Talk:Eater of Light

Name

While referred to as Eaters of Light, the Doctor calls them light-eating locusts. I'm not sure if he coined the term like the Boneless or Dryads however. StevieGLiverpool ☎ 22:16, June 18, 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Doctor is just specifying what kind of creature they are. Is "Eaters of Light" ever used, or is it only singular - to refer to the escaped beast? CoT ? 22:32, June 18, 2017 (UTC)

Eaters of light IS used by Kar, however it seems to me that it was only to refer to "some strange beast in the forest". "Light-eating locust" seems a far better name and an actual naming of said creature. --DCLM ☎ 06:11, June 19, 2017 (UTC)

Um... why was the page re-named when the majority agreed that it's called a light-eating locust? StevieGLiverpool ☎ 09:42, June 21, 2017 (UTC)

P.S the page itself says "The Eaters of Light, described as light-eating locusts", but the image shows they're not being described as light-eating locusts but he thinks that's what they are. Why the re-name?– The preceding unsigned comment was added by StevieGLiverpool (talk • contribs) .

Hi SOTO. As you renamed the page, I would alert you to this discussion about the name. You Admins always say no action can be taken while a discussion is still going, yet you went ahead and changed it anyway. --DCLM ☎ 22:18, June 21, 2017 (UTC)

I think that Eater of Light is the better name. As said by ChampionofTime, it would seem to me that the Doctor is just specifying the kind of creature, rather than coining a name for them. Besides, (not realising that there is more than one beast) Kar refers to the creature as "Eater of Light" three times within the script. The plural for the creatures also arguably appears within the title of the episode itself: Eaters of Light. 66 Seconds ☎ 00:01, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware of an ongoing discussion when I moved the page. (I really do hope the talk page button comes back to prominence.) I moved the page (note: with redirect) based on a discussion we had amongst some of the admin. I think I agree with 66 Seconds, that the Doctor is describing what sort of thing it is, rather than giving it a name, as he did the Dryads earlier this series. Direct quote: "I think these creatures are light-eating locusts, looking for rents and cracks between worlds to let themselves into dimensions of light."

For the record, the Doctor calls the creature the Eater of Light, taking his cue from Kar, before he comes up with this particular descriptor. He does not use "light-eating locusts" again, while Eater(s) of Light is used several times in the script to refer to the creature. I think what the Doctor's really saying is "I think these creatures are [some sort of] light-eating locusts"; what he's not doing, is saying, "I've encountered these creatures before; they're called light-eating locusts", or even "We should call them light-eating locusts".
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 00:14, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

Donna Noble was also called "Daughter of London" in The Fires of Pompeii. "Daughter of London" "Eater of Light", pretty much the same way of speech. --DCLM ☎ 09:17, June 28, 2017 (UTC)

Clara Oswald also called the sand-creatures Sandmen. That would seem pretty much like describing what they are, too. --DCLM ☎ 09:20, June 28, 2017 (UTC)

These production images are also labelled "Eaters of Light" and "Light Eaters": https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p055wmml/p055wltl -- Noneofyourbusiness ☎ 21:02, June 19, 2019 (UTC)