Talk:Dalek/Archive 1

Dal-Lek
About that Dal-Lek encyclopedia business - if an encyclopedia has a volume that stretches from D to L, then the preceding A-D volume must have had some very long articles!!

There is nothing 'rabid' about disputing its existance. The word itself is not very NPOV and another reason for taking it out.

Arno


 * You know, I've seen that urban myth discussed on the internet as pertaining to an encyclopaedia, but whenever I heard the story back in the day, DAL-LEK were the headers on volume 2 of the Greater London telephone directory. Which wouldn't be too unreasonable--surnames, particularly from the same language (surnames in London in the early 1960s still being fairly homogoneously British/Irish) aren't distributed evenly across the 26 letters of the alphabet, and I would have no problem believing that A-D had a comparable number of entries to D-L.


 * That said, of course, it's still an urban myth. Binabik80 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

PD pictures of Daleks
Are there any public domain pictures of daleks? Could someone draw one?

Daleks (comment)
Being on the other side of the pond, could someone post a current usage?
 * The Register* has been using the term "Daleks" to refer to (?) undesirable persons.

Celestial Intervention Agency
I don't have Genesis of the Daleks on hand, but I don't think the CIA was ever identified as the agency that sent the Doctor to Skaro, although I know it's been assumed by fandom (and fan canon) that it was the CIA. If anyone can confirm an on-screen mention that it was the CIA, please do, otherwise I am of the view that it should be reverted. -khaosworks 07:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It said so at Celestial Intervention Agency, so I figured that in the interests of consistency at least it should say the same here. The CIA entry is just a stub so if you revert here a bit of explanation of the fan theories vs. onscreen canon over there would help to pad it out some. IIRC, the old FASA Doctor Who RPG says it was the CIA that sent the Doctor to Skaro so it may be more than just idle fan speculation even if not mentioned on-screen. Bryan 09:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More advanced Daleks

 * They did so in The Dalek Invasion of Earth (1964), which showed the Daleks conquering the Earth in the year 2164. The sight of the monsters amid the familiar landmarks of London made their presence doubly effective by bringing the threat to home ground. The Doctor explains the presence of the Daleks by saying that this must take place "a million years" before the events of The Daleks, and that what they are witnessing is the "middle period" of Dalek history. However, these Daleks are able to move without the need for metal paths, presumably drawing power through the use of what appear to be radio dishes on their backs. The question of why in the future the Daleks would be less advanced than these Daleks is never explained.

I thought the Doctor explained it in that episode by saying "Oh, yeah, this is a different model of Dalek that can move around on ordinary ground. User:Samboy 20:04, 16 Dec 2004


 * I'll have to watch it again to confirm, but even if he does, it doesn't explain why the Daleks in the city would be limited to walkways - it all seems a bit limited. There are fan theories to explain this, but like I said, it's beyond the scope of the article. -khaosworks 01:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The Doctor actually says, in Dalek Invasion of Earth, that the Daleks adapt to the environments they inhabit, implying that they see no need to change if they don't leave Skaro. user:shokanshi 15:08, May 17 2005


 * Which actually doesn't make sense, because in The Daleks they were after the Thals. One would imagine that would be a pressing reason to create a model that can go outside the city. --khaosworks 16:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Dalek ranks
Have a look at Dalek ranks. I've tried a cleanup, but the state of it is quite dire, and desperately needs copyediting and to sort out all the bad information from the good. Maybe it should be redirected to "Dalek models" or something. Suggestions and thoughts? -khaosworks 09:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe Types of Dalek? I'll look at the contents tomorrow and see if I can do some tidying too. Bryan 09:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Dalek types, maybe. But let's clean it up first before deciding whether we should shift it. Thanks. -khaosworks 11:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If we move it to Dalek variants, then the stuff you just moved here would fit quite well as the intro text at the beginning of the article IMO. Bryan 00:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dalek variants
(The following is being placed here until we can figure out how to integrate it properly. Might even consider merging it with "Dalek ranks".)

The appearence of the Dalek itself has evolved over time, although not as much as Doctor Who's other robot nemesis, the Cybermen. Originally sporting a silver metal band along their chest area in the Daleks (1963), their look was further modified in The Dalek Invasion Of Earth(1964) with larger bases and radar dishes. This story also introduced the Supreme/Black Daleks, Dalek commanders painted black. The "Ear-bulbs" also underwent a change from round to a more conical shape. The look of the chest was further modified in The Chase(1965) with "a Solar panel array" on the chest consisting of wiring and slats.

The Daleks of the 60s were mainly silver with blue spheres. Another Dalek variant, the Dalek Emperor, was introduced in "The Evil Of The Daleks"(1967)-basically, a large, stationery Dalek with only one row of spheres,attached to wires on Skaro. Also certain Daleks appeared with only their domes painted black in this story.

In the 1960s movies based on the Dalek serials, the Daleks had larger, "jam-jar" ear bulbs and a larger base. In "Dalek Invasion Earth 2150 AD" the Solar panel slats were added.

When the Daleks appeared in color in Day Of The Daleks(1972), the Daleks adopted a dark-grey color scheme, with their leader being painted gold. In Planet Of The Daleks(1973), a new Dalek Supreme appeared, sporting the movie design and a gold-black color scheme. It's eye also lit up when speaking.

In Death To The Daleks the Daleks returned to a color scheme reminiscent of their 60's incarnations, being silver with black spheres. But by the next story, Genesis Of The Daleks, they turned back to their grey state.

The Black Supreme Dalek returned in "Resurrection Of The Daleks" with a black color scheme and white spheres. This story also featured the bizzare "Dalek troopers", a group of mercenaries sporting helmets that resembled Star Wars Imperial blast helmets but styilized to look like a Dalek. In "Revelation of the Daleks" a new Dalek faction was created sporting a white finish and gold spheres and appendages. These new Daleks-who were loyal to Davros-were further modified with flatter 'ears' and more specialized "plungers" in the final Dalek serial "Rememberance Of The Daleks". This story also saw the Dalek Battle computer-a child sitting in a Dalek chair and stylized helmet-and another, smaller Emperor Dalek with a rounder dome and no eyestalk, and the Special Weapons Dalek, a worn-looking Dalek sporting a massive cannon.

The Dalek seen in one episode of the new Doctor Who series is structually similar to the movie Daleks, but with more detail and weathering; it also has a gold finish that is reminiscent of the leader Daleks in the Pertwee serials. A new, even more advanced design will apparentally appear at the end of the season.


 * Information has been merged. Dalek ranks moved to Dalek variants, which is a more accurate article title. -khaosworks 00:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Extermin- Congratul-ate
Thanks to whoever's responsible: this is a pretty decent article. &mdash; Matt Crypto 02:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks on behalf of all the editors - it's been a collective effort taking place over many months. --khaosworks 04:12, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Poor Revision
Your reverting my edit back to yours(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dalek&diff=next&oldid=13098582) was a poor choice for a few reasons. 1) My revisions made your sentences less choppy. 2) I added necessary info and corrected things that could confuse people. The museum is HIS not A museum. A museum implies that it's just some museum that he can put stuff into. 3) You edited stuff out of mine then took stuff back from it to make a second edit of your own. Overall this is poor judgment.--Chadamir 22:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

missing item?
Any room for Abslom Daak Nemesis of the Daleks etc in this article? GraemeLeggett 09:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll stick in a paragraph about DWM and brief info about Daak, but I don't think we should go into any further detail as it would have to bring in a discussion about television/spin-off canon. Besides, I'd like to mention in more detail the solo strips like Return of the Daleks and go into the TV21 and Dalek annual stuff as well. Might possibly expand if the history section spins off its own sub-article (which it probably will eventually, given the size of it). --khaosworks 13:22, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Fun fact
Daleks were mentioned in the 2005 manicfesto for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party http://www.omrlp.com/ in Briton.

Pronunciation
I think the pronunciation has been transcribed incorrectly. The vowel in the final syllable is /&#618;/ (the "short i" sound in "bit") - at least, that is the pronunciation I am familiar with. Are there two possible pronunciations, or one official one? Can someone who is following the current series on BBC1 confirm? &mdash; Paul G 08:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't even get characters, just blank squares. Why don't we drop IPA, most people can't read it, what about a sound file instead.GraemeLeggett 09:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a toss-up for me; I've just reviewed the current series' episode, and both the American and the Dalek itself pronounce it "-leck", while Christopher Eccleston could tend mode towards "-lick"... I can't compare it against the old episodes, never having seem them, unfortunately. Dewet 09:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Human pronounciations are not consistent. Sometimes they use the short "i", sometimes they used the "e" and in "bed" (Sylvester McCoy used the latter), but the Daleks throughout the series themselves use the latter, so that's the one I tend to support as the "correct" pronounciation. --khaosworks 09:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * How about Davro's pronunciation? Must be a .wav out there. GraemeLeggett 09:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * A quick shuffle through the ones I have easily on hand - thank God for VHS to DVD transfers - Jon Pertwee uses "e" in Death to the Daleks. The Michael Wisher Davros uses "e", as does Tom Baker, through Genesis of the Daleks. In Resurrection of the Daleks, the Terry Molloy Davros uses "e". In the clips shown in the Doctor Who Confidential episode "Dalek", you can hear the "e" pronounciation used more often than not. But hey, you don't have to take my word for it. :) --khaosworks 10:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The main reason I added the pronunciation originally was because I at first thought it was something like "DAY-lecks" or something similar; I think many people coming across the name initially (especially Americans, somehow) might find the direction useful. Dewet 10:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And keep the IPA, please, just like the rest of Wikipedia. Anyone who can't read it could consider moving from Windows95 to a slightly more modern, Unicode-based OS :) --Nantonos 01:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Dalek Vs Marvin The paranoid android.
I'm taking bets. Project2501a 11:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Idea: Crossover between HHGTG and Dr Who episodes?


 * See Destiny of the Daleks. --khaosworks 11:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

important article
Overall it is an excellent article. It's also a fine example of a "geek" priority on Wikipedia (Why Wikipedia is not so great). &#9992; James C. 14:52, 2005 May 23 (UTC)


 * Daleks are a cultural icon in the UK, though this level of detail is rather anorakish. GraemeLeggett 15:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree, of course, but 40 years of history is a lot to cover - and hopefully a balance of sorts has been struck between the in-show story and real-world context to provide a well-rounded article. --khaosworks 16:21, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Vandal Alert
Someone has gone into the edit and replaced every instance of "Dalek" with "Faggot" Someone please undo the dammage done, I was never very good with editing:

Someone else warn off the little punk; this little twerp needs to know in no uncertain terms that he's not welcome around here. I am very "with" the concept of an open encyclopdia: That doesn't mean I tolerate mindless vandalism.

BTW, this Dalek enrty is very well done. Go Wikipedia!

The Daleks Rule!!! Great Article!!!Classicjupiter2 20:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I plead guilty to all charges.
Hey, it was a joke. Sorry to all those who got upset :-( Ta bu shi da yu 23:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps pertinent clarification (particularly in light of the section immediately above), he means this edit, not this one. Different kinds of darkness. HTH, –Hajor 23:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This is correct. Again, sorry. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Splitting up
This article is very long, so might we consider splitting peices of into their own articles &mdash; i.e. History within the show and possibly even the section about their appearances. --Jawr256 11:28, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Character box
I dunno, I like the focus/highlight the character box gives the article; maybe its content can be reused here, and only altered to fit the article as a special case? Dewet 20:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, what more can I say? Well done! ;) Dewet 20:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definite article
''it needs the definite article here I think. or start "A Dalek..."''

I don't think it really needs the article. e.g. in a paragraph talking about Americans, it'd be fine to start "Americans are...". Having said that, it definitely sounds better with the article in there. --DudeGalea 06:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't mind either way, but I prefer it as it is now. Dewet 07:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fundamentalism
Earlier today I added comments to the effect that the last episode of the 2005 series portrayed the Daleks as fundamentalists. This has been removed by User:Khaosworks on the grounds that it is speculation. To some extent that is true, but surely the page should contain some discussion of the cultural meaning of the topic rather than just endless geekish detail on suckers, force-fields etc. Part of what's interesting about such phenomena as the Daleks is the way they change to reflect cultural preoccupations. The crucial connection between Daleks and Nazis is barely mentioned as it is, despite the obvious analogy to Panzer divisions and to Nazi genetic experiments to create a 'pure' race. The change to blasphemy-obsessed fundamentalists is one of the most culturally interesting features of the 2005 series, along with the portrayal of them as hidden controllers of popular TV - an idea clearly related to the subject of recent films such as The Power of Nightmares, Outfoxed and Fahrenheit 9/11. Surely, to dismiss discussion of such cultural significance as "speculation" impoverishes the article. Paul B 21:16, 19 June 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that's original research, which, unless you can come up with a published source for such speculation, is frowned on in Wikipedia. The Nazi analogy is clear, and established, and sourced. Don't get me wrong &mdash; I agree with you, but Wikipedia is not the place to discuss such things, and what we put in needs to be sourced. Unless Russell T. Davies comes up and says somewhere that he wanted to talk about religious fundamentalism, or someone publishes an essay analysing it in that way, that's still speculation, regardless of how fascinating it might be. --khaosworks 21:21, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are quite right about the OR policy, though I think the reasoning for the rule and the actual specificity of its wording don't quite cohere. But, nevertheless, the policy is there. However, there are no clear boundaries between fact and theory. If I say the 2005 Daleks are presented as fundamentalists is that fact or speculation? I'd say its fact, since the term is simply a label widely used to describe the behaviour they are shown to exhibit. Of course adding the bit about 'perhaps reflecting...' goes beyond fact. How about: "In contrast, in the 2005 series the Daleks were presented as religious fundamentlists, their preoccupation with blasphemy being a feature unknown in cold-war era episodes." That comunicates a particular message about cultural meaning without violating the facts. Paul B 00:55, 20 June, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree: All in all we only saw a few minutes of dalek dialogue, and only a few sentences of that were on religion. It's clear that they've gotten rather big on religion, but whether or not it's fundamentalism can't be ascertained. --W(t) 01:19, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)


 * Blasphemy isn't a concept distinct to fundamentalism, either. When I removed that bit about fundmentalism, I added a paragraph to the Culture section about how they are now religious fanatics - that would seem to cover it neutrally and adequately. --khaosworks 02:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * The religious aspect of the Daleks only applies to the subset of them (created after this Emperor Dalek went crazy) seen in Bad Wolf, Parting. GraemeLeggett 09:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dalek quotes
Added the link and added some quotes at the other end. Room for expansion! GraemeLeggett 16:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requested move to Daleks
The article almost exclusively uses the plural, including in the infobox. It seems incongruous for the title to be at the singular - SoM 14:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Wikipedia Manual of Style naming conventions - at Naming_conventions and Naming conventions (pluralization) - suggest that:
 * In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that noun is always'' in a plural form in English (such as scissors or trousers). Category names follow different pluralization conventions, see Categorization.
 * Rationale and specifics: See Naming conventions (pluralization)''
 * Although the article speaks of Daleks "almost exclusively" as the name of the race - the individual creature is still a (singular) Dalek. See also Human. --khaosworks 14:22, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * so its Oppose then isn't it. GraemeLeggett 14:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, forgot to make it clear, I suppose. :) When I first came on Wikipedia, I tried switching Dalek to Daleks, Cyberman to Cybermen, etc... and got gently told off for that, so I speak from a lesson learned early on about the MoS. --khaosworks 14:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Against Wikipedia naming conventions. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support The article is about the race called the Daleks, not about the Dalek as an object or animal. It's just like Ukrainians, Poles, or French people (except, of course, that Daleks are not people).  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-06-28 08:00 Z 
 * Actually, it's about both. It's all a matter of semantics, really. It would be extremely easy, for example, to start the article with "A Dalek is a member of a race of..." and then start rephrasing certain sentences to focus on "A Dalek looks like..." and so forth. Would it then be permissible to retain the name "Dalek"? --khaosworks June 28, 2005 16:58 (UTC)
 * We're only discussing the formal title. Obviously the introductory sentence has to change to accomodate the change, but we're not changing the subject of the article and rewriting the whole article to conform to a Wikipedia convention for titles.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-06-28 18:48 Z 
 * You're missing the point - it's just as easy to argue the other way if the article was written like that, that's why it's just semantics and there really isn't any good reason to go against the convention. Take American Robin as another example - that article's about the species... shouldn't be American Robins? Further, The OED definition, also another example, does not list "daleks". It lists "dalek". --khaosworks June 28, 2005 23:01 (UTC)
 * Another precedent of an article with a collective noun as a title is Fireworks. There is also a corresponding article about individual pyrotechnics, Firework.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-06-28 18:48 Z 


 * Neutral. The Ukrainians example can be countered with other examples, such as Zulu or Bantu.  I doubt there will be any pleasing everyone for this decision.  If we're talking about common or most frequent use, I'd say it should be Daleks, but if we want to be pedantic or slavishly follow the MoS, it should be Dalek. dewet|&trade; 28 June 2005 08:11 (UTC)
 * But you'll notice from the first sentence of each of those two articles that Zulu and Bantu are used as collective nouns ("The Zulu are an African ethnic group ..."), not as singular nouns—this is equivalent to "Poles" or "Daleks". We could similarly speak of "the French", but not "the Ukrainian" or "the Dalek".  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-06-28 14:59 Z 


 * Oppose many of the instances could be changed to the singular: "Externally, Daleks resemble man-sized pepper shakers" -> "Externally, a Dalek resembles a man-sized pepper shaker". Tim! (talk) 28 June 2005 17:02 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the formal title of the article here. We're not changing the subject or scope, just choosing a title that best describes the subject (or at least one that adequately describes the subject while slavishly conforming to the letter of the convention).  Why on Earth would we have to start changing the language of the article to conform to the title?  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-06-28 18:43 Z 


 * I didn't say we should, only that we could to demonstrate that the title could be Dalek instead of Daleks. Tim! (talk) 28 June 2005 19:03 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- ease of linking trumps the rest. And this is one case where we don't have to walk on the eggshells of politically correctness. –Hajor 2 July 2005 05:59 (UTC)


 * Oppose on manual of style grounds. Pluralization sometimes doesn't follow obvious rules, sticking with a singular name convention makes it easier to get a link right on the first try. Bryan 2 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)


 * So it's 2 Support, 5 oppose and 1 neutral after 9 days. Can we close it as the move seems to have no consensus? --khaosworks July 5, 2005 09:06 (UTC)


 * I've closed the move nomination - consensus here is for it staying at Dalek. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:57, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggested modification of the convention
I've suggested an additional exception to the convention (see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(plurals)). From a cursory glance seems that many titles of articles about peoples are already plural nouns, but most fictional ones are singular. Changing the convention to conform to existing usage would allow this article to be moved to the logical Daleks. &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-06-28 19:47 Z 


 * Just put a bloody redirect on Daleks and get on with adding to the content of articles! (for explanation of exasparation see Petrol. GraemeLeggett 28 June 2005 20:49 (UTC)

'30Hz' vs. '30 Hz'
In my experience, the numbers and units are almost always written without a space e.g. 144MHz. Certainly, '30 Hz' looks really odd to me, whereas '30Hz' looks fine. Cultural difference? --DudeGalea 06:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * A quick check on Google (including a site for helping people revise their GCSEs) shows that the space is standard notation. It actually does make sense, as a Hz is simply short for the unit Hertz. I think it's due to people getting too used to writing stuff like 50g or 110cc when strictly speaking, that is no more grammatical than 100feet as opposed to 100 feet. --khaosworks 06:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll defer to Google. But I'll still continue to write it without the space. I'm sure it's a convention in the radio world. A quick scan of my textbooks shows that not one of them puts in a space. Interesting, I'd never even thought about it before! --DudeGalea 07:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know where 30 Hz comes from, I've seen 50 Hz mentioned a lot as well. GraemeLeggett 08:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who added that detail. I'm almost certain it's in one of my reference books, but I'll have to get home before I can check. For the moment, it's mentioned in this page on the Radiophonic workshop, at the bottom. --khaosworks 08:18, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah! I remember where I got that figure from. It was from the featurette "Talking Daleks" on the DVD of The Dalek Invasion of Earth. Brian Hodgson said it in his interview. --khaosworks 08:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Space should be inserted, see SI. Tim! (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's clear enough. Cheers. --DudeGalea 10:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the space is a typographical convention stipulated by SI. As for the 30 vs. 50 - train your ear a bit and you'll find that fairly obvious - 30 Hz practically subsonic, so you get that stuttering judder on the voice (which Barbara and the Doctor hilariously simulate in "The Dalek Invasion of Earth" by waving their hands quickly in front of their mouths). Crank up to 50 Hz and you'd hear a more tonal modification.--feline1 12:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Dalek voice
The article currently says The voice of a Dalek is electronic, the Dalek creature having no vocal apparatus as such.

I wonder - when out of their casings, daleks always seem to make creepy "squeaking" sounds - is this the product of their vocal tracks? (This noise is fairly consistent, I wonder is it a special BBC Radiophonic Workshop sound that gets re-used? Wonder what its called? In "Dalek" (2005), the dalek has its case open and is chatting to Rose and the Doktor, do we see is it speaking out of a "mouth" or into some kind of microphone? Does its voice sound different with the case open?--feline1 12:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting question - I suppose a more accurate summation would be that the Dalek's vocal apparatus is non-articulate, that to speak intelligibly, it needs to do so electronically. I don't believe we actually saw any kind of "mouth" when the casing was open in Dalek (although the body was pulsing like it was breathing). It's likely that the mutant's interface to the audio output is direct rather than it speaking into a microphone. --khaosworks 12:58, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dalek invade the Clash lyrics
In The Clash's self title debut, at the end of the song 'Remote Control' there is a line that goes "Gonna be a Dalek” Didn’t see this reference on the site and wasn't sure if is the type of thing that is added. If it is of merit I invite someone else to check it out and find a place to stick this invaluable Dalek sighting.


 * You could certainly put a sentence about this in Dalek. I don't know much about the Clash: why not put it in yourself?  Be bold! —Josiah Rowe 03:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Just noticed this and added it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Vapourized vs dissolved
Yes but "dissolved" means specifically a solid dissolving into a liquid.--feline1 17:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How about "disintegrate"? That doesn't specify the final state of the solid, just that it loses its cohesion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation revisited
An anon has just changed the second pronunciation of the word "Dalek" from "DAH-lick" to "dar-lick". Now, to an American (and, I'm guessing, to any speaker of a rhotic dialect of English) that seems absolutely wrong, as it suggests a hard "r" sound at the end of the first syllable (think of the American pronunciation of "darling"). However, I'm reluctant to revert the change, since I'm not sure what that spelling might signify to the speaker of a non-rhotic dialect (and since Doctor Who is British, and most British dialects are non-rhotic, that should take precedence). Could a speaker of British English please comment on the difference between "dah" and "dar" to your ear, and say whether you think that the first syllable of "Dalek" is ever pronounced "dar" as opposed to "dah"? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with you, but I'm also an American. On the show itself it was never acceptable to use the pronunciation "darlick". I think the official pronunciation used should stand, regardless of how some fans choose to say the word. --Larry 15:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a much of a muchness, in the end — if "dah" and "dar" are pronounced the same to non-rhotic ears as makes no difference, then the former should hold as the least ambiguous phonetic translation for both rhotic and non-rhotic forms. I'm reverting it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a UK resident, I would go with "dah", as besides being incorrect, "dar" also has a tendency to give rise to a popular mis-spelling of the word. --Chris 42 17:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Plays / novels
Are all the items at the end of the list plays ? Or do we have - original novels - audio plays - more novels, but not so described ?

-- Beardo 06:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything beneath "Audio Plays" are audio plays. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Д is for Dalek, EX-TER-MIN-ATE

 * The Cyrillic letter &#1044;, or "D", coincidentally also resembles a Dalek.

I removed this with the comment that it's "preposterously far-fetched". khaosworks reinstated it with "How far fetched can it be when you can actually see the letter itself?"

That's a fair comment, so let me say what I actually meant to say: insofar as I can see that the shape of the letter and the shape of your average Dalek (minus plunger, eyestalk and rounded dome) are not completely without resemblance (although I don't consider it convincing by any measure), I still consider this personal observation trivia of the kind that has to be firmly resisted.

Would anyone consider it reasonable or important to mention that the letter 'S' resembles a snake? I'm fairly certain this resemblance is much more notable and uncontested than the Dalek resemblance (one we could even back up with independent sources), but it still wouldn't pass the bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia—at least not in the entry for snake. Possibly in the entry for S, but even that is tenuous.

In short: it's a cute thing to point out to your friends, but it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia of any kind. Obviously it's not something to get worked up about, but I do think it's a mark of unprofessionality to let this sort of thing slip in. That the word dalek actually means something in other languages is of note. That a Cyrillic character may resemble a Dalek if you squint your eyes is not. 82.92.119.11 19:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Might we slide around the issue by deleting the explicit mention of the letter Д, but mentioning the Russian word далеко (daleko, far) along with the Serbo-Croat? I'm thinking something like "Other Slavonic languages have similar words for "far", such as the Russian далеко (daleko).  That puts the letter Д on the page without having to say anything explicit about it — an observant reader can make the connection.  Just a thought. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation
'...also pronounced "DAH-licks"'. I've never heard anyone pronounce the word like this, and there is an 'e' sitting right there in the word. Can anyone back this up? DJ Clayworth 14:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "DAL-leck", in my opinion.
 * This has actually already been covered, and most characters call them 'Dah-lecks'. However, Christopher Eccleston repeatedly says 'Dar-lick' (possibly because of his Northern accent).  As it is a debatable issue, surely it's best just to say that both pronunciations are used?  21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Proper pronunciation (even of a made up word) isn't really "debatable" as such. Unless that particular pronunciation is widespread, it's probably just accent-based or wrong and doesn't make it correct. As an analogy, if someone insists on pronouncing "Doctor" as "Dork-TARRR", I don't see that making the dictionary anytime soon. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mecha
Mecha are limbed robots that may be operated from the inside or, in other cases, remote controlled. Does this definition apply to Daleks (and no, Daleks aren't more like tanks - tanks always have caterpillar tracks)? RobbieG 10:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Japanese might call a Dalek mecha but I don't think it likely that any westerner would as their not of Japanese origin or appear Japanese mecha influenced. GraemeLeggett 11:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case, the reference to mechs doesn't belong here, but would probably be appropriate on the list of mecha. RobbieG 11:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm... "Bumps"
Rewatching the episode "Dalek" it really does seem to me that the writer/director intent was to show the "Dalek Bumps" as vaporizing the bullets fired at the Dalek. I had previously added something to that effect to the article, but someone removed it. I assumed someone knew something I didn't, but rewatching the episode made me wonder, because that really did seem to be what was going on. I'm probably just crazy, and there is no definitive statement that the "bumps" were responsible, but I'd like to know if anyone else interpreted the scene the same way.D1Puck1T 17:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There was no SFX surrounding the bumps as the bullets came flying in, only a shimmering mirage-like convection effect indicating a force field, which didn't seem to be generated by anything specific on the Dalek, so, no. Not me. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Spencer Chapman
Spencer Chapman did not design the Daleks - he did design work for The Dalek Invasion of Earth (and stuck a radar dish on the back of the Daleks), but not the original Daleks themselves. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm - Bumps
The "Bumps" Have been, in the past, called sensedomes and the reason for their existance was to create a sense of spacial awareness for the Dalek since is vision is limited to what it can see through the eye-stalk. The theorized purpose of the sensedomes are that they read the data of the surrounding area (ie the shape of a room) and feed that back to the dalek. As for them generating a shield, this is unknown. Though it has been theorized that the vertical plates a the Dalek's Midsection generate the shield and not the domes.


 * Please cite sources.
 * First, you need to cite where "sensodomes" or "sensedomes" comes from. AFAIC recall, they were never called that in the television series.
 * Secondly, in Remembrance the Doctod did indeed describe them as little green blobs in bonded polycarbide - and that is already in the article. The connection of bonded polycarbide and dalekanium, however, is an inference that is not explicitly stated.
 * Third, the way the original edit read was that Spencer Chapman designed the Daleks. The Dalek design was ultimately down to Cusick, even if Chapman provided the concept drawings. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dalek - where did the name come from! & Er - Bumps!
The name Dalek - (Dah - Lek) - Is a reversal of the name "Kaled", who were the original inhabitant of Skaro.

scifipedia.scifi.com/index.php/Daleks

As for the sensedomes, they aren't called this, I was misttaken, they're called Sense Globes

11. SENSE GLOBES - Fifty-six of these are positioned around the Dalek's lower casing. These globes react to changes in external conditions and relay data on temperature, humidity, movement and the presence of animal life to the control chamber for analysis.

Sources:

http://www.historyvortex.org/DalekAnatomy.html

The Dalek Survival Guide

The Dalek Technical Manual


 * The anagramatical nature of Kaled is mentioned in the History section below. It's not in the lead because it's not essential information, and it was a retcon anyway. The diagrams you refer to are of uncertain canonicity and if mentioned should be sourced properly as such. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agitation and Persnickity!
Title: Dalek Survival Guide Series: Dr Who Editor: Ben Dunn Reviewer: Ashley Rachel Pollard Publisher: BBC Publication Date: 2002 Review Date: 9 Oct 2002 ISBN: 0-563-48600-7 Price: 9.99 UKP Pages: 158 Format: Paperback Topic: fiction Topic: science fiction Daleks Survival Guide: reviewed by Ashley Rachel Pollard

Title: Doctor Who Technical Manual Series: Dr Who Writer: Mark Harris Year of Publication: 1983 URL: http://www.tvtoys.co.uk/products/1664.html Related URL: http://davidguy.brinkster.net/goaste/drwhotechmanual001.html

View it for yourself, the related url has a number of scanned pages from throughout the book which includes anatomy of a Dalek.

If these aren't "better canonised" I don't know what is!


 * Have you actually read it? Do you realise it's a satire, the information integrated from all kinds of sources including the TV21 comic strips notwithstanding? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I've read it and I know that it is Satire, however, the information for that book about the makeup of the dalek, however satirical, was present and correct information. Also, the technical manual is irrefutable.


 * I own a copy, it is clearly not meant to be taken as final canon. Jefffire 12:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And the Technical Manual is definitely not irrefutable. --12:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * They wouldn't have published it if it wasn't considered official, not something like that. Perhaps theories and names have just changed over the years...


 * The Dalek cutaway is the same as in a BBC book from the late 70s/early 80s under Terry Nation name and I see the tech manual has his name credited so presumably it is as Terry once visualised the makeup of a Dalek. How books such as the 1960s dalek annuals etc portrayed them is another matter. I think I still have my FASA Dalek supplement to the Doctor Who RPG - I'm tempted to check the contents and credits.GraemeLeggett 12:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That'd be good!


 * Oh, it is from the Dalek annuals (which I have), which were as much David Whitaker's work as Nation's. But all this stuff went out the window with Genesis of the Daleks and so much contradicts what we see on screen to the point where even in the general world of "canonicity is uncertain", it's really uncertain and nowhere near official. "They wouldn't have published it if it wasn't considered official" is not a valid argument - they published the Sky Lollies picture cards, and TV Comic and Countdown. Are those official? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I give up.


 * (Can't be bothered to inset that much) Without stirring up the canon argument too much I hope; it would be sufficient to mention that which is explicitly or heavily implicit with the TV series eg that Daleks have some rank organization and that the Black'un is below the Emperor but also to mention if the topic is considered elsewhere - ie that many peripheral publications have expanded upon the subject. Applying this to the bumps we would have that the purpose is not stated within the series but that they wer seen to seperate from the casing in Dalek and were involved in its implosion. GraemeLeggett 14:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is what the article currently says. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Terence - you're such a smarty-pants


 * About FASAs contribution - The DWRPG supplement is actually quite thin - it has stuff about how to roleplay the Dalek Menace and a timeline with some extra bits thrown in -but the technical description of the Dalek (text and pictures) seems to come from the Terry Nation Dalek book as reprinted in the technical manual. GraemeLeggett 09:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You see, Smarty-Pants? I was right James Random 11:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll notice that I said above that it came from Nation's Dalek annuals. I've never said it didn't, nor did I ever say I didn't know the source. What I'm pointing out is that just because Nation wrote it or that it was published doesn't mean it's "official", any more than TV Comic or Countdown is official, or the Sky Lollies cards are official. It's not the sources' existence that is dubious, it's the sources themselves. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dalek Empire audio plays
Anyone care to explain how the audioplays listed under 'Doctor Who' under the Dalek Empire banner interact with the three 'Dalek Empire' categories? This is odd for a newcomer to the audio plays by Big Finish.

they're back!
anyone have a screencap from army of ghosts?--152.163.100.9 21:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but there is the trailer for the next one; 207.202.227.125 21:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete history section
Since this article is being flagged as long, why not delete the history section since it is reproduced elsewhere?--Keycard (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that it's not reproduced: History of the Daleks is the expanded, more detailed form of the "History within the show" section, which is supposed to summarise it so that people who don't want to read the longer article can still get a gist. Without it, people will have to wade through the longer article. A fork to a summary article doesn't work because it forces people to jump to another article to read a summary, which should be within the main page so that the most pertinent information can be kept in one place. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We would do better if we can discuss how to spin off more sections rather than remove them entirely. For example, in the Doctor Who article, the missing episodes section was getting really long before it was spun off into its own article, and a summary left in its place in the main article. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But why have such a long summary? It's making the page absurdly long.--Keycard (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel it's too long, then discuss how to cut it down, not simply cut it out, that's all I'm saying. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, please read Summary_style - this is how articles are supposed to be written. It may need cutting down further, certainly. Morwen - Talk 14:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Death Ray query
Does anyone know if the Death Ray is capable of killing Timelords in a way that prevents them from regenerating? Just curious. Night Bringer
 * They could just shoot them 13 times in a row, or disintegration would probably work too--152.163.100.9 20:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether even disintegration would work is debatable- see the Master at the start of the TVM. MartinMcCann 20:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor seemed to think it would kill him in Parting of the Ways... SMegatron 20:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then should any mention be made that the death ray may be capable of straight out killing Timelords? It's pretty significant cause no other race has a way to straight out kill a Timelord Night Bringer 14:36, 9 July 2006 (GMT +10)

The Time War
I have a theory about the time war version of the Daleks, according to the BCC Continuity guide, the origional series had two different timelines of Daleks, one with Davros, the other without, with Timeline IA, the Daleks that showed up between the first and third doctors, being a grave and growing threat to the universe, so great that the timelords sent doctor # 4 back in time to prevent their creation, and the Timeline II Daleks which resulted from Davros surviving the origional Civil War. Since the Timeline II Daleks seemed to be consumed by Civil Wars, in fighting, as a result of Davros, they weren't a threat to much of anything anymore..
 * So, my theory, after they killed Davros, the remaining Daleks somehow went back in time, and we get Genesis of the Daleks, version III, and they more or less restore the Timeline IA Daleks, so let's call them, Timeline IB Daleks, where the Daleks actually are a potential threat to the Timelords (and slightly more advanced), thus leading to a... wait for it... time war, which also fits with the idea that the Timewar era Daleks have the same color sceme as the origionals, not to mention an emporer--71.249.10.72 17:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the Sense Globes/Bumps/Whatever
After rewatching "Dalek (2005)" I think that it might be safe to say that in the 2005 dalek they are part of the forcefield mechanism. Their part in the self destruct sequence seemed to have been more (after watching the visual effect half a dozen times) of a containment field for the explosion. This implies that their current function on a Dalek is a portion of their forcefield mechanism (which may also be what evaportates the bullets). I don't think it would be innaccurate to say that the Dalek's protective field is currently generated by it on the current models of Dalek armor. Traegorn 17:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you've watched the latest, you'd know they do a lot more than stop bullets--71.247.107.146 19:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * btw, they can't be the force field generators, since we get to see another Dalek device that doesn't have any globes anywhere, but still has a Dalek force field--71.247.107.146 21:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a Dalek device, it was stolen. Bryan 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about the Genesis Ark? I assumed that although it was stolen Time Lord technology, the Daleks had modified it (or at least its exterior) for their own use: otherwise, why would it have the small hemispheres on each "corner", which the Daleks touched with their plungers to "prime" it? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well whatever they did to it, it clearly had a Dalek force field, and at the same time was globe free--64.12.116.9 04:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it was only sort of globe free - I mean, it was actually full of Daleks - who are covered in globes. Whose to say the forcefield wasn't generated by the millions of internal Daleks? :P Traegorn 06:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I know we've taken this too far--64.12.116.9 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I was clearly making a joke with my last comment. Traegorn 16:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)