Talk:Dalek/Archive 2

Initial Merchandise Year
Currently the article states that "The first Dalek toys from Louis Marx & Co. appeared that year [1965]". I've just had some old home movies transferred to digital which show my grandfather receiving a Dalek toy on a reel that is (on screen) annotated to say Christmas 1964, which seems to be supported by the BBC's trademark date. It's possible the markup on the cine is incorrect, but I thought it worth a mention in case the article can be more clearly written, or confirmed. I can provide stills if it's useful.--Ear1grey 15:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting, and thanks for pointing this out because it allowed me to go back and fix a couple of errors. According to The Handbook by David J. Howe, Stephen James Walker and Mark Stammers, Walter Tuckwell approached several manufacturers and publishers to get them interested in licensing the Daleks. "By Christmas 1964, there were numerous companies gearing up to release toys and games the following year," is the exact quote, which seems to suggest that the toys were not released until 1965. It goes on to say that "by the end of 1965 around eighty-five different products had been released to tie in with Doctor Who and the Daleks." (The Daleks' Master Plan was broadcast during the Christmas 1965 season.) That doesn't explain the markup on your cine film, but that's the information for what it's worth. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking's voice
I had a look to see if I could find a verifiable source for Stephen Hawking comparing his voice synthesizer to a Dalek's voice, in part because I myself heard Hawking make the comparison at a talk I attended once. (His exact words, if I recall correctly, were that his voice "had been described variously as sounding Swedish, American, or like a Dalek.") Of course, my recollection is hardly verifiable by others, so I looked for another source. Surprisingly, the only source for Hawking himself saying something like that was this on his website, where he praises his voice synthesizer for not sounding like a Dalek. A Sunday Times article from 2004 says "Hawking believes that its metallic tones, reminiscent of a Dalek’s, are part of his identity," but that link is to someone's blog where the article is reprinted, which is probably a copyvio. (The Sunday Times archives are subscription-based; the article is also mentioned here on the University of Cambridge's website with the same headline, so I don't doubt its authenticity.) A journalist at The Register makes the comparison, as does a BBC Four documentary, but it would be better to get a quote from Hawking himself.

Anyway, I think that if anyone has a good verifiable source it might be nice to include the mention in the article somewhere — especially since Mickey returned the favour by saying that the Dalek vs. Cyberman bitch-fest was "Stephen Hawking vs. the speaking clock"! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Bob the Angry Flower
I'm not sure whether it's notable or not, but it turns out that Daleks have appeared several times in Bob the Angry Flower: I think this one dates to a while back, and these three are more recent. We could mention it in the "popular culture" section... or not. Not a big deal, but I figured I'd ask to see what others think. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't think it's notable. It's not as if BtAF is a cultural phenomenon, is it? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose not. I had heard of it before it came up here, but had never read it — and I'm probably more comics-aware than the average bear. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional Trivia
Unfortunately I don't have a cite, but I know of a few interesting bits of trivia. The early series that used daleks was in black and white. To aid directing the dalek actors, each dalek had a large numeral painted on its headpiece in red. Easy to see for the directors, but invisible on the black and white print. They used the same trick to paint marks on the set floor for the daleks to follow. Also, it's not mentioned that the daleks were built on tricycles.

In the early movie, daleks got their power from the metalic floor panels of their city. There is one scene where a dalek is incapacitated by pushing it onto a coat thrown on the ground. Fracture98 02:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Almost right with the numbers thing. The Dalek props had numbered pieces of paper taped to them for rehearsals, but these were removed for recording.  Additionally, coloured sellotape crosses were taped to the floors so that the Dalek operators could hit their 'marks' accurately, and each Dalek had a different colour tape.  The rolls were often tucked into the Daleks' waistbands, so it was obvious which colour cross belonged to which Dalek.  J. Bentham, Doctor Who, the Early Years ISBN 0 491 03612 4, P.128.


 * The tricycle thing is also right for The Dalek Invasion of Earth, but was a modification to allow the props to move over uneven surfaces. The original props used castors, the operators sat on bench seats and scooted the Daleks along using his feet, most operators wore ballet shoes and black tights. J. Bentham, Doctor Who, the Early Years ISBN 0 491 03612 4, P.127.


 * And a PO thing which I know isn't allowed, but might be interesting enough to survive deletion, - I wouldn't dream of putting it in the main article. I visited the Dr. Who studio as a boy, and I watched camera rehearsals for one episode of the first Dalek story. The Dalek castors were small, and prone to getting flats on the wheels, hence the donk donk noise you can hear quite clearly on the soundtrack.  The castors would also pick up dirt from the floor, and discarded sweets would also stick to the wheels, causing the same noise.  It came to be that any castor defect which produced the donk donk noise was known as 'picking up a caramel.'  It takes the menace off them a bit.  Rayhol 15:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just thought I'd chime in here about 2 possible claifications/mistakes..
 * I'm sure that I remember reading in an annual many years ago that the hemispheres on a Dalek shell are some sort of energy converters [which would explain why Davros has them on his mobility unit].
 * I thought Katy Manning lost her job with Dr Who because of her posing for photos with a Dalek
 * 193.243.227.1 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers in the article
Shouldn't there be a spoiler warning in some sections of the article, particularly the history in the show section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.219.24.191 (talk • contribs) 01:41, October 8, 2006 (UTC)

Torchwood
Any news wether daleks will appear in torchwood yet? If they do should a new headline be put in the article describing what they do and any difference or inequalities to standard daleks (like Lisa in Cyberwoman) that it has? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.71.103 (talk • contribs) 12:40, November 15, 2006 (UTC)


 * There is, so far, no indication that Daleks will appear in Torchwood. If they do, we'll edit the article accordingly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a cite for this yet, but RTD has stated in a DWM interview that the Torchwood production team had discussed having the Daleks appear, but had eventually vetoed it as they didn't want children tuning in. Doctortoc 11:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If youre wanting to cite it, the issue is 378. Its on page 35 in the "More Things We Learned This Christmas" part of the interview. Its probably somewhere else as well, but thats the one I rememberSMegatron 13:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the dalek ariants and dalek empire pages? we'll they have to be edit them too wont we? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.71.75 (talk • contribs) 18:46, November 26, 2006 (UTC)


 * We can deal with those if and when it becomes an issue. No point in worrying about it now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Emotionless?
I think to call the Daleks "emotionless save hate" isn't doing the Daleks much justice. Equally the Daleks are capable of pride (in themselves). They frequently get angry, defensive, aggressive and to note a non-neagtive emotion, they also take pleasure in exterminating stuff.

So, if no-one objects, I'd like to change "They are devoid of any emotion save hate; without pity, compassion or remorse." to simply "They are pityless, without compassion or remorse."

The sentence is a fragment, admittedly, but no doubt it will be tidied up shortly after the edit is made. 81.110.241.113 23:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's not a fragment: it's got a subject ("They") and a verb ("are"). The only problem I see is the spelling of "pitiless", but as you suggest that's easily fixed. :)  Go ahead and make the change — it looks good to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor said "Every Emotion except hate. Anger and Devensiveness are psychologically linked to hate and pride isn't an emotion. James Random


 * Not sure what the rule on self-referencing is here but [] includes pride as a complex emotion (as well as anger, seperate of hate). The Doctor's comments regarding the Daleks can be easily explained as his own prejudice. So I would be more inclined to go on our own observations rather than what the Doctors say in this instance.


 * To mention just a couple of examples: In the series 2 finale the Daleks show pride in themselves (for being superior to the cybermen). Dalek Sec shows anger and surprise when Rose mentions her dealings with the Emperor.
 * Furthermore in the episode "Dalek", the Dalek there shows loss and unhappiness.


 * Emotions listed: Pride, anger, surprise, loss and unhappiness.


 * Other emotions that the Daleks have exibited (I'm sure you can think of examples yourself) in the past include: cruelty, caution, fear and respect. So I ask you, who here still thinks that the Daleks are emotionless, save hate? 82.21.85.203 15:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To be fair, Sec isn't the best example, since he's been trained to "think like the enemy". He's probably capable of a much wider range of emotion than your bog-standard Dalek.  That said, I think that we can either keep the current description or use "removed every emotion except hate" as a quote, attributed to the Doctor, with a citation.  (Is that from Dalek?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to throw something else confusing into the mix, but on the dvd of "The Daleks," (which is part of the "Beginnings" box set) in one of the little documentary extras about creating the Daleks, one of the interviewees (I think one of the original operators) talks about the Daleks being extremely claustrophobic inside their shells. This led to their short temper and their tendency to become agitated very easily. I'm at work, so I can't really check on it right now, but it might be worth a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.241.72 (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Computer games
At the FAC, it was observed that the "computer games" section may have acquired some commercial content, advertisements and/or spam. The article currently mentions five unauthorized Dalek games, and includes links to four of them. Which of these, if any, are really noteworthy? Should we pare that paragraph down to something like "Several unauthorized games featuring Daleks have been made, including Dalek-based modifications of Quake and Half-Life."? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds all right to me. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. If anyone feels strongly that these should be retained, they can find the original links in the page's history. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Daleks were parodied in the computer game series, 'Space Quest.' When Roger Wilcox goes to purchase an android helper, they pull up one as the choices called a 'Dalick.' The salesman informs Roger they were uniquely efficient, but were soon recalled afterwards for incidents of their 'anti-social behavior.' Fangarius (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Photographic cut-outs and wooden models
Does anyone recall off the top of their head in which episode of The Dalek Invasion of Earth photographic cut-outs were used to swell the numbers of the Dalek ranks, and which episode or episodes of Destiny of the Daleks feature wooden "dummy" Daleks? I'm trying to provide the citations for all the footnotes (as requested at the FAR), but that template requires a specific episode. If no-one here knows I can ask at OG, or I could re-watch the DVD myself. ;^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For DIOE, that would be "The Daleks" and/or "Day of Reckoning" (2 and 3) - the cut-outs were at the Dalek saucer landing site, seen while the prisoners were being marched into the saucer and possibly later on when the resistance commences their assault. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Right — thanks! Any idea about the cut-outs in Destiny?  Or, failing that, any idea of how to use  or another template to cite an entire serial? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, no on both counts. I'd have to watch Destiny again, I suppose, to answer that... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ...a fate no man should have to endure.


 * Anyway, they first used the photographic blow-ups in The Daleks &mdash; take a look at some of the control room scenes.132.185.240.120 14:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sod it — I've just spelled the reference for the full serial out. I suppose it's OK to refer to specific episodes when we're talking about a specific line, but there are also references to entire serials that we should be able to cite as such. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

More reference queries, mostly books
Some of my Doctor Who books are in storage, so I couldn't provide the citation for the novelisation of Remembrance of the Daleks. I do have a copy of The Also People, but I couldn't find the Dalek verses in it (although the book does have a verse of what looks like Cyberman blues). Finally, does anyone recall which episode of The Chase "Advance and Attack! Attack and Destroy! Destroy and Rejoice!" comes from? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I have the Remembrance novelization in the house. Which bit do you need to cite? SMegatron 13:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The first usage of "Ka Faraq Gatri", as mentioned in Dalek. You can use the  template.  Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, i think Ive added the correct reference, but I would be obliged if someone would check it over, as Im hopeless when it comes to cites. Regards.SMegatron 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good to me — the only thing you might want to add is the page number, if you can find it. You can add that by typing "| page = 47" or whatever (no quotation marks) at the end, before the double curly brackets.  Thanks for finding that info! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. The page no. is now up (after a few attempts), so give me a shout if you require anything else of that one. Sorry I can't help with the rest. Regards.SMegatron 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a bunch, SMegatron. Sorry I led you up the garden path with "page" instead of "pages".  I'm sure we can find someone to help with the other citations — I'll ask at OG. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Happy to help.SMegatron 18:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fictional misanthropes?
Recently, a CfD merged the category "Fictional characters opposed to humanity" (to which Dalek had belonged) into "Fictional misanthropes". I removed the new category from the article, because I didn't think it really applied very well. An anon re-added it today, so let's talk it out.

Although etymologically, "misanthropy" refers to "hatred of mankind", I tend to think of a "misanthrope" as a character like Scrooge or the public persona of W. C. Fields — or indeed, Alceste, the misanthrope of Molière's eponymous play. A misanthrope, as commonly conceived, will express his loathing for his fellow man, and may even claim that he would be happy to see the human race exterminated, but does not usually act on that sentiment himself. A misanthrope is rarely a murderer, much less a mass-murderer. The hatred that the Daleks feel towards humanity (and, indeed, all non-Dalek life) is of a different kind, most notably because the Daleks are not themselves human. They hate humans as the other against which they define themselves, not as a class to which they themselves belong (DO NOT BLASPHEME! notwithstanding). I just feel that "misanthrope" isn't the most accurate word to describe Dalek psychology. But what do y'all think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. "Misanthropic" seems a very odd word to apply to the Daleks - an understatement, to say the least. --Brian Olsen 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's an odd description. That category currently includes everything from Cylons, Mysterons and Silurians, through Magneto and his Brotherhood of Evil Mutants all the way to Dogbert ! Something needs to be done about it. -- Beardo 22:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * However, the category page says "Most of the characters are non-human, and belong to one of three groups: other species from Earth, aliens, or artificial intelligence." -- Beardo 22:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidate
This is just a heads-up to editors of this article that it has been moved from Featured article review to Featured article removal candidates. The expressed concern is that the article lacks sufficient citations (despite extensive work in the last few weeks). Comments are welcome at Featured article review/Dalek. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Operators
Is there a list of Dalek operators yet? Arthur Newall who played a Sensorite often said he played a Dalek and I just wanted to verify this before adding it to the article DavidFarmbrough 10:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Image
I'm a little bit concerned about the article's use of Image:Dalek from BBC.jpg. It seems to me to be pretty close to the line of "decorative" rather than "informative", especially with its placement opposite the "costume details" section. I think it would be better to use an image of a Dalek with its "lid" off, showing the operator sitting inside. Does anyone know where we might find one? (I know the pictures exist, I just can't remember where I saw them.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've found a suitable image, but I don't have a scanner to put it online. On p. 84 of Doctor Who: The Sixties there's a very nice image of Robert Jewell and John Scott Martin getting into the Dalek casings from the filming of Power of the Daleks.  Does anyone have both this book and a scanner? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dalek toys
I removed this sentence, for which a citation had been requested:
 * Also unsuccessful were Dalek toys made of rubber and tin.

I couldn't find any reference to the toys having been unsuccessful. However, I don't have any of the books like Howe's Transcendental Toybox specifically dedicated to Doctor Who merchandise; if anyone can find a citation in one of these books (or elsewhere), please feel free to restore the sentence with the appropriate citation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Classic series"
LuciferMorgan asked for a citation for the phrase "classic series". Rather than providing a citation like this (showing that it's the term used by the BBC to refer to the 1963-1989 series) I've changed it to "original Doctor Who series", because I think a footnote at that point would be more confusing than illuminating to the reader. I tend to see "classic series" as a unitary phrase, equivlent to "original series", not a statement of opinion that the original series was "classic" — but if others feel that the term is biased and requires citation, I suppose we can use the more neutral "original series" instead. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the best thing would be the cite the term in the main Doctor Who article, rather than having to provide a cite every time the term appears in all the other articles. I agree, I've always seen it as a descriptive term meaning basically "old" rather than a quality assessment. It's used in preference to "the original series" I suspect because that's already so associated with Star Trek. But the BBC's use of the term is more than reference enough, I think. DWM is probably full of cites for it too. Angmering 07:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Culture" section
I've provided primary source citations for the "Culture" section of the article, but I'm slightly concerned that although I happen to think that lines and actions in those particular television stories illustrate the points being made, it's still a bit OR-ish without secondary sources. Can anyone think of a good secondary source to back this section up with? Was there perhaps a good overview of Dalek culture in Doctor Who Magazine at some point? The books I've used to cite other parts of the article merely summarize the events of Dalek stories, and talk about the ideas behind them — I haven't been able to find anything that synthesizes what we learn about the Daleks in these stories into a portrait of them as a culture, the way that this section of the article wants to. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you tried Parkin's AHistory book? I seem to recall that having a lot of this sort of stuff in it. Angmering 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this wording misleading or unclear?
In an effort to remove gender-specific language (I assume), Marskell changed this sentence:
 * The Dalek cases were built in two pieces; once an operator stepped into the lower section the top would be lowered onto him.

to this:
 * The Dalek cases were built in two pieces; once operators stepped into the lower section the top would be lowered onto them.

I'm all for gender-neutral language (although it's probably worth noting here that to date, all Dalek operators in Doctor Who have been male). But I'm slightly concerned that the revised sentence may lead readers to think that there's more than one operator in a single Dalek. Can we think of a gender-neutral way to say this that isn't misleading or unclear? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ...the top would be attached? Put into place? I think if we change the verb from "lowered," the "onto him/them" may not be necessary. --Brian Olsen 06:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I went with "secured". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Did any women ever play a Dalek on screen? If not, gender neutrality is just politically correct nonsense.--75.61.85.119 (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit
I am almost through this, but it will be another day before the FAR can be closed. Some notes:


 * "The Master's trial presumably took place before the destruction of Skaro" is now buried with a note, as "presumably" suggests OR. Explain, source, or remove.
 * Watch for unneeded adjectives and adverbials: e.g., "the mere mention of the Doctor's name...". These sorts of emphasizers are unneeded and read like fan writing.
 * Two fact requests in "parodies."
 * "Other appearances" headings reorganized.
 * In general, the "Other appearances" section is list-like and comes close to trivia, which is a FA no-no. I have removed as trivial "An Andy Dick sketch...featured a silver creature strongly resembling a Dalek" and "In the Teen Titans...housed in a conical mobile casing, the lower half of which resembles a Dalek." We don't need a list of things that "resemble" Daleks. I would suggest people be very selective in adding anything new.

Dalek fans can be happy, however—the review has received a lot of attention from a number of different editors. Marskell 18:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your work on this, Marskell. I've removed the speculative note on the Master's trial, found a citation for one of the parodies, and commented the other one out.  I'll also try to keep a lid on additions in the "Other appearances" section. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've passed this finally. Kudos on your own work, Josiah. I realize how troublesome pages like this can be: without watchers, cruft will just pile up. I would suggest pruning "Other appearances" a little more. Can the ANZ and Kit-Kat commercial references be turned into a single sentence, for instance? Anyhow, it's still a better page than it was before the review. Cheers, Marskell 19:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comic strip appearances
Should the Daleks' many appearances in comic strips over the years be listed also?–Alan-WK 23:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken for robots
It's been a while since I watched Destiny of the Daleks, but I seem to recall the Doctor referring to the Daleks as robots on more than one occasion. He also speaks strangely of the Kaled mutant he finds on the surface of Skaro — again, I can't recall the exact wording, but it's something that suggests that the Daleks have done away with their organic components. Of course, this is not followed up in later stories, and is usually treated as an anomaly. But I think that the article is accurate in indicating that in Destiny the Daleks are treated as robots. After all, that's the whole point of the Movellan stalemate — two logical, robotic races stuck in a stalemate because they can predict all of each others' moves.

If you think that the Destiny line is misleading, please discuss. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the referencve to Daleks as robots in Destiny was deliberate. Terry Nation had not forgotten what he had written before; he intended that that machine part of the Dalek had completely overpowered the organic. --Gazzster (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Image
The main image has recently been changed from Image:Daleknew.jpg to Image:partingoftheways.jpg. While the latter is nicely atmospheric, I feel that the former was a better and clearer illustration of what a Dalek looks like. I'm going to revert back to the old image, but if others prefer the Parting of the Ways image, let's discuss it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary Of Television Appearances
I've added this new section.

If you've any problems or queries on it, please contact me on my talk page.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by DA Tardis (talk • contribs) on 13:54, 8 April 2007

Radio Times cover - Dalek Mutant
The cover of the Radio Times for the week beginning 21 April features a photograph of a Dalek mutant with a human body.Link (Possible Spoiler) While it's reasonable to assume that given that they interview RT Davies about the mutant, it's is official, and not some kind of speculation, should this be mentioned in the article prior to broadcast? Laïka 08:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we wait until we have a screenshot of that hideous "Hulek". Alientraveller 09:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dalek voices
Do any of them have "modified female" voices? (Or, to change the question slightly - are there multiple genders of Daleks?)

Jackiespeel 22:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure if the "in-universe" daleks have genders, but I'm sure no female voice actors have been used for them - unless there are fanfic or spoof occurences I don't know about. Totnesmartin 18:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They sometimes have different pitches. Does that count?--75.61.85.119 (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Back story - Del-Boy equivalent (Only Fools and Horses) sells Daleks a dodgy voice synthesiser which it is claimed covers the entire human range (having sold the female and neutral range versions to 'manufacturers of infuriating sentient computers). Jackiespeel (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Pitiless
The Daleks' lack of pity might actually be useful to include. In Genesis of the Daleks Davros begs them to "have pity" - and of course, they don't. Totnesmartin 20:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

then again in "dalek" when the doctor is electrocuting the dalek it begs him to "have pity" to which he replies "why should i, you never did"81.108.233.59 (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

DIY dalek
Should there be a section/article on how to build a dalek or dalek making kits?Gruffwood 02:48, 22 July 2007 (UT Am going to do it in wikibooks as that is the propper home and add a link in see also.Gruffwood 07:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference list
I've changed the reference list to a scroll down reference list because it was getting too long --Wiggstar69 09:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Kaled mutants"?
Are we sure about this? It was my understanding that the mutant inside the casing was in fact the Dalek. I understand they were mutated from Kaleds, but I don't think they really count as Kaleds anymore, nor do I remember them ever being referenced as such. Andral 23:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not even the case that all Daleks were derived from Kaled stock, so I've changed it to just "mutants". However, if other editors strongly disagree, it's not a point I'm willing to push. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 06:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, the term Dalek applies to the casing - originally the mutant inside was a Kaled. Davros named it thus in Genesis of the Daleks. But since the Davison story Resurrection of the Daleks non-Kaled mutants have been used in the Dalek casing.  You also have to remember by this point there are two distinct factions of Daleks - Imperial Daleks and those created by Davros.  The former would have Kaled mutants in them - the latter had whatever Davros could stuff into them (humans in Revelation of the Daleks for example)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmm commentaries (talk • contribs) 03:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're going back to the script, Davros says the following:"'Today, the Kaled race is ended, consumed in a fire of war. But, from its ashes will rise a new race. The supreme creature. The ultimate conqueror of the universe. The Dalek!'"I think it's fair to say it's not just the casing he considers to be Daleks. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Even earlier in that story he introduces the Mark 3 Travel machine "now in future to be referred to as a Dalek", much to the surprise of the scientist in charge of the Doctor, who had just told him it was a Dalek. So earlier Davros officially announced the casing as the Dalek, to ensure the survival of the Kaled race.Mmm commentaries 09:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But in "Doctor Who 1973 Collectors Edition" book it claims that the Daleks are humans that had been evolved extra quickly by the Halldon. When the humans started making weapons the Halldon tried to destroy the super evolved humans but the humans turned into daleks and won.Gruffwood 07:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, what was the author of that passage smoking when he wrote that book?Mmm commentaries 09:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, the things we discuss! (lol) Well, here's my 5 cent's worth. The term dalek refers to the mutated creature and the casing, for they operate as one entity. Resurrection and The Parting of the Ways both say that the living dalek was produced from human genetic material. However I think it would be fair to assume that human genetic material augmented, not replaced, the basic Kaled material. And indeed, in The Parting of the Ways the Doctor says the daleks are not completely human.--Gazzster 11:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Merchandising
Daleks look like salt shakers or pepperpots. Were there ever any Dalek shaped salt shakers? If so they should be mentioned.

T.Neo (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate despite being verified...?
The article states "The Daleks also use this term for the material.[8]" (and is apparently verified by reference to the episode 'Daleks in Manhattan') However, there's a problem there. There's no indication the Daleks are speaking English except when addressing (err... ordering) humans and pig-slaves.

1: Most science fiction tends to show two aliens outside of the presence of humans as speaking English when they are in fact speaking their own tongue, just because subtitles are annoying (i.e. the 'shifts' to English from Klingon in Star Trek VI, or better, Minbari speaking only English before ever encountering humans, whilst stating on-screen that they cannot understand the human language during first contact in Babylon 5)

2: In the Doctor's presence, there's no way of knowing what they're speaking (unless he's mostly-dead, as evidenced by the Sycorax, or speaking something 'unbelievably old'

Therefore, the fact that the word heard on-screen was 'Dalekanium' when the word has been established as the (however little known) word for the material of which Dalek armour os constructed, does NOT prove that the Daleks use this word for the material. They may be saying 'squornscrum-flootle' for all we know. They may be saying something that C-3P0 couldn't pronounce. They may be, in fact, saying something that, if it happened to fall into a minor wormhole and travel back thousands of millions of years and several galaxies away and show up in the middle of a battle conference between two ancient rival races squatting amidst sweet-smelling mists in their bejewelled battle-shorts, would suddenly give both sides the urge to settle down and have a nice cup of tea (which would in turn launch an extended peace mission to Skaro, but would miscalculate both location and scale and be swallowed by a cybermat).

Anyway, the word used by something on screen does not indicate that it is the word used by that race in any science fiction. When there's a constant telepathic translation going on, doubly-so--75.61.85.119 (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, when the Doctor and his companions are present, the Tardis is translating Dalek terms into what could be most readily understood by an English speaker. So even tho the daleks could be saying @#$&^%$#@, it is translated Dalekanium, because English speakers often put 'ium' on the end of a new element. But when the doc is not present the Daleks are actually speaking English, eg., when commanding the pig men, foreman, workers, etc (unless of course the daleks also have telepathic translation abilities). And they use the word dalekanium, probably for the same reason.

And if we wanna get really nerdy about this: is the TARDIS really called that in Gallifreyan?An anagram of TIME AND RELATIVE DIMENSIONS IN SPACE? So Gallifreyans speak English? And all those planets and creatures with English or Greek roots? Like the Cybermen, Mechanoids, Sensorite, Crynoidsm, Silurians, the Animus? Don't worry about it man. Just sit back and enjoy the mystery.--Gazzster (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dalekanium was name-checked in the episode Journey's End, in a manner that initially suggested to me that bridged both explosive and constructive purposes. (Or, possibly a third use as the equivalent to a copper wire/capacitor/other component in a ubiquitous type of power unit.) But a closer viewing of the episode would be needed before attempting to impose an accurate definition on the term ;) It also does not address whether the Daleks themselves call any of the two (or three) substances "Dalekanium", but we do see that they are not just anglophones. ;) --62.49.25.104 (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Image (2)
Quite sneakely, Image:Dalek.jpg was nominated and deleted, with the deletor's comment that there are free alternatives available on Commons. That is not true. You can find plenty of fan-build Daleks there, but they do not in any way represdent the chracter or race as dipicted in Doctor Who. Thoughts? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This may be partly my fault. User:Dev920 removed the image from the page. When i reverted her edits, i said this in my edit summary; putting more up-to-date image of the Daleks back. i'd ask it only be removed again if it was up for deletion. Thank you. So basically, she did put it up for deletion! My personal opinion on the matter is, we do need an image of the Daleks taken from the TV show. Cheers! TheProf - T / C 18:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All the Dalek images on Commons should be deleted: they are copyright violations. Only the BBC and Terry Nation own the Daleks. Alientraveller (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well to be quite honest, that image was saved after User:Dev920 nominated it for deletion. Someone must've renominated it without notifying the article at all. So quite basically that is a violation of the rules and we have every right to reupload that image and put it back on the article. Does anyone have that image saved onto their computers? Jammy (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Re-uploaded deleted image is a speedy deletion criterion, so you won't be doing yourselves any favours by reuploading the same image to have it deleted again. If you believe the IFD was improper, take it to Deletion review.  Cheers, Wily D  19:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alientraveller, that is not quite the case. Photographs of copyrighted material are derivative works, which has different rules regarding to fair use.
 * Willy, you might have taken a closer look at the article as a whole; you just stripped a featured article of an image. Your argument that free images exists on Commons does not hold water; those resemble a Dalek, but they're simply not. Daleks are a race/character from a show. You wouldn't put an image of a wax puppet on a character's article, would you? I invite you to review your deletion for yourself again. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 19:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not my argument, it's the result of the discussion on IfD combined with the relevant policy (WP:NFC). The result seems pretty unambigious to me - as an admin, I'm not supposed to use my little buttons to decide content, but to carry out decisions by others.  If you feel it's an error, you can appeal to me (in my role as the closing administrator) or to the usual forum, but what article an image is used in isn't relevant if it's unfree and can be replaced by a free image that exists or could be created.  In general, the quality of the free images is irrelevent to this consideration.  Wily D  20:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How can there be a free image representing the Daleks as depicted in Doctor Who? And why has this image been deleted, and not all the other images then? Edokter's concerns were not about "quality", but that they do not resemble the Daleks as portrayed in the TV series. Mdwh (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dalek origins
I recall reading a short story in a Doctor Who Special magazine (from the 70s?) which showed how the Daleks had their origins in the human race. Anyone else remember that? Sounds daft I know but maybe that's why I remembered it. I used to love watching Dr Who and then reading the stories in TV21 - which also had flying daleks.

Finally, I recall an amateur mod for Doom with Dr Who and the Daleks with sampled voices I think. http://www.doomwadstation.com/main/drwho/ Royzee (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're thinking of the Terry Nation short story "We Are The Daleks" from the Radio Times Doctor Who 10th Anniversary Special. The story states that the Daleks evolved from primitive humans taken from Earth by the Halldons, an advanced alien race. Subjected to accelerated evolution on the planet Ameron (possibly another name for Skaro), these humans were extremely warlike and eventually developed weapons of sufficient power to destroy the Halldons observing them. After the war these humans became the Daleks, and the story ends with the implication that the rest of humanity will inevitably follow suit. While this apparently contradicts every other version of the Daleks' history, it can be made to fit with a little jiggling about. As some of the spin-off media stories suggest that Kaleds and Thals were entirely different species, regardless of their apparent similarities, one might suggest that one or the other race is descended from the transplanted humans, and that the "Thousand Years War" was sparked by the evolutionary pressurs of two similar species occupying the same ecological niche. Doctortoc (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Red Dalek
Shall we add anything, (pictures?) of the red dalek on the sun website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.241.109 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No. It's the Sun.  If they said raid was wet I'd want independant verifiction.  Captain Seafort (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

German
Don't they say Ausrotten in the newest episode (Journey's End) when at germany. Ausrotten is german for Exterminate. It may sound like Exterminieren but it's written Ausrotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fryjak (talk • contribs) 21:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What do Daleks say in German dubbed episodes? (Not counting the end of S4, because those could easily have been translated differently to account for English- and German-speaking Daleks.) --67.110.221.100 (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a mistake - the Daleks ARE heard saying "exterminieren", a word which does NOT actually exist in German (I had a letter published in DWM making exactly this point) which presumably someone on the production team invented as part of the "Martha in Germany" gag. Fryjak is right in saying that the literal translation is "ausrotten", but in the German dubbing of the series (the DVD of which I heartily recommend - the Daleks sound like Smurfs!) the pepperpots' warcry is "eliminieren". NP Chilla (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerts
I've added the two concert appearances; do you think we need citations to prove that the Daleks appeared in these concerts? (I'm sure they could be found if necessary, but they might seem superfluous.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Parodies
Actually the Daleks have been parodied also in the US as well. When Marvel was publishing 'ALF,' Gordon Schumway (ALF) recalls meeting a Melmacian version of the Doctor (Doctor Whozonfirst) who traveled in his own version of the TARDIS (TARDIS Gras, in the shape of an Orbit Guard Box). There they fought against a bizarre hybrid of Dalek called the Barbie-Doll-ek. While they possessed the Dalek torso and weapons, their upper parts were replaced with Barbie heads. Amongst their typical 'EXTERMINATE' cry, they also had valley doll phrases peppered in, 'Like Totally.'

ALF helps foil the Barbie-Doll-eks by using some white out on a signpost, saying 'Ken' instead of Kent, and having the creatures fall to their doom. The tale ends when Whozonfirst dumps ALF for his new Companion (making fun of the fact most of The Doctor's Companions have been beautiful young women.)

On a more recent note, in the 'Futurama' comic episode 'Doctor WHAT,' Prof. Farnsworth develops a TARDIS-esque loo which travels through Time and Space whenever the toilet is flushed. After breaking the navigational flush, Fry, Leela, Bender and Zoidberg end up on a planet ran by Dalek-esque creatures called 'The Deacons.' Apparently they conquer planets by enforcing religion, and when Bender accidentally says he has none, they attack by crying 'Ex-communicate! Ex-communicate!'

Another classic Dalek joke is revealed when Fry and Leela escape up some stairs, whereas The Deacons complain why they ever build those things since they can't use them (probably didn't have the sense of developing hover units as their counterparts had). Zoidberg ironically defeats The Deacons by accidentally squirting them with his ink gland because he's nervous, thus freeing the planet from their rule.

Though these are already mentioned in the Doctor Who Spoofs, I thought I'd like adding them here as sort of a cross-reference to that article, since it also spoofs the Daleks as well.Fangarius (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say that a brief mention (something on the order of "Daleks have also been spoofed in comic books based on the television series ALF and Futurama, and in the Viz strip "Doctor Poo.") would be fine — but since this is a featured article, we should include full citations using cite comic. I don't think that the article should go into plot details of the spoofs, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Dalek name
Is it true that Terry Nation was searching for a name and glanced at a pile of London telephone directories which, in those days, were in four volumes A-D, E-K, L-R and S-Z with large letters on the spine. Nation says the name "jumped out at him". I remember reading this years ago but can't find a reference. Saintmesmin (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly seems plausible, and should definitely be included if a reference can be found... there lies the sticking point, however. Talk Islander 11:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 30 Years in the TARDIS mentioned that Nation got the name from a volume that read Dal to Lek...and then immediately went on to say that he later admitted that he made that story up. DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. And no such volume has ever been located. Paul B (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Should we include that "false etymology" as a false etymology, since it was provided (and subsequently refuted) by Terry Nation? The story is similar to one that L. Frank Baum told about the origin of the word "Oz", but of course we can't mention that without a citation.  (I'm away from home, so can't provide the 30 Years in the TARDIS citation myself.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...just realised, I might be confusing 30 Years with Resistance is Useless -- the one with the Anorak. DonQuixote (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the section stating that '"Dalek" sounds like the Norwegian word "dårlig", which means "bad" or "evil"'. This is doubly incorrect: Firstly, "dårlig" is properly pronounced "ˌdɔːli" and secondly, while it's meaning can be translated as "bad", it is bad in the sense of poor (inadequate) or poorly (unwell). Pilum (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

MC Hawking reference
In the song Nerdcore Rising off MC Frontalot's album by the same name the artist MC Hawking makes a slight reference to the Daleks in the line "For punk MCs who playa-hate, we got one word: EXTERMINATE!" I only put this here because the "exterminate" part is done in a very Dalek-esque voice. If anyone would help me on putting this into the article with citations that would be great. The entire lyrics for the song are here: http://frontalot.com/index.php/?page=lyrics&lyricid=23 -Ditto (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Halo mod?
Does anybody have any evidence of this Halo mod? As YouTube has nothing, I am slightly sceptical. Any evidence would be appreciated, be it photo or video. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Dalek emotions?
Daleks have little to no individual personality, ostensibly no emotions other than hatred and anger.
 * The daleks that serve davros have a polite, obedient mannerism from what little i recall. So there is some traits besides these.Kingkong77 (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope - they treat Davros with the same contempt they show all other non-Daleks (they shoot him, keep him in a dungeon, threaten him on a regular basis...) and manners have nothing to do with emotions anyway. - NP Chilla (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I thinkk he meens ones in revlation and remembrance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.166.242 (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

dals
The souorce seems to be a wikipedia page. I think that claim shuold be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're misinterpreting the reference. The reference is to the 1963 television serial The Daleks, not the Wikipedia article on that serial (The Daleks). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

References for computer games
I was going to use The Eighties as a source for the "Key to Time" game, but it's not mentioned there. Does anyone have access to Howe's Transcendental Toybox, to see if it's mentioned there? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's something on the games. http://www.sci-fi-online.com/00_features/08-07-03_who-computer.htm Here's an online version of the classic BASIC Daleks game that was ported to just about every computer that had a BASIC language, though in many books and magazines it had no mention of Daleks or Dr. Who. http://complexityworkshop.com/sun/daleks/ I've been trying to find any version of the listing on the web but no luck yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

ANZ ad citation difficulties
I'm not happy with the citations for the use of the Daleks in the ANZ ad. I think that the citation for the ANZ — Advertising page is fine for establishing the verifiability of the statement that ANZ made an ad featuring the Daleks; the video is linked at the bottom of that page. (I considered using cite video and linking to the ad itself, but realized that I didn't have any information on the production of the ad, so the citation wouldn't be very complete.)

This is the site of the person who provided the props for the ad makers. I wanted to include that site because it gives the 2005 date for the ad, if you click on "Productions". But how do you indicate 'click on "Productions"' in the citation? Is there a standard way to cite Flash web pages?

Plus, the site doesn't give the author's name (though it does give an email and phone number). I'm tempted to send an email to find out the name, but of course that would amount to original research. Anybody have any suggestions on how to improve these citations? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved free-use image to infobox
= Moved free-use image to infobox. Removed fair-use image. No need for fair-use image when there are multiple different available free-use images that are suitable (WP:NFCC). Cirt (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are not the original daleks; they are fan-made replicas. Really, you cannot use some mockup to represent the real deal. — Edokter • Talk  • 00:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of available free-use images of Daleks. Per WP:NFCC, there is simply no reason to have a fair-use image when there are free-use alternatives. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no free alternatives, as the appearance of the daleks themselves is subject to copyright; discussion is still pending on that. And remember WP:BRD; do not reinstate your edit when reverted; discuss first. — Edokter • Talk  • 00:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The same can be said for you, Edokter - except in your case across multiple pages you are attempting to go against WP:NFCC, which is very odd behavior for an admin. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have explained repeatedly why NFCC#1 does not apply. Now you can keep on ignoring my explanation, or keep edit warring; your choice. — Edokter • Talk  • 00:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pick another free-use alternative image. There is no reason to use a fair-use image. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no free use alternative; the free one is possibly a copyvio in itself, as it is a photographic representation of a copyrighted design. I have pointed you to the discussion where this is being discussed. Until that discssion is closed, no further changes should be made. Doing so only disrupts discussion. — Edokter • Talk  • 00:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ROFLMAO to changing arguments mid-step. First the replacement free-use alternative is said by Edokter to not be accurate, then changes argument to claim "copyrighted design". Cirt (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (←) Where did I change arguments? I explained repeatedly that photographed daleks are subject to copyright, thereby making it impossible to find a free replacement. And no, mockups cannot be used to depict the subject. Now come with some arguments instead if laughing as if someone actually said something stupid. — Edokter • Talk  • 01:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are free-use alternatives. Perhaps you could suggest how we can bring the infobox image use in this article into compliance with WP:NFCC? Cirt (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see any free-use alternatives personally. The Brighton image is a derivative work of the copyrighted design (and has been nominated for deletion). Any fan-made mockup would also be a derivative work. The only way I can think of a free image being made available is if a Dalek model properly owned by the BBC was permanently installed in a public place, at which stage a photograph made of it would not violate its copyright (s. 62, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988). Stifle (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Free-use image for infobox picture?
Should a free-use image be used for the infobox picture? 01:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Please do not have threaded discussions in your individual subsection. Please only do that in the subsection, Further discussion. 02:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt
Cirt (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Non-free content criteria is site policy on Wikipedia.
 * 2) WP:NFCC states: No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available.
 * 3) There are free equivalents that could be used in the infobox to depict the subject matter "Daleks".
 * 4) A fair-use image should not be used in the infobox. A free-use image is preferred, per Wikipedia site policy on image use.

Comments from Edokter
Cirt is wrong on point 3, making all other points moot. The Dalek is a copyrighted design, and any photographed Dalek automatically become a derivative work, and as such cannot be freely licensed. That means there is no free alternative available, hence NFCC#1 is satisfied. Note that any fan-made mockups are also possibly copyrighted, but these cannot be used to depict the original design; this article descibes the original Daleks made by the BBC, not hose made by fans. — Edokter • Talk  • 14:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Masem
Uh, I'm pretty sure it will be impossible to get a free image of a Dalek. Regardless if a WP editor took the picture themselves of a model they created, the work is derivative of the copyrighted Dalek design and would never be in the PD until normal copyright process has completed. --M ASEM (t) 02:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jclemens

 * comment a "free" image would depict a fan's interpretation of the copyrighted work, rather than the subject of the article. Are we sure that's really the best solution? Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Angus McLellan
I think the question cannot be answered definitively without more information and a lawyer.

commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama notes that English law has a broad definition compared to some jurisdictions. It quotes experts as saying: 'The expression "open to the public" presumably extends the section to premises to which the public are admitted only on licence or on payment'. If the BBC do tours, whether regularly scheduled or one-offs on special request, which take in prop stores where you can see a Dalek in its usual place of storage there seems to me to be at least a case for a free image being obtainable under circumstances where the photograph would be covered by section 62 and so be able to be released under a free license just as the fine picture of Gormley's Angel of the North which currently decorates my user page was. I'll confess that I'm easily baffled by questions about derivative works and freedom of panorama so that it's very possible that I am mistaken on some key point here - or talking mince as we say round here - but I do think this is something worth considering as a long-term solution. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Josiah Rowe
There are several intertwined issues here. First is whether any image of a Dalek can be considered free, since the Dalek design is owned by the BBC and the estate of Terry Nation. Second is whether a photograph of a fan-made Dalek, such as the ones seen in Image:Daleks in Brighton.jpg, can be considered "more free" than a screenshot from Doctor Who — does the presence of the Dalek make it a derivative work, or not? Is a derivative work considered just as unfree as a screenshot, or is there some gradation? Third is whether the potential inaccuracy of a fan-made replica presents significantly less encyclopedic value than a photograph or screenshot of an actual Dalek prop used in production. This last can probably be resolved if there is a consensus that Commons:File:DALEK.jpg is appropriately licensed; I believe that is one of the BBC props, not a replica.

IANAL, so I don't have the slightest clue what the answer to the first two issues is. But for what it's worth, the issue came up before at Commons, and the image was deleted as a derivative work.

As for Angus' suggestion that a photograph could be taken during a tour of the Doctor Who studios in Cardiff (well, Upper Boat, really) — as far as I know, there are no regularly scheduled tours of those studios. There are occasional tours given as prizes to Blue Peter winners and the like, but I don't think that there's anything that could be considered "on license or on payment".—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Elen of the Roads
From s62 of the current UK Act (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988)

Representation of certain artistic works on public display

(1) This section applies to—:(a) buildings, and


 * (b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.

(2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—


 * (a) making a graphic work representing it,


 * (b) making a photograph or film of it, or


 * (c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it.

(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.

It follows that if one can find a permanent display featuring an actual Dalek, and the owner of the premises permits photography, provided one is in the UK one might be able to get a PD snap of a Dalek. It must however be an actual dalek, not a cut out poster, as one is claiming it is a work of artistic craftsmanship. Dalek fan art, however, is a breach of copyright, as this exemption does not cover making a derivative copy based on an idea.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion
I think Masem is correct. I'm not sure what the free image is that we're talking about, but it's probably an incorrectly licensed derivative work. I don't think freedom of panorama is going to cut it. A movie poster outside a theater does not become free. It's more for stuff like buildings. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I got some Dalek photos somewhere on my computer I took at ComiCon in San Diego, so I think that is what Cirt wants us to do. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that would present the same difficulties as the existing photographs. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, just seeing if I could help. Really, the amount of images now in the article looks fine to me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Taken in San Diego, they would definitely not be usable, because the USA does not have the same exemption I mentioned above for works located permanently in a public place. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A possibly usable image
I'm waiting to see what the experts at Commons decide to do about and, but if those images are deleted we might still be able to use File:Dalek - Brighton.jpg as a free alternative. I think the question to be answered is whether the Brighton Doctor Who exhibit constituted a "permanent display". I don't know how long that exhibit was open for, and I think (although I'm not certain) that it's closed now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Brighton Doctor Who exhibition ran from 14 May to 6 November 2005, and is now closed. It seems that the application of s62 The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 will hinge around the interpretation of permanence and the intentions (either explicit or implicit) of the exhibitors. Posters from the time refer to 'The Doctor Who Exhibition 2005' indicating a planned, comparatively short, duration. Most definitions of "permanently" don't really seem to apply in this case, unfortunately. Donlock (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. Thanks for checking that.  So it looks like all the images of Daleks we have are fair use.  Is the Cardiff Doctor Who exhibition more permanent?  If there's a Dalek on display there, could we get a photo of it? --Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the free use image should be added. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Which one do you mean? There are several options under discussion, and there are disputes over how free they really are. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a subsidiary issue to be taken into account when considering the suitability of photographs of Daleks displayed at Doctor Who Exhibitions (whether displayed permanently or otherwise). In some cases the Daleks in question are specially produced exhibition models and not the props seen in the TV show. Examination of photographs available from various sources on the net reveals that some examples have a number of detail differences from the screen props, particularly regarding the appendages. The encyclopaedic value of photographs of anything other the screen props has already been questioned in relation to fan-made replicas. The same may be true of some exhibition models, even if licensed. Donlock (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * RE User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe: I think that all images should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Quinn UK (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)  Jack Quinn UK (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Image update
The images under discussion at Commons ( and ) have been deleted, as they do not meet the requirements for freedom of panorama. I think the same is likely to be true of any photograph of a Dalek, unless we can find one on permanent display in a museum or something; which means that if we want to have any images of a Dalek (which I think we all agree is encyclopedically valid, since the article discusses the elements of the Dalek design), they've got to be nonfree images. So the screenshots are OK. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Human dalek.jpg
This non-free image is currently being used in four articles, including this one. This seems far from being a minimal use of non-free content. Once would be enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That is indeed stretching use of non-free content way too far. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The number of non-free images only matters per article. This article may have too many (and it does), but the fact that the Human dalek.jpg is used in four articles doesn't matter.  Minimal use pertains to a minimum per article, not a minimum of uses total.  If four (say) non free images are going to be used in four different articles, it's actually better that they all be the same one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as this particular article goes - I agree with you that it has too many nonfree images used. Cirt (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to get technical, there are some fair use images administrators are notified about because of their use in many articles. I notice this for articles related to TV stations, radio stations and other media outlets. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, this article probably has too many FU images, but how can we constructively reduce the number? I haven't read it, but generally we should keep the ones that are discussed in reliable sources and remove the rest. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually think this image should go. The only mention about the Black Dalek is just in that section about Fictional history and that is it. There is no commentary about his appearance at all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this comment by . Cirt (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what search terms we could use to see if the image, or what the image depicts, has received coverage or not? I'm not a bit DW guy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can recall two ways in which this image (or subjects closely related to it) received some out-of-universe coverage: there was some discussion when the Radio Times placed this picture (or a similar picture of the Dalek/human hybrid) on its cover prior to the airing of the first part of the episode, thus "spoiling" the episode's cliffhanger ending, and after the episode aired, I think there was some tut-tutting by the more conservative tabloids about whether the Dalek/human creature was too frightening for the youngest members of the Doctor Who audience. I could try to search for news articles related to these, but frankly I don't think that either is terribly important in the larger context of Doctor Who.  I wouldn't object to the image being removed from this article.  The other non-free image that I think could probably be removed is File:Dalekattackgame.jpg; I don't think it adds much to the article (especially since the section on computer games still needs better citations). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy Rewse-Davies
An anonymous editor recently added Jeremy Rewse-Davies as the co-designer of the Dalek prop. I'd never heard of him, but a quick Google search found this article from The Independent which describes him (in passing) as the Daleks' co-designer. All the references I own credit Cusick alone. I've added the Indy citation in the opening section, and added this sentence to the "History" section, with references for each clause:
 * Cusick is generally given sole credit for the design of the Dalek, but Jeremy Rewse-Davies is occasionally described as the Daleks' co-designer.

Does this seem appropriate? Given the silence of the most reliable sources on Rewse-Davies' role, should he be mentioned in the lede? Or is the sentence in the "History" section enough? Does anyone know any more about this person and his role in designing the Daleks? (I'm guessing that he was another designer working for the BBC at the time, who may have assisted Cusick or something — but I'd like to know more.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The only other reference to Mr. Rewse-Davies' association with Daleks I can find (beside the Independent article) is an entry in Debretts, which states under Career: prodn designer BBC TV 1964-74 (jtly designed Dr Who Daleks) This doesn't stack up. The first appearance of a Dalek (albeit only a plunger) was on a Dr. Who episode screened 21 December 1963. I haven't been able to establish a precise time line, but obviously the design and construction of the props must have commenced some weeks before transmission. There is at least one authenticated early design drawing in existence, headed 20th Nov Dr Who No 2 Series B, for instance. On the available evidence, it thus appears that Mr. Rewse-Davies' position with the BBC commenced after the Daleks props had been designed and built. I don't proclaim myself to be a Dalek expert but I do have a keen interest going back over decades, and I've never heard of Mr. Rewse-Davies being connected with Daleks before. Of course all of this means nothing other than that perhaps a little caution needs to be exercised regarding this attribution until further information comes to light. Even if The Independent and Debretts are acceptable as sources, in this instance the accuracy of their statements regarding Mr. Rewse-Davis co-designing the Daleks seems questionable. If it's to be included in the article then I think, at least for the time being, it should be presented as such. Donlock (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Between 1964 and 1974, when Debretts says Mr. Rewse-Davies was a production designer for the BBC, there were ten Doctor Who serials featuring the Daleks. I've checked the crew details for each of these serials as given at the BBC's 'Doctor Who: The Classic Series' website. Jeremy Rewse-Davies isn't listed as a production designer, or in any other capacity, for any of them. Neither does he appear in the credits for 1963's 'The Daleks', their first outing. After a disgracefully long period of silence the BBC finally acknowledged Ray Cusick as being responsible for the Dalek design. Never a mention of any contribution by Mr. Rewse-Davies. It's possible that The Independent picked up on the Dalek joint-design reference from Debretts when researching their article; I can't find it anywhere else. I would suggest that the accuracy of the Debretts entry, in the face of all the information to the contrary, is questionable at best. As things stand I think that even including mention in the article of Jeremy Rewse-Davies "occasionally (being) described as the Daleks' co-designer" is in danger of giving far too much weight to what may be a single uncorroborated source of (in this instance) dubious accuracy. Donlock (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the hard work in your research! I agree that Rewse-Davies should be removed until (if and when) a more solid source appears. DonQuixote (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree, and have removed the mention in the lede and (for now) commented out the mention in the "History" section. I also second DonQuixote's thanks to Donlock for doing the research on this! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Debretts may be relying on Mr Rewse-Davies for their information - most of what they publish is supplied by the subject.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * An additional bit of information. According to The Official Doctor Who & the Daleks Book Ray Cusick was the designer for every episode of the Dalek's first serial, The Daleks, except episode 6 where it was Jeremy Davis.(Peel, John; Nation, Terry (1988). The Official Doctor Who & the Daleks Book. New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 13. ISBN 0-312-02264-6) The similarity in names is probably purely coincidental and still gives no credence to JR-D having anything to do with designing the Daleks, but I thought I would raise this in case it gets mentioned again at some point in the future. Don lock  (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy Rewse-Davies was credited on the BBC credits as a set and prop designer for the era. However at the time you will find he went by the name of Jeremy Davies. A look at official bbc credits for Dr. Who (available online) show this. He also worked on many other shows at the time such as Z Cars. He will also shortly be appearing in an interview for a release of Dr. Who classic series on dvd. I can confirm that Jeremy Rewse-Davies was the co-designer of the Daleks, though as at the time he was the less senior of the two designers, he was not given as much credit - or in many cases none at all if many internet sources are to be believed. Added by Zander Rewse-Davies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.74.167 (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Screensaver
I've been able to find citations for most of the computer games, but I still can't find any references to the one that supposedly has a "K-9 versus Daleks" game embedded in it. Does anyone know whether it's one of the ones found here on the BBC's site? I can't install them myself to see whether any of them is the one being referred to, and absent a reliable source I'm removing the sentence. If anyone can find a source discussing the K9/Dalek game, this sentence can be restored to the article:
 * In 1998 the BBC released a Doctor Who screensaver done in Macromedia Shockwave which had a built-in minigame, where the player controlled K-9 battling the Daleks through seven increasingly difficult levels.

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave Allen
I haven't been able to find a source which discusses the Dave Allen sketch. The sketch itself is on YouTube here, but I don't think we can use that as a source, because it's a copyright violation. Can anyone else find a source discussing this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since nobody's been able to provide a better citation for this, I'm removing it for the time being:
 * "One sketch on Dave Allen At Large portrayed a baptismal font behaving like a Dalek."
 * If anyone can find a mention of this sketch in a reliable source, we can restore this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed from "Music"
I'm removing the following from the "Music" section, as it seems a bit too trivial to mention that various musicians have nicknamed technical equipment as "Dalek": "As part of their light show in the 1960s, Pink Floyd used a light which they dubbed the 'Dalek', due to its erratic behaviour and tendency to break down. On Muse's Absolution tour in 2004, Matt Bellamy used a Kawai MP9500 piano which they nicknamed 'The Dalek' due to its appearance; it was mounted on a metal podium and had LED lights to synch with the MIDI keyboard and the stage lights." If anyone feels that these belong in the article, feel free to discuss it here.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

New Dalek Image
In "Victory of the Daleks" a new design of Dalek appeared. It would be helpful to have an image of the mentioned Dalek. It's a pretty radical re-design, so we should put in an image so the viewer can clearly see the differences betweeen the old version and the new version. 86.28.171.246 (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, looks like the image has been placed. Thanks to the person who uploaded it. 86.28.171.246 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

i know what you mean. by the way,if you asked, that type of dalek's name is a "new paradgrim dalek". by the way,i like the design too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdude122 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate IP claim
I removed: "The word and Dalek image have been copyrighted by the BBC, whilst the rights to the Dalek concept reside with the (Terry) Nation estate." Clearly this is incorrect. You can't copyright words (and you don't "copyright" things as an active verb anyway, they either are or are not). There's no IP in a "concept", so its unclear what Terry Nation is claimed to have, and as to the "Dalek image" you can only have copyright in a specific image or images. The BBC might be able to stop me using pictures of Daleks that I have taken on the ground that it infringes (say) copyright in the design drawings of the Dalek, but that's another matter. Doubtless there are trade marks and possibly design rights here, perhaps someone who knows about Daleks can put in the correct information? Francis Davey (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the IP's information is substantially correct. The BBC had to negotiate with Nation's estate to relaunch the Daleks in the film. Nation owned the IP rights in the concept of the Daleks, and the BBC used them with Nation's consent.


 * It is perfectly possible to copyright a "thing", if that "thing" has been designed. The BBC holds the copyright to all the Dalek designs, all the plans and the Dalek builds - (and all the screenshots of Daleks that are or were in this article). If you built something that looks vaguely Dalek-y the BBC and the Terry Nation estate could both sue you.


 * No, copyright might subsist in a work of artistic craftsmanship or an artistic work, the latter including the design drawings of the Dalek, it is also possible to have one of four possible "design rights" in a design. None of these are ownership of the idea of a Dalek. I am not disputing that if I built a Dalek, the BBC and/or someone else might be able to successfully sue me, but the sentence I removed was incorrect and the true situation is unclear and unknown to me. If you have some cited materials that would be useful as it would enable me at least to appreciate what rights Terry Nation might have. Francis Davey (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of references actually in the article, including a reference to the BBC and the Nation estate falling out over reintroducing the Daleks in New Who. What you may not be taking into consideration is that the Daleks exist as a work of fiction as well as the plans and builds.  Basically, Nation 'created the story' of the Daleks, and wrote the first script in which they appeared (in fact, he wrote the first several scripts).  Forgive me if I'm wrong, but under the Berne Convention, this would give Nation the right to be recognised as the author of the fictional conceit that is the Daleks. Further, the Berne Convention provides 6(1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. I would anticipate this plays a part in the relationship between the Nation estate and the BBC.


 * It is also perfectly possible to copyright a made up word, and my understanding is the BBC owns the copyright on the name. This doesn't stop it being used to describe the Mk 3 Travel Machines, but it would stop it being used for example by Dyson as the name for his new vacuum cleaner. The IP's statement should probably be put back.  If you are interested in copyright legislation, you might perhaps find it helpful to read around the many wikipedia articles pertaining to copyright - there's piles of stuff.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am an intellectual property lawyer with a specialist expertise in copyright law, so what I say is not without the benefit of some background knowledge. The Court of Appeal's view in Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] Ch. 119 was that copyright could not subsist in a single word because it would not be a literary work. My understanding is that is still good law. The BBC may have a trade mark in the word "Dalek" (I'd be surprised if they don't) but that is quite another matter. If you have a citation that demonstrates they do, then its worth putting in the article, but that doesn't change the incorrectness of what was written there. Francis Davey (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are almost certainly correct with regard to the trademarking of 'Dalek'. However, I am not convinced that made-up words that are part of a literary work (as is the case with Dalek - see above) do not have the protection of law.  Christopher Tolkien has probably trademarked every word his father ever wrote by now, but even before that, I am not convinced that I could have marketed the Bombadil range of hiking boots without getting a cease and desist from the lawyers of George Allen & Unwin.


 * Having read the article, it appears that the removed statement was superfluous, as it already says in several places in the article that Nation and the BBC jointly own the copyright (also see here re Nation and the Beeb suing you if you build a Dalek). Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Romans were better
I think it is worth mentioning that the Romans were a better military machine in the history of the universe than the Daleks, as stated in Season 5, Episode 12, The Pandorica Opens. felinoel (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that was just a joke/play on the historical description of the Romans. Not a literal fact. Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be a fact anyway, just a statement of analysis by the Doctor. Even if we accept the Doctor meant his words in earnest, it would be justification for saying that the Doctor thinks the Romans are a better military machine than the Daleks, but not for saying that the Romans are a better military machine.  Binabik80 (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

i believe, personally, he was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdude122 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

STONE DALEK
It wasn't Amy's memories that brought the Dalek back to life. The Dalek was re-energised by the restoration field of the Pandorica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.148.136 (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

✅ DonQuixote (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

i don't think we need to know that. some say it was amy's memories,some say otherwise.

Reception section
Thoughts: This article is sorely lacking a reception section. For example, the mention of some poll which the Daleks topped looks misplaced in the lead. Rather, the lead should summarise a much more competent reception section at the bottom of the article. Given how many reviews talk about 1. the Daleks generally, 2. Dalek fatigue, 3. Dalek anticipation, and whatnot, 4. how many "Favourite monster" polls there are (both in and outside of Doctor Who fandom) 5. and the sales of Dalek merchandise, ...it shouldn't be hard for someone who cares to compile such a section. I don't, though.~ZytheTalk to me! 23:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Voices
Just noticed this in the opening

Their famous catchphrase is "Exterminate!", with each syllable individually synthesised in a frantic electronic voice.

And wondered if it should read, "...each syllable individually emphasised in a frantic synthesised voice..."

As it reads it sounds like each syllable is treated with a different vocal effect. I would go ahead and change it but don't want to step on anyone's toes. 119.15.65.1 (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Pronounce
Does anybody else think the pronunciation .ogg should be an actual dalek voice? 207.118.34.58 (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It shoult remain a human pronounciation. — Edokter • Talk  • 14:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Guest Appearance on The Late Late show with Craig Ferguson
The past episode and tonights of the late late show have featured a dalek on the set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.221.217 (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but everywhere anyone who plays the Doctor goes there's always either a TARDIS or Dalek. It would be tedious to list every single one of them. Crimsonraptor (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Pornography
Is this really relevant ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.26.160 (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fictional Species?
Do the Daleks count as a fictional species? Isn't the species name either Dals or Kaleds? 92.7.185.27 (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dalek Voice Creation
In the 1970s I got a letter from Dick Mills of the BBC Radiophonic Workshop informing me of how the Dalek voice was made. It included a photocopy of a circuit board with transistors and a circuit diagram.

I later discovered it was directly taken from the magazine Practical Electronics issue #1 dated November 1964. There is a circuit diagram for a Rolf Harris electronic 'didgeridoo'. AKA a Ring Modulator by any other name. The text in the magazine suggested it could be used in creating robot voices.

Did the Radiophonic people take this project and make the famous Dalek voice from it?

--Quatermass (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No (unless they had a time machine), because November 1964 would be one year too late. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If you listen to the first Dalek story you may notice that the Dalek voices are not ring modulated. I suspect that the demand from viewers on how the Dalek sound was created caused them to make a general explanation letter to pass on to the public?

Dick Mills did say personally to me some years ago that he noticed the circuit diagram in PE, tried it and used it for a time. But was vague about how long for. (Not surprising, given the length of time has past.) --Quatermass (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Daleks in other media
No mention of the use of Daleks in the theatre? I'm sure there have been several plays with Daleks in them. Heck, one even had Jon Pertwee playing the Doctor!

I was involved with the 1984 Edinburgh Fringe play Recall U.N.I.T. (by Richard Franklin) in which a Dalek appeared with permission from Terry Nation/BBC. John Scott Martin did the voice. --Quatermass (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

MacGyver, Series 2, Episode 1, "The Human Factor" seems to be a take-off of Daleks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.193.213.136 (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Dr Who Daleks lost and found
I thought it would be interesting to add this or another part of the Dr Who section.

A Dalek from Dr Who was found submerged in a pond by volunteers enlisted to clear it of rubbish.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/doctor-who/4935903/Dr-Who-Dalek-found-in-pond.html Articseahorse (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, I am surprised there is no mention in the article of the theft of 3 Daleks in the 1970s from BBC Television Centre. The show Blue Peter put out an appeal to all viewers to look out for them, and amazingly they were recovered within 24 hours. It was big news at the time. Not sure what section that should go in though...suggestions? Tweesdad 22:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Recovered Daleks? Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 22:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Appearances and disappearances? ;) The recovery of the Dalek head from a pond is now thought to be a hoax, staged using a fan-built component, I believe. I don't think it's notable unless definitive confirmation of its provenance as an actual screen-used prop can be sourced and cited. The 1973 theft was widely reported at the time and has since been well-documented, including as a special feature on the BBC's Planet of the Daleks DVD. Probably worth a mention if it can be shoe-horned in somewhere. Bowdenford (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a mention under 'Full-size reproductions' ('The Dalek in the Pond (ref) is considered to be a hoax/construct' or somesuch). Or 'Genesis of the out of place artefact Daleks' (can't double direct the two references) 80.254.147.68 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Punch or Private Eye Cartoon?
I just corrected the page to reflect my memory - from reading the original magazine in a dentist's waiting room around the time of publication - of the cartoon of Daleks being stopped by stairs: punch.photoshelter.com/image/I0000ZvleumhOmDo ; this was listed as being published in the magazine 'Private Eye'. This is a possibility given the topics covered and the style of 'Private Eye', though it would be unusual while being and absolutely, completely in the scope & style of 'Punch'. Perhaps "Private Eye" printed a similar cartoon (or reprinted with permission - an event worthy of inclusion in the page if so) though that I am unaware of? Can anybody find a source for it? The 'Punch' cartoon was trivial to find with a Net Search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:1D:203:D4BE:FEEC:45C2:5D46 (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

OED definition
The following definition of dalek from the OED was added on 21 March 2010: "a type of robot appearing in ‘Dr. Who‘, a B.B.C. Television science-fiction programme; hence used allusively."

The title was amended on 24 January 2012 to read Doctor Who. "Sic&thinsp;" was added on 16 May 2012 after the word robot. The definition now reads: "a type of robot [sic] appearing in 'Doctor Who', a B.B.C. Television science-fiction programme; hence used allusively."

There does not appear to be any doubt that the word robot is faithfully reproduced from the original. However, sic is generally used to denote a spelling error or unusual presentation in the original, rather than errors of fact or disagreements of opinion. Notwithstanding that a dalek is not a robot, it is evident from the quotation that the word robot was used in the original definition, and therefore I don't think that the sic is needed in this case. (I acknowledge that the article at sic states: "use of sic may serve to draw the reader's attention to a factual or logical error"; however, this is tagged as needing a citation and I'm not convinced that this is correct or, at least, appropriate in this case.)

On the other hand, it would be appropriate to revert the wording Doctor Who to read Dr. Who to match the original text (if this is correct) and include sic in that case.

In any case, it might be worth checking the latest edition of the OED to see whether the definition has since been revised (and might no longer use robot). —sroc &#x1F4AC; 04:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)