Talk:Dalek (Doctor Who episode)

Sucker arm
Crush? or suffocate? GraemeLeggett 15:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Crush. If you watch as Simmons is grabbed by the sucker, you can see his skull actually contract CGI-ly. --khaosworks 16:00, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

it has to be suffocate because the sucker only goes around the workers mouth and nose in the episode "dalek".


 * It sucks his face inward. Look closely. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Absence of the Daleks
I'm going to assume that User:NP Chilla got it from here, but, unfortunately, the only cite there is the OG news page, so I'm not sure, but it's probably best to just leave it out. On the other hand, I can totally see Shearman doing that :).--Sean Jelly Baby? 16:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * But Khaosworks just found it. Never mind!--Sean Jelly Baby? 16:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Addtional to this, the "Absense of the Daleks" story was recounted to me, in person, by Shearman when I interviewed him on stage at a Doctor Who convention in October 2004. Marwood 15:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

SciFi error
Anyone else notice that it suddenly cut from the Dalek torture to Van S and Doctor's chat (missing out the alien musical instrument)? (I'm on holiday here, so I watched the episode to see any errors - like this one.) -- Thelb 4 13:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If these new episodes really were 45 minutes in length in Britain I have assumed that we are losing 2-4 minutes on every episode as aired here, in the U.S., on SciFi, as they come in at 41 minutes (give or take several seconds) as I tape them. The longer (sometimes it feels like it is unlimited) commercial breaks are always frustrating and they also occur on many programs shown on BBC America as well. My question re: this new entry in the note section about losing 30 seconds at the start of last nights airing. Was this just the usual edits or is this referring to a specific break in transmission? If it was the latter I did not notice it here in Colorado. I am not saying that that the note should be removed I am just trying to clarify what some readers here may be unaware of. I can't wair for July to see what I have been missing in ALL of the 9th Dr episodes! User:MarnetteD | Talk 00:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The cut seemed intentional - it didn't stop or start halfway through any words or sentences... but it did seem a bit sudden. -- Thelb 4 17:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatly if your watching abroad I would recomend Limewire because the full version is only in Britain (might be because BBC has no adverts)--Wiggstar69 09:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, you could always buy or rent the DVDs, which are uncut both in the US and the UK. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing to be aware of. BBC America seems to have a little more flexibility as to the amount of commercial time that they put into an hour. As an example the Sci Fi Channel puts about 19 minutes worth of ads per hour (thus the missing material in each Dr Who eps) while BBC Am only puts in about 15 minutes of ads. Thus, their Dr Who showings may be complete, or nearly so. I don't know for sure as I had purchased the DVD's long before BBC Am finally unbent and started showing the series so I haven't been checking (and don't worry although they have shown CE's season they rerun things most of the time). I can heartily second Josiah Rowe's recommendation on adding them to amyones collection. The series of 13 episodes was wonderful and being able to watch them without commercials or annoying programming graphics at the edges, along with the extras, makes the expense of purchasing them well worth it. Now if we could just get them to bring Torchwood to DVD here in the US. MarnetteD | Talk 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I got a region-free DVD player when I realized how long the US was going to have to wait for the 2005 series of Doctor Who... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Torchwood is on DVD in Britain, and from what I heard USA are getting it in May (or at least part one)--Wiggstar69 16:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Aliens
I do recall Adam saying that the UN still tries to keep aliens secret in the year 2012. But in the two part series immediately before that, which is set in 2005-2006(depending on when Rose takes place), I don't remember anybody outside of Jones, the Doctor, Rose, Jackie, and Mickey knowing that the space craft was fake. So why would the UN continue trying to hide alien existence? Tim 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * At the end of World War Three, Mickey notes that people are already calling the alien ship a hoax, as seen in the headlines of a tabloid. More problematic really is that The Christmas Invasion takes place that Christmas (Christmas 2006 to be exact), and that the Doctor seems confident that there is no longer any hiding of the fact that aliens exist. Still, there are ways to work around that if the writers want to. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad Wolf reference in this episode
It says here and elsewhere that Rose wasn't present to witness the Bad Wolf reference in this episode, even though she recalls it in a later one. However, the voice announcing Van Statten's arrival does say "Attention all personnel" before naming "Bad Wolf One," suggesting it was being broadcast throughout the structure. If Rose was anywhere in the structure, she could have heard this announcement.

Death to the Daleks references.
I was watching the appearance of the Daleks in Death to the Daleks and practically the entire bit of the Doctor and the Daleks talking up until the Doctor asks what the Dalek's purpose was nearly lifted word for word from that earlier story. I added it in on the reference page. Truly astounding. It's on youtube for anyone curious, Death to the Daleks Part III or whatever. --Anguirus111 23:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Big Damn Gun
Can anyone here confirm that the gun the Doctor intended to use on the Dalek is the same gun Captain Jack used in Parting of the Ways inside the TARDIS?

Toclafane
According to "The Toclafane attack Vivien Rook" - at the bottom of page 28 of Issue 385 of Doctor Who Magazine - Russell The Davies says that the "malevolent baby-like creature" that were originally would have been used in "Absence of the Daleks" were the Toclafane; am I right to have included this in the production notes of tis article? If not, I'll of course remove it immediately!! :) - NP Chilla 18:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

caption
Is it just m, or would EL-EV-ATE! not be a very useful caption for the picture in the aticle. I have'nt seen this episode, but I think someone should write a better one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.119.148 (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just you. The caption provided compliments the action pictured quite well. MarnetteD | Talk 13:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought we were moving away from quotations as picture captions - don't they raise fair-use issues, since pictures are not meant to be used for decorative purposes? --Brian Olsen 00:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the current caption, as "age old weekness" is not actually correct. Admitedly, I can't think of a better one.  And to answer the IP's questoion, quotes should not be used as captions.  Stuart  DD  contributions 16:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "famous" weakness, then? Will (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 15, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Pass, lead needed a little expansion. Remember to summerise the entire article in the lead, including things like critical reception
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Pass. Note that it would be better if the primary sources for the various reviews were provided espicially as they are quoted.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass - added information pertaining to rating.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: Pass, good choice of image to illustrate the article though note the image needed a fair use rationale

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Million_Moments (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuity - Journey's End
As Rich Johnston pointed out in his latest | Lying in the Gutters column, Journey's End seems to complicate this episode's continuity a little - in Dalek, the humans aren't initially sure what a Dalek is... which seems difficult to explain after the events of Journey's End. Worth a mention? --Mrph (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I can explain that. The Doctor says that time doesn't run in a straight line, therefore Davros was never supposed to return or the Daleks in Journey's End. Perhaps if Rose and the Doctor went after Journey's End, Henry and the others may have recognised the Dalek. I suppose you could say Davros returning (which was never supposed to happen) caused the Whoniverse to skew off from the original timeline and possibly bend around 2012, where Dalek was set. This caused Henry and the others to not know who Daleks were because in their time, that never happened. Obviously if the Doctor met Adam agaim, he would remember Daleks. Either that or that lady wiped everyone's memories, and left them to be a drunken homeless person in a town something beginning with 'M' of course lol.--°wɧoɳɪvɛʀsɜ 10:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC),
 * "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff." Sceptre (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Scared of Daleks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.208.4 (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Toclafane adaptation
I have tried 3 times to change the phrasing of the paragraph in Production/Conception which mentions that some of the ideas developed for this episode were later "used" for the Toclafane. Those concepts may have been a starting point, but they evolved considerably from the "alien child who kills for pleasure" concept.

As I said, I have tried three times to implement this edit, but an anonymous user from 86.160.232.4 has reverted it each time. My term for the adaptation is "re-tooled"; I am quite willing to entertain an alternate phrase, but I think that "used" implies that the concept was adopted as-is, which isn't the case.

I invite your thoughts. I am going to request that the page be semi-protected while this is discussed.EJSawyer (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Dude, seriously? This is a difference of opinion between two editors about whether a concept originally developed (but not used) for this episode was later the starting point for the Toclafane in The Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords. Personally I would say that either it was the same concept, in which case "later used" seems good enough to me, or it wasn't, in which case attempting to draw a link between the two is just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. That's not the point I want to make, though. You've done exactly the right thing by bringing this to the Talk Page for discussion, . Rattling on about invoking WP:SPP over a simple matter like this, and before anyone has had an opportunity to put their point of view, is completely disproportionate and just makes you look foolish. I would advise taking a deep breath, trying to put this matter into perspective and thinking about building a consensus (if anyone cares enough about this issue). That's the Wikipedian way, not reaching for the semi-protection policy because you've been reverted a few times. It happens; get over it. 146.101.133.76 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Shearman has already confirmed that the villain in his Dalek-free draft was an early version of the Toclafane. http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/doctor-who/20269/rob-shearman-interview-his-brand-new-book-writing-doctor-who-and-resurrecting-the-daleks —Flax5 16:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Russell T Davies' second edition of his book, The Writer's Tale: The Final Chapter (2010), also states that the Toclafane concepts originated during the development of Dalek. He includes an early design sketch.  However, at that stage, there was only supposed to be one, and the creature (called "Future Human") was far more malicious and sadistic.  The link that  provided also states that these creatures were supposed to have been the ones to wipe out the Time Lords and Daleks.  This is what I meant when I said that the concept was "adapted" or "re-tooled"; "used" implies that it was just lifted from the original draft and dropped into the later story with minimal changes, which plainly isn't so. EJSawyer (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

A concept is an abstract idea, in this instance used as the basis for a creative process. As regards the matter under discussion, the notion of "re-tooling" the concept is simply redundant. It either remains unchanged and is used at a later date, possibly with a different creative outcome than might have originally been the case, or it changes, in which case it becomes a different concept.

Shearman confirms that the villain in his Dalek-free draft was an early version of the Toclafane. So, the Toclafane concept originated in the development of Dalek and was used later in The Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords. Davies confirms that that the Toclafane concept originated during the development of Dalek. So, the Toclafane concept originated in the development of Dalek and was used later in The Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords. It appears, then, that we have successfully established (with sources) that the Toclafane concept originated in the development of Dalek and was used later in The Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords. That's what the article currently says; Q.E.D.. 86.160.232.4 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "A concept...either remains unchanged and is used at a later date, ...or it changes, in which case it becomes a different concept."


 * Precisely my point. "Used" implies that no changes were made, and the same concept was adopted.  Changes were made, thus creating a new concept.  You even note that it was an "early version".  But just because the concept changed along the way, doesn't mean that some note on the starting point can't be made.  In the original treatment of "Return of the Jedi", the forest moon was intended to be populated by Wookiees.  During development, these became the Ewoks of the final film.  Would you say that Lucas "used" wookiees in the final film?  Of course not, Point A <> Point B.  But it's perfectly valid to note that Point A existed.  Q.E.D.


 * I'm not trying to be pedantic here, just accurate. Mr anonymous is acting a bit childish about the whole matter, and got very snarky when I put a note on "his" (IP) user page, as directed by a WP admin. EJSawyer (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the sources you have relied upon to further your position don't, in fact, support your argument. According to both Shearman and Davies the Toclafane concept originated in a 'Dalek-free' early draft of the episode which eventually became Dalek. That the Toclafane appearing in the subsequent episodes The Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords came from that concept is not in dispute. If anything changed between Dalek and the later episodes, therefore, it is not the concept (abstract idea) upon which the Toclafane are based, but the result of the creative process deriving from that concept. I would argue that "used later" in relation to the concept is thus a more accurate description of the situation, while "re-tooled" is less accurate because it implies the concept changed, which is not what the sources state. The concept remained unaltered; it is the realisation of the concept which was ultimately different.

Whatever your personal feelings regarding my approach, editing style and response to your post on my Talk Page, I would venture that this is not the place to air them. I suggest that in future we confine ourselves to a logical discussion of the relevant points here. As you have decided to bring these things to this forum, however, I would like to provide some clarification.

1. The 'note' you placed on my talk page was actually an anonymous edit warring warning, posted after the discussions here had commenced, and only retroactively signed by you when I challenged you on this. If,as you say, a WP:ADMIN directed you to do this then I'm surprised: this action, or at least the manner of its execution, would seem to be contrary to the fundamental Wikipedia policy of WP:GF. I can only assume they weren't in full possession of the facts and would like to take the matter up with them. Which Admin is involved, please and where did this discussion take place? It wasn't on your talk page.

2. A bit childish I may be, but I take comfort from having managed to refrain from attempting to invoke WP:SPP during the earliest stages of a minor editing dispute, post anonymous warnings on anyone's talk page, and resorting to petty, name-calling terminology such as "Mr anonymous" and "snarky". Further, what exactly are you trying to indicate with your ""his" (IP) user page" comment? Do you consider that the opinions of an IP editor are any less valid than those of someone with an account? Have any of my actions contravened the guidance regarding WP:UP? Please explain. In the meantime, I will let others judge who is being the more childish here. You have a legitimate perspective regarding the editing matter in question which I happen not to share. I'm happy enough to debate the merits of the respective positions, but frankly I find that your recent actions as detailed above are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand and do you little credit. 86.160.232.4 (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "I suggest that in future we confine ourselves to a logical discussion of the relevant points here" you say, before going into an extended rant. Yes, I believe snarky applies.


 * 1. I turned to the talk page as soon as WP:EW was evident. How were your reverts consistent with WP:GF?


 * 2. No, I don't consider the opinions of an IP editor to be inferior. However, certain actions (e.g. repeated reverts) must be looked at with a higher degree of suspicion when done anonymously.  Perhaps I overreacted in invoking WP:SPP, but I take comfort in knowing that I have nothing to hide.


 * 3. The SPP request, and admin response, are visible at Requests for page protection/Rolling archive. "Warn the user appropriately" is exactly what I did.  FWIW, the lack of signing on the warning was an oversight on my part, but the history clearly shows it was me.  You do seem rather touchy when others are anonymous, though.


 * I await the discussion of the group on the matter at hand. EJSawyer (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If it would please the community: in looking back at the edits, although I still prefer the "re-tooled" term I used, I would rather see it revert to the "evolved into" phrasing (prior to my 09:44, 2015 May 14 edit) than the anonymous user's "used" wording. I still see evidence that the Toclafane concept was changed significantly between 2005 and 2007, and "evolved" expresses that.  EJSawyer (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Further to 's proposal above, in that if nothing else we seem to be in agreement. I consider that the sentence "The changed story contained an alien akin to a child who kills for pleasure, a concept which later evolved into the Toclafane from "The Sound of Drums" and "Last of the Time Lords." constitutes a fair and accurate representation of the situation as expressed in both the Shearman and Davies sources. 86.160.232.4 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dalek (Doctor Who episode). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628003603/http://cluebytwelve.net/Hugos2006/07_Dramatic_Short.htm to http://cluebytwelve.net/Hugos2006/07_Dramatic_Short.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gallifreyone.com/episode.php?id=2005-06

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)