This page is an archive. Please do not make any edits here. Edit the active conversation only.


Who removed the quotes? -- Darth Batrus 12:21, 09 August 2008 (UTC)

I did. Quotes are against the manual of style. -<Azes13 15:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


Not sure if this is helpful but found this picture whilst reading some extracts from Scales of Injustice and wondered if it might be something to add to the article. Anyway, here it is: Darth Batrus 18:46, November 22, 2009 (UTC)


It says that they are appearing in the pandorica opens and the big bang, does anyone know that for sure? ~ BillyWilliam3rd


In The Hungry Earth, at 33:37, the Doctor says, "You're 300 million years outside your comfort zone."

300Mya is around the start of the Permian period (Cisuralian age, Asselian epoch, to be specific). It was during this era that the proto-reptiles split into two lines--pelycosaurs and sauropsids. The pelycosaurs were the ancestors of therapsids (mammal-like reptiles), mammals, and other synapsids. The sauropsids were the ancestors of the birds, most familiar dinosaurs, and modern reptiles.

Anyway, pelycosaurs are clearly still reptilian, and probably cold-blooded, but much more mammal-like in other ways than the sauropsids. And they ruled the planet for most of the next 50M years (until the P-Tr extinction wiped most of them out and the sauropsids took over, until the K-T extinction, aka the Adric extinction, 185 million years later, when synapsids took back over, in the form of mammals).

So, the Silurians could be early pelycosaurs, who evolved around 300Mya. Or they could be Carboniferous-era early reptiles who went into hibernation at the start of the Permian, maybe with different groups of them awakening at various different times in the future as a means of escaping the multiple extinction events.

I don't know if this helps the dating issue or just adds more controversy. If these are very early Silurians, that would explain the lack of the third eye and psychic powers.

Anyway, I'm not sure how to fit all this information into the article, but I'll add the basic 300Mya mention. --Falcotron 05:00, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Please don't try to fit this info into the article at all. Or, if you simply can't resist, please be very brief and put it either in an italicized, indented paragraph or clearly under the behind-the-scenes section. It's out-of-universe info. And perhaps more to the point, it's speculation about the nature of the connection of the DWU to the RW. And that's really not on. CzechOut | 21:46, May 26, 2010 (UTC)


Is it worth noting that the majority of the warrior Silurians seen in series 5 are female? HellKaiserryo12 (TalkContribs) 22:31, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Not unless we can find an explanation for why this is. 07:59, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I don't tink it necessary to explain something to note its existence. Whether the Series 5 Silurian warriors being female is significant is a different matter. It might be. Any reasons offered would, however, be speculative.Boblipton 19:54, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Susceptibility to electricityEdit

Is it also worth noting the fact that Ambrose was able to kill a Silurian using only a few taser blasts? Although it's well known that even one taser shot can kill a person (as the media here in North America regularly reports), it might be worth noting that this same weakness afflicts at least the version of the Silurians seen in HE/CB. 21:18, June 21, 2010 (UTC)


don't you think the masks bear more resembalence to the classic series silurians than the actul new series silurians? does this mean that the classic series silurians were just wearing masks? submited july the 3rd 2010.

I'm of this impression as well. I firmly believe that the Silurians in the older episodes were simply wearing different helmets and that they integrated their weaponry into the helmet. Nothing says they weren't, and the new series indicates that they are just different tribes. That's hardly enough excuse for one group to look completely humanoid down to humanlike facial features and the other to not. Besides, it lends something to the older appearances: The reason they looked like masks was because they WERE masks. 22:08, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Article Split Edit

I noticed that Cyberman had been split into two articles (Cyberman (Mondas) and Cyberman (Pete's World)) I wondered whether a similar thing could be done here, since the newer Silurians lack many of the physical parts that the older Silurians had (Third Eye was gone, body was shaped slightly differently [though arguably due to Computer software and makeup being able to create more humanoid-looking creatures], a giant tongue) and etc. Would there be enough information to warrant an article split? Manga Maniac 19:36, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

The cybermen weere split for the same reason that characters who appear in both universes are split. The silurians seen in the new series are the same species as the original silurians, they are just a different branch of the species. The cybusmen have a completely different backstory to the real cybermen, and don't even come from the same universe.Gowron8472 21:57, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

End Of Time/Pandorica Opens Edit

Could the alien seen in the cantina scenes in these episodes be some species of Silurian? The vet 09:57, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Alien? Edit

Are the Silurians alien? Cortion 14:41, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

No, at least not in the "extraterrestrial" sense. They were the dominant species on Earth before the dinosaurs became extinct, but they've been in hibernation for millions of years because they thought the Moon was going to collide with them at that point. Different tribes awoke at varying points of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, due to human interference. I'm not even certain they have space travel, though I could be mistaken. 14:51, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
In Cold Blood/Hungry Earth -- can't recall exactly where, the Doctor says they aren't aliens, but are "earth-liens." Good enough for me. Boblipton 15:09, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Main image Edit

Changing image for the following reason: current picture shows the Silurians wearing masks. It should show them without such affects covering their appearances.

Sontarans are not shown with their helmets on, because most of the time there off. However, Daleks are (nearly) always in their Travel machines and are rarely uncovered.

In comparison, Silurians hardly ever wear masks. User:Cortion suggests that, through out all of their appearances - Silurians have mostly worn masks. This statement isn't true. So, in a nutshell, the image should be changed.----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:40, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a liar, Skittles, only five Silurians have been seen without their masks so far, and those are: Alaya, Restac, Malokeh, Eldane and Vastra. All the others have got their masks on. Whilst with Sontarans, we've seen quite a lot more than that. It's not covering their faces, it's adding a concept.

And also, give me a very, very good reason. Then yes, I will try and find another image. Cortion 17:46, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

What? Are we talking about the same Doctor Who? Do any of the following Silurians wear masks: Icthar, Imorkal, K'to, Scibus, Tarpok. No. Nor do any of their (many) followers. It's clear your a new series-only fan, but the show has a history y'know. As for find an image, I already have/had one. It was in the infobox before you removed it.----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:59, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

Wenley and Wales


This is the type of article that could you a double image (like on the Cyberman page or two 250px (on on top of the other)). One image would be a Silurian with the third eye, and the second one one from the new series. This can only work since there are a major difference between the two. Mini-mitch\talk 18:00, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose. So long third eye, you shall be missed. I've put a suggestion to the side, is this what you had in mind?----Skittles the hog--Talk 18:05, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a new-series only fan. I do enjoy some classic serials, e.g. Logopolis, Castrovalva. And sorry, but I don't really agree with this. Either this, I get a new-series Silurian without the mask, and I said Skittles for you to give a very valid reason, or we keep the one with the mask. Cortion 07:12, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

No we don't. Your opinion is not fact. Both myself and Mini-mitch agree on a split image. I've given you a good reason, now you give me one for keeping an image where you cannot see the faces. Hint: there isn't one!----Skittles the hog--Talk 09:58, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

I want does not get, Cortion. This is a wiki ran by a community, not by one person. We come to agrements when trying to decide things. If everyone was like "I want this... I want that..." we would get nowhere. Mini-mitch\talk 12:39, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

Well said. So, do you like this image?----Skittles the hog--Talk 12:58, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

I do. The only complaint I would have is to have the Silurian with the third eye made a little more clear. In other words, make the image more obvious that it has a third eye. Apart from that I like it. Mini-mitch\talk 13:01, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the eye is that it's generally the only thing in the shot when it's alight. The director always zooms in on it for some reason. I suppose you could take a Warriors of the Deep Silurian, but the originals were the best in my own opinion. Anyway, I'll take a look and see if I can't find a good one.----Skittles the hog--Talk 13:08, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

You're making a personal attack on me, Skittles, so stop it! And when you said "your opinion is not fact", well duh! That's what opinion is! Not fact! And you don't make sense half the time, Skittles. "Well said", what a stupid comment. Sarcasm towards me is what you love isn't it!? So sharp and bitter and insolent. And guess what, it's not to other users, it's to me! So what have you got against me, Skittles the hog? What have I done? What have I done to offend you? Hint: Nothing!
And type properly, "y'know" isn't a word you know! And also, use this symbol (⸮) whenever you will use sarcasm towards me. See if you do it intentionally or not. I bet it's intention! Cortion 15:00, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

(Sarcasm warning) That was helpful towards this discussion. (End of sarcasm) I didn't make a personal attack on you. I merely corrected you. Your opinion is not fact. Additionally, "y'know" = "you know", first day of school. Starting a sentence (and especially a paragraph) with "And" is incorrect.

Referring to my comment as "stupid", is a personal attack as are a number of your past comments. You have achieved nothing with your random outburst. Please restrain yourself and contribute helpfully.

Anyway, I was unable to find a satisfactory image of a Silurian where the "third eye" is alight. However, I don't think it's really necessary.----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:30, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

Removed following comment as it breached talk page guidelines.----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:56, July 4, 2011 (UTC)


How about this image?

Well isn't that wizard? Now, anyway, how about this image, is it what you want Skittles? Like it? Cortion 15:58, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

Not really. There are significant differences between the types, therefore I suggest a split image. Please explain what is wrong with my proposed image?----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:02, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

The third eye is blurred and the image is too dark. Cortion 16:06, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

The third eye is not blurred. Nor is it too dark. I know this is a direct contradiction, but it's true. The image clearly shows the two different Silurians. The only problem Mini-mitch had with it was that the third eye isn't distinguished enough, and that's not really major. Again, your image doesn't even show the faces, just some greenery.----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:10, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

How do you mean? Cortion 16:30, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

As in, they're too far away. But anyway, the split image shows both variants with significant differences. The Warriors Silurians are pretty much the same (but a bit more lame - see what I did there!)----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:33, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

How on earth are they too far away? But the split image's first image is just too dark. Just by looking at it, you know it. Cortion 17:05, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

It really isn't dark. The characters are clear and you can actually see their faces. In any case, the image you've selected only shows one type----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:12, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. We only show one type of the Macra, and one of the Daleks. This is the same. Cortion 17:19, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

No, these are vastly different. As are the Macra, but there isn't an image good enough to portray that type. Their aren't any different Daleks (only variants), they improve themselves. The Silurians have two very different types that co-exist, the Daleks have one. It's very different.----Skittles the hog--Talk 17:23, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

Can the both of you please stop sparring with each other on talk pages. It become quit annoying and irrelevant to the talk page, please you your own talk pages for it. As for the "Personal Attacks": Cortion, Skittles has not made a personal attack at all. And Skittles neither has Cortion made a personal attack towards you, but he is very, very close to one in my opinion. But back to the matter in hand, the image: The split image is great as the shows both the old a new Silurians, which the article has manged to fit together. Therefore because the article is about how the old and new Silurians and both the same, but still different Silurians, we show have the split image showing both the old and the new. Mini-mitch\talk 21:45, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
But we don't do that to the Macra and the Cybermen and the Sontarans. And how am I close to a personal attack? Cortion 07:25, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

I've explained why were having two already. Read the comment above Mini-mitch's----Skittles the hog--Talk 09:57, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

You were close to a personal attack, Cortion, by the way you spoke to Skittles earlier. Also you removed his comment from the talk page, which is against the rules of this wiki. As I said earlier, I like the split image. The third eye thing was nothing major and we should go with the split image. Mini-mitch\talk 16:46, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you were refering to me or not, but I removed one of Cortion's posts as it was a personal attack. The template at the top clearly states that messages of that kind should be deleted. I also think the split image is the one to go for.----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:51, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a split image showing both new and old series Silurians as well. Ausir(talk) @fandom 15:33, July 7, 2011 (UTC)


How about this one?

Oh, be quiet, Skittles. You made loads of personal attacks on me! Now about the split image. With the Cyberman article it is different. They are two different species. These are two different branches. And I'm not copying any user, but the old Silurian is just far too dark. Now how about this image?

At no point has Skittles made a personal attack against you. We will not just be using an image of the new Silurians. They fall into the same category as the Cybermen. They have different types of Cybermen just as Silurians have different branches. We need to the difference between them as they are major differences between them (the third eye for instance). Not to have a split image is like having an single photo of the Master of his main page.
I'm struggling to understand why exactly you always want a new series image. Not all old series images are dark, so that is never an excuse. The old series images have as much right to be used as the new series one have.
Just to note: The Silurians need to have a split image. They two different branches which the page covers are exactly that: different! We need to show both different branches that the pages covers, hence the reason the split image is the best.
Lastly, I will restore the image that you suggested above, since someone deleted it and it is being used in this discussion. Mini-mitch\talk 11:11, July 8, 2011 (UTC)
Are you going to block me, after this discussion has finished? Cortion 12:39, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Most people are in favour of the split image and there aren't any valid arguments against. Shall we add it?----Skittles the hog--Talk 12:40, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with it, and happy for it to be added to the page. Mini-mitch\talk 12:49, July 8, 2011 (UTC)
I'll only agree with it, if you don't block me. Cortion 12:51, July 8, 2011 (UTC)
It's done, Cortion. I don't necessarily agree with it, but we have to compromise on things. And yes, you're blocked. BroadcastCorp. 06:56, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
Wait a minute... just because they look different, it doesn't mean we need a split image? What is going on? Taking the image down in the mean time. This consversation has not finished. And it's not incorrect to start a sentence with "and". BroadcastCorp. 14:20, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
'And' is a conjunction. As you might gather from its roots, this is a word that joins a word or group of words with other words or groups of words to makes up a complete thought that in the English language, makes up a sentence.
I think the visual differences between the old and new series Silurians perfectly justify the use of a split image. Ausir(talk) @fandom 14:35, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
That's a matter of opinion. BroadcastCorp. 14:38, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

It's not really an opinion. If you look at the split image, they look very different.--Skittles the hog - talk 14:43, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

So do the Autons, they look very different, and do we use a split image for them? BroadcastCorp. 16:41, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

SepArate articlesEdit

Due to this split image, I suggest we have different articles for different branches, such as Silurian (Wenley Moor), Silurian (Sea Base 4) and Silurian (Wales). We do this to the Cyberman article, so why not for this article? This article will cover all types, the other articles will cover the specific types. Sound like a good idea? This article should be exactly the same as the Cyberman article. Here is my main thumbnail image suggestion: BroadcastCorp. 08:00, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

They are the same species, just different branches. The Cybermen are completely different from one another.----Skittles the hog--Talk 12:42, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

We do have articles for the sub-branches of Mondasian Cybermen too, though. Ausir(talk) @fandom 12:47, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and although this is hardly the place to discuss those articles, they really shouldn't exist. They rely on one out-of-universe source, which is crazy for such central enemy. But in terms of the Silurians, again, there different branches. We don't differentiate, say, Africans and Europeans. There all one big happy family, albeit with physical differences. ----Skittles the hog--Talk 14:45, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Actually there are different articles for Africans and Europeans because they have a different culture and a different society. We really should split the article. Because they really are different. Why did you agree on a split image. Because they are very different. That is why we should have this article exactly like the Cyberman one. BroadcastCorp. 15:31, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Right, can I have a link to TARDIS wiki's "African" page please. I agreed to the split image because they look different. There societies are not different and you have no evidence to prove this, nor are their histories different. They all lived together, all went into hibernation together and all contested humanity. Their physical differences do not mean they should have different articles.----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:03, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

I meant Wikipedia. But you said you agreed to the split image because they looked different... well... the Daleks look different to the current version, the Nestene Consciousness looks different to the current version, the Autons look different to the current version, the Macra look different to the current version, Sontarans looks different to the current version, Omega looks different to the current version, Davros looks different to the current version, and so, so, much more! And there societies are different, American goverment, African government, European government. So, I don't really get what you're saying Skittles, I'm sorry. BroadcastCorp. 18:01, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

There the same species, the Cybermen aren't. If the two were distinctly different species, I would agree, but there not.----Skittles the hog--Talk 18:34, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of the Cybermen, does anyone object to merging the articles about subtypes (CyberFaction, CyberNeomorph etc.) back into Cyberman (Mondas)? The branches might have been named in spin-off media, but they're still fundamentally the same species. Ausir(talk) @fandom 18:38, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

You would probably be best moving this discussion to Talk:Cyberman (Mondas)]].----Skittles the hog--Talk 18:41, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what other users think. BroadcastCorp. 07:16, July 10, 2011 (UTC)
I disagree on the article separation.
The Scales of Injustice establishes that there are differences between various Silurian. As is stated in the article these "subtle differences were attributed to caste. There were also clans or families with differentiated physical characteristics, some suited for environments of extreme cold or high plateaus." Then in subsequent novels and audios "Silurian" (and later) Earth Reptile is used in a similar way that Human is used.
I don't believe there are hard enough lines to separate the article along. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:59, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
I think the current article -- which I just did a clean-up on -- is quite good and was quite good before I did my clean-up. Yes, it is longer than many articles, but that is because Silurians are a favorite race in Doctor Who -- compare the Daleks article -- with many appearences in various media. Further, while there are at least two clearly separate types of Cybermen -- Mondas-derived and Pete's-World-derived -- the Silurians, including such species as Sea Devils -- are clearly derived from a common ancestor and would appear to be members of the same genus. Because of this, while separate articles on individual species or tribes can be justified, the current article is sound as an overview. Boblipton 15:19, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, good job, the article's in good shape now. I still don't see the need to separate the articles though.--Skittles the hog - talk 14:56, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Good shape? BroadcastCorp 16:10, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Confusion about the Silurians

I understand that there seems to be some confusion about the names, date of origin and how a planetoid became Earth's moon. What I think is that when people call them "Silurians", they mean they have an ancestry that dates back to the Silurian Age. When the Doctor calls them "Eocenes", he means that they share just a little more anatomically in common with some creatures from the Eocene Age. But yes, they lived somewhere around the Age of the Jurassic and lived with a number of dinosaurs. As for the planetoid that became the moon, Doctor Who isn't the first place to hold a theory that some space debris went by Earth and became just that, why should scientists now say that same theory is wrong?

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+