Talk:Sontaran

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of Doctor Who villains#Luke Rattigan|Luke Rattigan]] The anchor (#Luke Rattigan) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Sontara?

What's the source for naming the Sontaran home planet as "Sontara"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the novels - specifically, Craig Hinton names it Sontara in The Crystal Bucephalus, so it's no less valid than putting Polymos for the Autons. Could have sworn when I added that I sourced it... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and if I had read the entire page carefully, I would have seen that it was right there in the "other appearances" section. My bad. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is not the word 'monogender' an oxymoron? It's got to be a Greerism.203.221.203.50 (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judoon resemblance: encyclopedic?

Do we really think that the fact that a few fans mistook early images of the Judoon for Sontarans is important enough to merit mention in this article? My feeling is that it's not encyclopedic. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need. put it on the judoon one though Lollypop2 20:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx or 2008?

Which image should be used? The classic series image, or the new series image? We've used the new-series look on Cyberman and Dalek, but at the same time, it could be seen as recentism. Will ^(talk) 13:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the classic image for the info box and the the new image further down the article for comparsion?62.136.107.132 16:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think are new one at top, and Lynx thurther down page. Lollypop2 19:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to switch -- and it does broadly seem like a good idea, given that the show is ongoing and therefore this isn't just a historical record but a set of context for current events (see also Tennant, Simm, and the new series logo) -- you might as well wait until the first episode airs (or approaches air) and better publicity shots become available. Lynx is good enough until Sontarans become actively topical again. --Aderack 06:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- I think that putting the original at the top of the page makes more sense, I think the image of the original should be seen as definitive, seeing thats roughly what the original creators had in mind and is the basis for the newer re-incarnations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngates87 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But in that case, if we're going to be consistant, we should put the original logo at the top of the Doctor Who page and an older picture of Jack Harkness on his page. The new Sontarans aren't any less canon than the original ones, and I don't know if there's any evidence to prove that the designers had intended for the Sontarans to really look like people in badly made masks. On the other hand, we could put up an image displaying all the different versions, like the Doctor's and the Master's pages. Andral (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.247.249.41 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thoughts

I think we should keep the original picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngates87 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that now the (great) new picture at the head of the page has been introduced, the original promotional image can be ditched; it looks a little tacky, I think. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny of the doctors

I have removed the reference to the Sontarans and Bee stings from the TV appearances section as this should appear in the games section as it (currently) only relates to the "Destiny of the Doctors" pc game. This could of course all change after this saturday. Deckchair (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it even true that the game says that bees are their weakness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.156.205 (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be true that bees are needed in the game, but i could only find a couple of sources which are possibly dated before this month so i wasnt comfortable re-instating the claim. Searching for "Bees and Sontarans" on google brings up links to a lot of sites which are referencing this article. The reference to Bees was only added to this article in the past week. Deckchair (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see; my concern was that it might have been an invention by someone seeking to influence speculation. If, as the article says, it's just a matter of firing bees at them, it sounds like it could be accomplished with any old bullet or whatever, presumably aimed at the vent on their necks. But so long as it's true (or verifiable), obviously there can be no objections. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just tweaked it to make it sound less like Sontarans have a specific allergy to bees or something, since that's not what the source says. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physical size

In the new series, it becomes clear that the Sontarans are short in length. I believe this was not the case in the old series. Could someone shed a light on this or add it to the article? Robin.lemstra (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Series Six

There are pictures at the moment of a Sontaran on the set of the new series of Doctor Who. I suppose if we find a link to this picture within an article, we could make this comment on this article. Thefartydoctor (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skorr not an exception

How is the name Skorr an exception to the monosyllabic S-name theme? I'm going to move him to the list of examples unless someone tells me to move it back. Sailorknightwing (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sontaran. 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/20080413105129/http://www.thelogbook.com/pf/dw.htm to http://www.thelogbook.com/pf/dw.htm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sontaran. 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/20071104153533/http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/11/04/50453.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/11/04/50453.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]