Talk:Great Old One: Difference between revisions
Bigredrabbit (talk | contribs) |
m (upholding tardis:disambiguation policy: All-Consuming Fire is a Conan Doyle work in the DWU) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I've written over at the [[H. P. Lovecraft]] article that "Old One" is used both in Doctor Who and by Lovecraft to mean both the Elder Things and the Great Old Ones (although its actually even worse than that with Lovecraft), however, is there '''actually''' any instance of Doctor Who using "Old Ones" to refer to the Great Old Ones? | I've written over at the [[H. P. Lovecraft]] article that "Old One" is used both in Doctor Who and by Lovecraft to mean both the Elder Things and the Great Old Ones (although its actually even worse than that with Lovecraft), however, is there '''actually''' any instance of Doctor Who using "Old Ones" to refer to the Great Old Ones? | ||
It can't be [[All-Consuming Fire]] in which they're consistently "Great". In [[The Taking of Planet 5]], Old Ones is used once to refer to the Elder Things ([[Wikipedia:Elder Thing|which aren't the same thing]]) and [[Compassion]] jokes that maybe the Doctor is a Great Old One on his mother's side. --[[User:Nyktimos|Nyktimos]] 19:45, October 21, 2009 (UTC) | It can't be [[All-Consuming Fire (novel)|All-Consuming Fire]] in which they're consistently "Great". In [[The Taking of Planet 5]], Old Ones is used once to refer to the Elder Things ([[Wikipedia:Elder Thing|which aren't the same thing]]) and [[Compassion]] jokes that maybe the Doctor is a Great Old One on his mother's side. --[[User:Nyktimos|Nyktimos]] 19:45, October 21, 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Not that I can think of off the top of my head. All-Consuming Fire is the one that leaps to mind, but as you say in that they're called the "Great Old Ones" even the opener of the article calls them the Great Old Ones and sometimes Old Ones. | :Not that I can think of off the top of my head. All-Consuming Fire is the one that leaps to mind, but as you say in that they're called the "Great Old Ones" even the opener of the article calls them the Great Old Ones and sometimes Old Ones. | ||
Revision as of 05:11, 23 August 2011
Are they ever referred to as Old Ones?
I've written over at the H. P. Lovecraft article that "Old One" is used both in Doctor Who and by Lovecraft to mean both the Elder Things and the Great Old Ones (although its actually even worse than that with Lovecraft), however, is there actually any instance of Doctor Who using "Old Ones" to refer to the Great Old Ones?
It can't be All-Consuming Fire in which they're consistently "Great". In The Taking of Planet 5, Old Ones is used once to refer to the Elder Things (which aren't the same thing) and Compassion jokes that maybe the Doctor is a Great Old One on his mother's side. --Nyktimos 19:45, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
- Not that I can think of off the top of my head. All-Consuming Fire is the one that leaps to mind, but as you say in that they're called the "Great Old Ones" even the opener of the article calls them the Great Old Ones and sometimes Old Ones.
- I'm happy for this page to be moved to "Great Old Ones". --Tangerineduel 14:06, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
- To be fair, I've made some minor edits to this page recently. The opener read the reverse since 2007. I had no doubt that if not the preferred term (if it is in fact, not the only term) across all the stories, Great Old Ones was at least the less generic of the two and the one that better matched current usage outside Doctor Who.
- Shouldn't it also be in the singular? --Nyktimos 01:46, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
Time Lords
I read somewhere that the Old Ones were the Time Lords of the Pre-Universe who managed to shunt themselves to N-Space when the Pre-Universe was destroyed by the Gods of Ragnarok and somehow evolved into weird temporal entities. The source is www.meshyfish.com/~roo/docwho5a.html which cites its source as an authorised novel, but doesn't elaborate. Should we put this in somewhere, or is this an uncredible source? Bigredrabbit 09:41, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
- I think I remember reading that on one of the Faction Paradox. If you can find it, that would work as a source. If not, you probably shouldn't add uncited information. -<Azes13 16:29, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
- I'll look into it. Bigredrabbit 06:39, August 9, 2011 (UTC)
