# Talk:Pyramids of Mars

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

According to the article "The trio reach a hunting lodge used by Scarman's brother Laurence." I don't think Laurence's house is ever described in the script as a hunting lodge, but rather as "the lodge." It's common for grand houses to have a house near the entrance to the grounds called the lodge - originally as accommodation for the gatekeeper, but sometimes given over to higher status occupants. I think that's the kind of building Laurence lives in.
A hunting lodge is a stand-alone property, used as a base for hunting. Laurence's lodge is way too small for that. Chuntuk (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pyramids of Mars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 08:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 22:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this one on. Bit busy over the next week so this may take a hot minute, but I should be able to get it done sometime within the next seven days. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@DoctorWhoFan91:


### Six GA Criteria
1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.
2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.
3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the character.
4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.
5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.
6. Article uses one fair use image with proper rationale.


### Lead
-"in England and Egypt, and on Mars, in 1911." Can be changed to "set in the year 1911 in England, Egypt, and Mars."

Done
-Per MOS:SLASH remove the slash.

Reworded. Per my reading of it, and how it's used in Doctor who articles, I believe it should be fine after the rewording


### Plot
-"Following another attack by robots" The robots are not mentioned before now, so this comes out of nowhere.

Mentioned them beforehand now
-I'd use "servant" instead of "thrall" for simplicity's sake.

the meaning is closer to a thrall, than a servant, so I would prefer to keep thrall
-"the Doctor's respiratory bypass system allows him to recover, and becoming free of Sutekh's control." Remove comma and put in the present tense. 

Done


### Production
-What is the UNIT dating controversy, and how does this episode contribute to it? This is not explained in the article.

Removed, it was present before I edited, and I could not find sources talking about it.
-Does Horror of Frankenstein need italics or quotes? Either way, one of them is needed.

Italicsed
-Italicize Doctor Who. 

Done
-Who is George Tovey? We know his relation to Roberta, but we don't know his role in the episode or why he was casted.

Removed, looks like it's just trivia, though it gets mentioned a lot in diff sources
-Put Woolf's info in the same paragraph as the one below it. 

Done
-What is the importance of Victoria? As a casual audience I wouldn't know what her role is or why she's relevant. 

added "former companion"
-"The flame effect at the end" Where is this in the episode? When Sutekh is being sent forward in time? Specify this.  

Added "end of serial", as flames are mentioned in the plot


### Broadcast and reception
-Italicize Gizmodo. 

Done
-Do any sources specify the critical acclaim mentioned in the article's lead?

That's how it's usually written when there are no bad reviews and very good reviews; I have not seen any article needing a ref for the words critical acclaim
-The analysis of Egyptian elements should be mentioned in the lead given two book sources discuss it in significant depth. 

Added


### Commercial releases
-Unless the book cover serves a particular purpose, it should be probably be deleted since it serves a purely decorative purpose in the article. 

Deleted


### Overall
-Looks solid. Fix the above and I'll start the spotcheck. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Pokelego999 replied to all issues. Thanks for the review. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@DoctorWhoFan91 A few minor things:
-I asked about critical acclaim mostly because the book sources seem to contain some negative commentary of aspects of the episode, which to me doesn't indicate critical acclaim unless it's verified elsewhere
-Link the definition of thrall on Wikitionary, since it's a pretty obscure word Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
It's "widespread", not "universal" though- and even the criticism is due to one element, which also comes out the analysis of egyptian influence, so I don't think it should be an issue with widespread instead of universal being used.
Done the wikt link. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Spotcheck:
Since I can't access Complete History, I'll be taking a look at what I can access.
-Any reason the Discontinuity Guide itself is not cited, instead citing the BBC article discussing the Guide's commentary?
-What is the purpose of Cite 11? Does the Complete History discuss the house's appearance, or is 11 just being cited to verify aspects of the house's design? I'm not too keen on its use if it's the latter.
-I found an AV Club review you can use to buff up the episode reviews [2]
-Ref 28 is Cult Box, which has been deemed unreliable for use.
Rest of the sources seem reliable enough, so once the above is resolved this should be good to go.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not have access to the Discontinuity Guide, and this was added by a different editor.
The latter, as this ref was already present, and it is more readily accessible than TCH
While I will do it when I get the time, given that comprehensiveness is not a GA criteria, would I need to add it before it is passed?
Replaced ref 28.
I can send you the page/text of the TCH refs if you want, Pokelego999? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@DoctorWhoFan91 AV Club is not necessary, just thought it'd be helpful. Sorry about that, I should have been more clear. Given the rest of the refs are reliable, I assume good faith that the TCH refs are accurate. I do worry about the bit about the house, since cherrypicking aspects of its design and including them implies that the article is trying to imply a connection between them and why the location was chosen. Unless that's backed up by TCH, it's very ORy. If it's backed up by TCH, I'd just remove the house ref entirely, since it's entirely duplicative of TCH.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
The AV club is helpful, I'll probably do it letter if I remember it and get the time. Half the refs are TCH, so that's why I offered. It is mentioned in TCH too, so removed ref 11. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@DoctorWhoFan91 should be good to go. Happy to pass.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
BBC web pages like this one took much of their material verbatim from two works - The Discontinuity Guide and The Television Companion. Unless you have both books (as I do), it's not easy to work out which portions of the web page came from each book. Which passages are in question? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)