Talk:The Daleks

Plot summary

The plot summary added by Konczewski (talk · contribs) appears to be a cut-down and slightly rephrased version of the one at the Doctor Who Reference Guide [1]. This becomes obvious if you do a comparison and see that the same kind of phraseology and structure is used as in the DWRG summary. For example, at the end of episode five: "The Thals hear Elyon's scream and race to the lakeside, unaware of what new horror they will find." DWRG: "At the camp, all they hear is Elyon's terrified scream. Ian and Ganatus leap to their feet and race to the lakeside, unaware of what new horror they will find..."

I point it out here simply to ask if such a precis is enough not to make it a copyright violation. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think something should be done and have started a rewrite. --Litefoot 22:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Have we actually reached a consensus on summary lengths to justify such a dramatic cutdown? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm staggered by this abrupt pruning. What I'd written was hardly excessive - just a few short paras per episode. --Litefoot 16:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The plot is terribly long for a TV serial, no matter that it consists of a few episodes. I've noticed this problem on a few Who episodes on Wikipedia Alastairward 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

I've removed the spoiler warning, which in this case was particularly redundant because it followed a section heading clearly labelled "Plot". People read encyclopedia articles because they want to know about subjects. There's no need to put an extra warning into the articles to say, in effect "sorry, but you might actually find something in this article that you didn't know." We don't need to bow and apologise for providing information. This is an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 13:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed again. Anyone whose reading comprehension is poor enough to not realise that a section titled "Plot" contains details of the plot is unlikely to be successfully spoiled anyway. --Stormie 02:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Titles

I did not realize that there was an editing conflict going on when I made my edit this morning (MDT). I only looked at the edit history after I was finished. So to flesh out my edit summary I feel that both titles should be in this opening. The Mutants was what it was referred to when the story was being made so it should be in the opening. Then, as mentioned later in the article, starting with the 10th Anniversary RT's it was known as The Dead Planet. This title was used for more than a decade in all media when referring to this story, sometimes in conjunction with TM and sometimes not. This would seem to make it notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. I had to search far down into the article to find TDP and that is why I added it in my edit. I certainly think that both titles should be mentioned rather than one over the other. Apologies for not posting here first but again I did not know this was in dispute until after my initial edit. MarnetteD | Talk 15:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Production episode table [old]

This discussion has been superseded by the next section: to cast your votes on this change, please go there.

OK, I made a change to this table and it was reverted (no reason given). So let's have a discussion here.

I made the change because I feel that this table is most useful if it refers solely to the transmitted episodes i.e. 7 episode story, 7 rows showing transmission dates, archival status etc. To clutter it up with alternative recordings that were never transmitted seems confusing.

Not that I removed the information: I moved it to a separate table where this first shot was discussed. So all the information remains, just separated into 2 tables: one for the transmitted story, one for miscellaneous footage. Every story probably has these extended versions, truncated versions etc etc (e.g. see the "Wiped!" Telos publication for pages and pages for these . . . they are interesting, but the primary focus should be on the transmitted story).

Thoughts? Metebelis (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Many stories did have additional takes of certain scenes, for various reasons. It was rare that an entire episode was reshot (or "remounted", to use the contemporary technical term). The remount of "The Dead Planet" on 6 December 1963 was the only such instance in DW (other than remaking the pilot for "An Unearthly Child"), and is a documented fact.

• Bentham, Jeremy (1986). Doctor Who: The Early Years. London: W.H. Allen. p. 44. ISBN 0 491 03612 4.
• Howe, David J.; Stammers, Mark; Walker, Stephen James (1994). Doctor Who The Handbook - The First Doctor. London: Doctor Who Books. pp. 59, 233, 236, 261. ISBN 0 426 20430 1.
• Howe, David J.; Walker, Stephen James (1998). "The Mutants". Doctor Who: The Television Companion. London: BBC Worldwide. p. 13. ISBN 0 563 40588 0. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

By contrast, retakes of single scenes are common enough to go largely unmentioned in books. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, good point, but why not have it in a separate table, so transmitted doesn't get mixed up with untransmitted? Metebelis (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The table clearly shows the original Dead Planet was unaired, meaning it wasn't transmitted. If someone is confused by that, they must be blind or just stupid and thefore, they shouldn't be on the Wikipedia. Plus, An Unearthly Child does it (The last time I checked it), so why not here? Babelcolour5 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No one is blind or stupid: your comment is not constructive. I'm suggesting that dividing the table in two is clearer and logically more sensible, whether someone gets mixed up or not. An Unearthly Child now takes a similar path, and I think it is a vast improvement. Metebelis (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your statement "An Unearthly Child now takes a similar path, and I think it is a vast improvement." is curious: it only takes that path because you made it so, so naturally you consider it an improvement, but that doesn't mean that everybody else does. I wasn't too happy myself, and fixed up the more glaring failure: the duplication of references. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Why does everyone have to be antagonistic? We're here at the talk page, so if you don't agree, just say so without inserting cute labels like "curious". I never implied everyone else (or indeed, anyone else) agreed with me. I was free to edit it like anyone else, and I was giving my opinion (like everyone else) -- it's clearer, because the tables now match the text. I shouldn't have to mind my Ps and Qs. I appreciated you fixing up the refs, but there was no failure. I thought this was a collaborative project?

Look, the fix is an improvement in my opinion, but I'm not going to die over it. I've found this an unpleasant experience, so I am unwatching both these pages. You can let this discussion continue if anyone else wants to contribute, and then do whatever necessary at the end. All my edits were done in good faith, that's all I can say. Metebelis (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, "collaborative" means lots of people agreeing to do the same thing. That doesn't mean that everyone must automatically agree to what one person thinks is a good thing to do, even if it's in good faith. Don't take it personally (even if some people might try to be "cute" in their responses). Lots of other people, including myself, have had their "good" ideas shot down. DonQuixote (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm creating a new section below for voting on the original change, since this discussion got diverted. Metebelis (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Production episode table

Please compare the following two versions of the page, and state your preference, with your reasons if applicable:

• [2] (Vote "No")
• [3] (Vote "Yes")

The nature of the change: No information was added or deleted. The episode table in §2, "Production" combined 2 concepts (Transmitted episodes + unaired/discarded episode). The relevant text for unaired episodes was contained in §2.3 Filming. The change was splitting the episode table into two, leaving the transmitted episodes where they were, and moving the unaired episode into a new table in §2.3 near the related text.

N.B. References need merging in the two tables if split, but this shortcoming is known and will be fixed if updated. Please confine your analysis to the layout change.

Existing votes: Yes: Metebelis (whose change it was); No: Babelcolour5 (whose reversion it was) and Redrose64.

Question: do you agree with the update?

I guess that you have changed your mind since you posted that you were taking these pages off of your watchlist. There is nothing wrong with that I just wanted to be sure. Please be aware that WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote and also note this section of what Wikipedia is not WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Having said that I prefer the table as it was before the changes which, I guess, is a no. MarnetteD | Talk 04:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No, didn't change my mind. Decided to come back a month or so later to see the result, and there's none. Why don't we just make this a consensus that there's not enough enthusiasm for the change, and leave it at that. Metebelis (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Most recent broadcast in the UK

The article presently says that "The serial was most recently broadcast in the UK on BBC Four ... It was shown ... from 5 to 9 April 2008" (my emphasis). This is now out of date. The serial was broadcast on Freeview channel 70 from 4 to 7 May 2015. It might have been broadcast on that channel last year. Even allowing for the change to widescreen and introduction of commercial breaks, I don't think that what the article says is correct. Either the words "most recently" need to be deleted, or the words "in the UK" need to be replaced with "on the BBC", or something to that effect, to bring the article up to date. James500 (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The number of TV channels is huge compared to 20 years ago; we really shouldn't be keeping track of repeats, some of which may be on minor channels. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The audience figure for the repeats are relevant to the programme's reception, to determining its fame and popularity. Using the figures for the first broadcast alone could be very misleading. Suppose, for one hypothetical, example that Program X is broadcast once with audience of 20 million and Program Y is broadcast in ten countries with audience of 10 million in each (ie a total audience of 100 million). If you just used the figure for the first broadcast, you would think Program X was more popular, but it isn't. Even if we don't have an actual number for the audience, the number of repeats is an indicator of popularity, like the number of editions of a book. In any event, a book called "Doctor Who: The Complete History" does give complete details of all re-broadcasts, as far as I can see, so it seems that reliable sources regard this information as relevant. I don't think either BBC4 or CBS Horror are minor channels. James500 (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguated to (1963 television serial)

Why was this page suddenly moved to The Daleks (1963 television serial)? Are there other TV serials or other productions by this name (and yes, I know technically its production name is The Mutants) this title would be confused with? No-one searching for "The Daleks" would likely be looking for episode two of The Dalek Invasion of Earth. Not to mention The Daleks currently redirects here, and not to any disambiguation page, so it seems really pointless. TardisTybort (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Daleks. 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/20121228210500/http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/archive.htm to http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/archive.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gallifreyone.com/review.php?id=b

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) 16:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Daleks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 22:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Grabbing for a review if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• The infobox image needs ALT text.
• I am not sure about the use of the image. It does not seem to be connected with any critical commentary so it seems rather random to me. I am not sure if it is needed.

  The image is iconic. It is the last shot of episode one, and the very first appearance of a Dalek - all we see in this episode is the sucker-stick, but the look of sheer horror on Barbara's face is one of the defining moments of the programme. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you for the response, but this needs to be made clear in the article with a citation. Unless it is already stated in the article (which I apologize for reading over it for some reason), I cannot find this anywhere in the article. It would seem to fit in the "Critical response" subsection the best. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Would a link for “serial” be helpful (i.e. serial (radio and television))? I am not familiar with this phrase in this context. I am an American so that could be why I have not seen this before.
• For this phrase (the Doctor's greatest extraterrestrial enemies), I am not sure if the “greatest” part is appropriate as unless it is supported by a citation, then it comes across as POV issues.
• I would revise this part (this story marks the first appearance of the Doctor's greatest extraterrestrial enemies, the Daleks, and is also the first to feature recurring Skaro people, the Thals.) to (this story marks the first appearance of the Doctor's greatest extraterrestrial enemies, the Daleks, and the recurring Skaro people, the Thals.) for more concise language.
• The term “Daleks” is linked multiple times in the lead.
• Include Susa’s full name when you first mention her in the lead.
• For this part (who are surviving off the radiation that remains in the atmosphere after a nuclear war they waged with their enemies), I would revise “who are surviving” to “who survive”.
• For this part (they discover more about the planet and the ensuing war, and attempt to broker peace), I do not think the comma is necessary.
• This quote "bug-eyed monsters” either needs a citation or paraphrased.

Plot

• For this part (where the Doctor tries to determine their position by taking a reading of the stars), the Doctor link should go to the First Doctor article and specify in the prose that it is the First Doctor.

Conception and writing

• For this part (The show's second serial was always planned to be futuristic), I would include the show’s title and the link as I do not think you have actually linked the show in the body of the article.

Design and music

• The image requires ALT text.
• The image caption needs a citation, particularly for the “the show's most popular villains” part.
• The first paragraph is rather long. Do you think it could be separated into two paragraphs?

Casting and characters

• Great job with this subsection.

Filming

• I could not find any issues with this subsection.

Broadcast and ratings

• For this part (The first episode was broadcast on BBC TV on 21 December 1963, and was watched by 6.9 million viewers. The following episode received 6.4 million viewers. By the third episode, news about the Daleks had spread, and the episode was watched by 8.9 million viewers.), could you make the reference clear? I am not sure if Reference 25 or Reference 26 supports this.

Critical response

• You only mention the year for the A.V. Club, but not for the other ones so I was a little confused by this choice.

Commercial releases

• Please link VHS and DVD.
• Could you specify what “special features” were included.

In print

• Just a clarification question about this part (The Daleks was the first serial to be adapted as a novel.). Do you mean the first serial of Doctor Who or the first serial ever?

Soundtrack

• I would link CD.

Film version

• Good work with this part.

Final comments

• Great work with this! Once my comments are addressed, I will pass this. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  Where you say that a particular image needs/requires ALT text, this is not part of the GA criteria (or even the stricter FA criteria), so is a nice-to-have but not a must-have. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you for the comment. I do not see why you could not just add ALT text as it is a rather quick and easy process, but I will respect your decision. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Aoba47! Just a note: if you're finished with your initial look at the article, putting the review on hold is a great way to get the quickest response, as it pings the nominator—that said, I have the page in my watchlist anyway, so I could see your review regardless. I've gone through and addressed most of your comments, though I disagree with adding a citation to the "bug-eyed monsters" quote in the lead, per WP:CITELEAD, as it is cited later in the article. Let me know if you have any more concerns. Thanks again! – Rhain ☔ 14:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I was actually waiting to put the "on hold" part up until I read through my review comments again. I did the review pretty late at night so I wanted to make sure everything was coherent. My only concern is still with the image as the justification for its inclusion (that it is a defining moment of the episode of the episode and show) is not present in the article and supported by a citation. As an unfamiliar reader, it is still not made clear why this image is there as opposed to other ones, and you will need a citation for the "defining moment" aspect as otherwise, it could be interpreted as original research. Hope you find this helpful and I will pass it to a GA once this part is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I don't think it needs a citation at all, considering the article itself doesn't state that it's a "defining moment" (and thus there's nothing to cite), but I've added some information and references nonetheless. Let me know if there's anything else. Thanks! – Rhain ☔ 21:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• An clear explanation of the image's use in the article is required to justify its inclusion. It is a non-free image, and the inclusion of non-free material are typically limited to cases in which it further illustrates critical commentary beyond the prose. Without the citations, there is no clear reason (especially as someone who has never seen the show) for including the image other than for aesthetic reasons. I hope that clarifies this. Aoba47 (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand that, but typically that justification is required in the image's fair use rationale itself, rather than in the article. Either way, I think including the information in the infobox is beneficial, as it elaborates why the "first ever on-screen appearance of the Daleks" is so important to those who are unaware, so I appreciate that you brought it up. – Rhain ☔ 22:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Verdict

• Thank you for addressing everything. I will ✓ Pass this. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! – Rhain ☔ 22:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archive

I'm not a mad Ian Levine fan but the story of how this story was found all bound up and ready for destruction and was only narrowly saved by Mr L throwing a wobbly surely deserves inclusion? 2.28.124.127 (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done 2.28.124.127 (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D.

146.101.133.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continues to remove any mention of the film Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. from the Film version section without proper explanation. It is not uncommon to mention a film's sequel in such a section as it demonstrates the response to the film and provides some background information. Not only this, but it avoids having a one sentence paragraph. Per WP:BRD, the user should explain their changes here and maintain the status quo until a consensus is achieved. – Rhain ☔ 00:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. One of Rhain's edit summaries (this one) says maintain the SQ of an article that has undergone a GA content review, and if we look back to the article as it stood eleven months ago, at the time that it passed GA review, this passage is there in almost exactly the form that the IP is objecting to - the only differences (three, all in the linked title of the sequel film) are punctuation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

2023 version

Should the colourised and re-edited 2023 version not have its own section? At the moment it is covered only under Commercial releases, but it was broadcast and heavily publicised and new material was recorded. Dunarc (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)