad - that is implied, but it could arguably be from the Doctor instead. Point, is, it's not significant enough of a detail to warrant speculation in the absence of verification. --Ckatzchatspy 20:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The name "Siluria" is exactly in keeping with what such a planet would be called. Typically this would be the home planet of the dominant species, but in this case it is a colonized one. It would make no sense for the Doctor to drop them off in earth's past, for that would return them to the fate of extinction the Silurians built the ship to avoid.  The third Doctor might have done the Silurians this generous favor of relocating if he had the use of his TARDIS, but what then prevented the 5th Doctor?  I guess by the time we got to Matt Smith he finally found the solution to when he said "there should have been another way."
It isn't spelled out (verified) precisely for the effect of allowing the viewer to feel clever in coming to this obvious conclusion. This does not imply that nothing is canon unless someone says explicitly that it is. Jac12358 (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Should Brian be listed as a companion in this episode? IGN refers to him as such here, as does one of the reviews in this article. Ωphois 01:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Only the BBC is the authority as to when a guest is a companion or not. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Do we have sources from the BBC that Jack or Adam were companions in season 1, or that Mickey was a companion in season 2? Or do you mean just for one-off appearances? Ωphois 16:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we do have sources. Doctor Who: The Inside Story, to name one (off the top of my head). DonQuixote (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dinosaurs on a Spaceship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Philosopher (talk · contribs) 11:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Here we go.  For reference, the review refers to this version of the article. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

1a. 

The lead would be better if the "Along with the third episode" and "The dinosaurs were" sentences in the lead were swapped, keeping like topics with like topics.
Done. Glimmer721 talk 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
OK. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The "Taking Nefertiti with him" sentence in #Plot has an awkward construction.  John is "from" place "in" time, while the Ponds are "after he last saw them".  Either split the sentences or use a parallel construction.
Believe I've fixed this. Glimmer721 talk 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
On a positive note, I like how you worked in that the Silurians were a race of reptilian humanoids.
The last 4 sentences of #Filming and effects are a bit choppy.
That was actually added by someone else recently and isn't sourced, so I removed it. Glimmer721 talk 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
OK. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
A non-breaking space should be used between numbers and units of measurement (per User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet).  7.57 million should become 7.57&nbsp;million, etc.
I believe I've caught all of them.Glimmer721 talk 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have been clearer - you copied from this page's wikicode instead of the text.  the text with nonbreaking spaces should still look normal when you aren't editing it - the &amp;nbsp; was just so that the &nbsp; didn't turn into   in the "normal" mode.  Fixed.  – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
1b.

What's up with this content?  It's present but commented out of the article.

*{{TardisIndexFile}}
*{{Brief|id=2011i|title=???|quotes=y}}
*{{Doctor Who RG|id=who_tv65|title=???|quotes=y}}

### Reviews
*{{DWRG|id=???|title=???}}

Those are other links that haven't been added yet because the pages haven't been created, aside from "Brief" (which I added) and the Index File, which is already there (I removed the extra one). Glimmer721 talk 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The reference to a "well-known nightclub owner with long hair" is too hidden.  Remembering that readers who aren't familiar with piped links (or who are using screen readers) will be reading this, the name should either be stated directly in the text or the link removed.
I removed it as the source never said it (indeed, I didn't know; it was added by someone else) and it's pure OR. Glimmer721 talk 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
OK. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
2.

Do you have a citation for ""Dinosaurs on a Spaceship" received generally positive reviews from critics, with a few detractors."?  I don't know if there are any "meta-reviews" out there, but if there are,  a source would be nice here. (Optional for this GAR, given the other sources, though.)
Well, that was sort of the topic sentence for the section. The first two paragraphs are the "generally positive" reviews, while the third has the more critical detractors. The episode is a bit too new for a general consensus to have been reached, I suppose. Glimmer721 talk 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
From my own reading after the episode came out, I believe the statement is likely correct.  Was just wondering if there was a source for it.  No big deal, as I said. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
2c.  I just spot-checked the references; here's what I found.  The first two need to be addressed.

Reference 16, "'Doctor Who' to resume filming this month, Saul Metzstein to direct", doesn't support the statement its cited in support of.  A "few" does not mean "these two in particular".
Based on this, I've cited a Doctor Who Magazine (cover dated 8 March) which should support the statement. Glimmer721 talk 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't have access to Doctor Who Magazine, so I suppose I'll take your word that it works. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Ditto reference 2b, "Doctor Who - Dinosaurs on a Spaceship preview: “Fun was absolutely The Big Brief!”" which again has a "few", though the Wikipedia article turns it into "four".  Perhaps pair it with a reference from The Angels Take Manhattan.
Done. Glimmer721 talk 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks good! – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Reference 32 is good.
Reference 9 is good.
Reference 24 is good.
Reference 38 is good.
Reference 1 is good.
Reference 6 is good.
Reference 19 is good.
6b.

Is there a reason that there isn't a screenshot in the article like the one at "The Stolen Earth"?
WP:WHO has been really stringent on images. They have to be supported by production or critical claims. If there is anything you could think of that would work (maybe the triceratops), I could probably add it. Glimmer721 talk 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the image of the "gang" here could work, as could one of the triceratops photos, perhaps with Rory's dad.  But I suppose I can pass it without an image. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe I have fixed everything. Thanks for reviewing this! Glimmer721 talk 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your work on the article! – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't you include Riann Steele who plays Queen Nefertiti, Rupert Graves who plays Riddell and Mark Williams who plays Brian Williams as companions as well as Rory and Amy? They did accompany him to the episode just as Amy and Rory unwillingly. 75.109.232.202 (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The better question is, "Does a reliable source include them as companions?" DonQuixote (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dinosaurs on a Spaceship. 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/20120911025318/http://blogs.independent.co.uk:80/2012/09/08/review-of-doctor-who-%E2%80%98dinosaurs-on-a-spaceship%E2%80%99/ to http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/09/08/review-of-doctor-who-%E2%80%98dinosaurs-on-a-spaceship%E2%80%99/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 11:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)