Talk:Omega

is the doctor omega/peylix???

I like the new picture, brilliant work whoever did it Bigshowbower 12:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Big Bad of Season 5?

Seeing as there's only a couple weeks left until we find out for sure makes this kind of superflous. Nonetheless where has Omega been "tipped" as the final enemy in series 5? Add a citation please, or don't add the information. If it's speculation go put it in 'rumours' for Pandorica Opens or Silence Falls. MegaNerd18 05:09, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Removed. User:Solar Dragon/Signature 05:38, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

After watching Saturdays episode I think he is. 94.1.157.42 23:32, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Think and know are very different. There's still nothing to say it really is Omega behind the TARDIS exploding. Indeed it could be an original villain. So for now, nothing changes. MegaNerd18 00:45, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's unlikely that they'd make someone totally original for something this big; they did that in the novel Sometime Never...- the people responsible for the crisis the Doctor was investigating as reality was collapsed to a single timeline were originally going to be the Daleks but they instead made it some people we'd never heard of called the Council of Eight- and it cost the story significant points. Besides, when you think about it, Omega's the most obvious candidate as he's the only foe the Doctor's fought who doesn't exist in this universe; even the Black Guardian would have just as much to lose from the universe being destroyed as everything else does given that he exists in this universe- much like in Dogma when the Metatron noted why Satan couldn't be responsible for what was happening-, whereas Omega, a resident of the anti-matter universe, would probably be able to come through the destruction perfectly fine (Maybe he's looking to 'enhance his power' like the Anti-Monitor from the DC Comics storyline "Crisis on Infinite Earths", whose power in his own anti-matter unvierse grew stronger the more positive matter alternate Earths he destroyed). MarcusSLazarus 08:40, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who novels don't matter to me, they're not canon, so I don't care. And having seen the finale, well, there was no Omega. So those theories will have to go on hold for another year. MegaNerd18 08:54, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I know some people might not count the novels as canon, but the principal is the same; bringing in someone totally original for something on this scale just detracts from the effect...

Still, as you said, we'll just have to wait until next year to find out who's responsible for creating the cracks in the first place. MarcusSLazarus 08:57, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I can see your point (though even the BBC and the show's staff generally disregard spin-off media), and Omega's quote about the destruction of the universe being a spectacle certainly puts him as a suspect. Next though are Egyptian goddesses on the Orient Express in space.MegaNerd18 09:02, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Mentions

The mentions section appears to no not working. --OS24 02:01, December 25, 2011 (UTC)

Time Lord?

The TARDIS Wikia page about Omega is wrong. Omega is not classified as a Time Lord. He gave the Gallifreyans the ability to travel through time and in the process was cast into the anti-matter universe. He is not a Time Lord. -Unsigned

Hm… dialogue in The Three Doctors goes both ways, really. On the one hand, you have "they became Time Lords, while I was left behind", which does imply that since he never got to use the time machines he had helped create, he doesn't see himself as a Time Lord per se. But on the other, he also calls the Second and Third Doctor "brother Time Lords". And in K9 and the Time Trap, he says to K9 that "I too was once a Time Lord".

So while it might not strictly make logical sense, there is as much evidence for calling him a Time Lord as for not doing so. And while there is at least one line where he says he's not a Time Lord, there aren't any actual lines (not in The Three Doctors at least) to call him a Gallifreyan, so I think it's just simpler to leave it as "Time Lord". --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 23:08, July 23, 2019 (UTC)

Omega audio story

The account given of his "death" in "Omega" is not actually inconsitent with that of "Star Death". Aside from Omega's corrupted memories, the only thing added in "Omega" is his assistant Vandekirian's betrayal of Omega, but it's not inconceivable that Vandekirian assisted Fenris in some way etc. 78.8.173.36^{talk to me} 17:05, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

Page/infobox name

While not disputing the true name of Omega, I thought the policy dictated that the name of the page had to coincide with the name in the infobox. The other name can be recorded in alias. Amorkuz ☎ 22:14, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

Image box

Recently, there was a discussion about replacing the old {docpic} slideshows in infoboxes. I note that in the conclusion here, the following is stated: "As illustrated by Henry Jekyll and Edward Hyde, the tabbed system can be used for many more situations than just Time Lords with multiple known incarnations. However, pending another discussion, this should only be used for characters — or objects! — with genuinely different "forms" of some sort; don't go using it to try and represent e.g. outfit variants, or both the child and adult version of Amy Pond."

I just wondered if Omega falls within the remit of having different "forms". Are the two 'looks' he has just different "outfits", or are they part of him and his "form"? The discussion is even stranger given he doesn't technically seem to have a body as such, or at least not in The Three Doctors.

If others were to agree, my proposal would be to showcase the 3 distinct Omega 'looks' in a tabbed gallery, akin to what's now been done on pages such as The Doctor, Timeless Child and what will eventually be done on The Master. Image 1 from The Three Doctors, image 2 as his main look in Arc of Infinity, maybe followed by a third image of him as portrayed briefly by Peter Davison in the same story.

Anyone any thoughts? FractalDoctor ☎ 01:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)