Talk:Dalek variants/Archive 2

A concern
I'm a little concerned about the flow of the article and the amount of noncannon mentions. Do we really have to have the noncannon films and books ALL threaded throughout the whole article? This is, frankly, daft. There is so much cannon stuff to cover in this article but it is almost impossible to follow what is cannon amongst all the book and noncannon film references. Please can someone split this into cannon and non cannon?20:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The "original" Red Dalek had a name!
Back in the 1960's the Century21 comic "Solo" (part of the Gerry Anderson empire, later subsumed into TVTornado and then TV21) had a "news" article puportedly interviewing "The" Red Dalek, who was said to be second in charge of the Daleks. The interesting point is that it gave the Red Dalek a name: "Zog". Terry Nation wrote for TV21 and the sister publications, I wonder if he approved this?!!! I can't remember the exact details of the article, but it was along the lines of the Dalek was asked to make a comment about something happening in the "Anderson" universe - I've a feeling it may have been about a bit of violence towards aliens on another prematurely ended Zero-X mission. Slight genre cross-over! Interesting point is that talk of red "prime / supreme" daleks in the comics appears to predate anything shown on the telly. I can't prove this - the comic was binned 30 years ago, but its something thats always tuck in my mind. Anyone have a collection of "Solo" available to check? 81.86.230.16 (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Black and white series had Dalek Supremes that were in reality red, but appeared black, so red Dalek Supremes might have existed before the comic. Which serial had the first Supreme, or black, Dalek? The First Darklord (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

-

The first reference to a red Dalek I can find is in the TV21 'The Daleks' strip, Serial 4 -'Duel of the Daleks'. The red colouration is the result of an accident in the inventions factory, in which a Dalek called 'Zeg' is coated in a chemical called 'Metalert'. The colour wasn't related to rank, although Dalek Zeg entered into a duel for the position of Emperor with the existing incumbent. Interestingly, the inference from the opening of the story is that all Daleks have names, although none are mentioned again within the run of the strip.

The reference to a supposedly Red television Dalek relates to the 1964 Dr. Who serial 'The Dalek Invasion of Earth'. It wasn't the Black 'Supreme' which was supposed to be coloured red, but the Saucer Commander which has alternating silver and dark (perhaps red) skirt panels.

There is little evidence to support the assertion that the saucer commander's skirt was painted in silver and and red stripes. The history of the prop is well documented. It was a new build for the serial by Shawcraft, which started life as a standard silver 'drone'. It was then painted with dark stripes and a black dome to become the saucer commander for episode two, before later being painted entirely black to become the Black Dalek.

Logically there appears to be little reason for the prop to have been painted partially red. It seems that this oft quoted fact may have originated with the painting instructions for the Sevans model Dalek kits produced in the 1980's and 90's. Although there is no definitive evidence one way or the other (colour photographs of the prop have yet to materialise), re-mastered DVD releases of the serial seem to confirm that the dark colour used was black.

Donlock 00:12, 21 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donlock (talk • contribs)

Too many images
I'm concerned that this article may have too many non-free images. Wikipedia's policy on non-free (that is, copyrighted) images requires "minimal usage", which is defined thus: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." As an example, the use of two images to depict the Special Weapons Dalek and Imperial Dalek from Remembrance is hard to justify when we could instead use Image:Imperialdalek.jpg, which depicts both. Similarly, we might be able to illustrate the standard New Series Dalek and the Cult of Skaro with the same image, as there's not really any significant difference between the standard gold Dalek and Daleks Thay, Jast and Caan.

I'm not a hardliner on non-free content, but many Wikipedians are, and I am certain that if certain editors came across this page in its current form, they would immediately remove almost all of the images, citing WP:NFC, which says, "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." We shouldn't be trying to illustrate every different type of Dalek that's ever appeared in the series; we should instead show samples of the most prominent and notable types. We should also be trying to use free images such as the ones at Commons:Category:Daleks as much as possible. I know that those are fan builds, and may differ in a few details from the Daleks seen in the television series, but they still get the point across (and we can note any discrepancies between the model and the originals in the article text).

I don't have the time to go through all the images on the page right now. Donlock has been doing good work in making this page more complete, but unfortunately the image use doesn't quite fit with Wikipedia policies. Perhaps this weekend Donlock could try to winnow the images down a bit? If not, I may have to come in with the proverbial red pencil in a few days. Sorry to be the bad guy here — but believe me, there are a lot of users who would come down on this like a ton of bricks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC) --

Thanks for the advice and pointer in the right direction, Josiah. I let my enthusiasm get the better of me. That's no excuse for not properly familiarising myself with Wikipedia requirements and etiquette, however, so please accept my apologies.

I've done some winnowing and image replacing, and hope the number and type now meet the criteria. If we need to lose another couple might I suggest the Mutant Caan and the TV21 Emperor are placed next on the list? I will be able to replace the TV21 Emperor with an image of my own at some point. This is a promotional picture of a model kit which I'm currently building, so I could provide an image of the finished article when I'm done.

I'm keenly aware that I've made some fairly radicle changes to this article over the last few weeks, so any feedback regarding whether I've wrought any improvements or am considered little more than a wanton vandal with a Dalek fixation and too much time on his hands would be gratefully received. Donlock (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you're doing good work. The in-text descriptions of what makes one model of Dalek differ from another is particularly helpful, because it helps justify the use of the copyrighted images ("critical commentary" is an important aspect in fair use of copyrighted images).


 * The use of fair-use images is a frequent battleground here on Wikipedia. I think that the current usage is probably OK, although other editors would certainly disagree.  (There are some extremists who want to eliminate all copyrighted images from Wikipedia, and battles between them and those of us who prefer more liberal usage are common.)


 * The main thing that I think the article lacks at this point is citations to reliable secondary sources which discuss the different Dalek types, to show that the article isn't original research. For example, where does the division of the Dalek models into "Mark I", "Mark II" and "Mark III" come from?  Readers need to know that we didn't just make this up. Sources for this sort of thing could include Terry Nation's Dalek Book, old articles from Doctor Who Magazine, and other publications which go into detail about Dalek types.  References to specific episodes or serials should also have citations, like the ones I added for Remembrance of the Daleks.  You can find templates for every Doctor Who episode and serial at WP:WHOCITE, provided by the good folks at the Doctor Who WikiProject.


 * Your work expanding this article is impressive, Donlock. If you can provide more citations, we might be able to submit it for review as a good article.  Again, please feel free to contact me with any questions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've got a lot of reading to do to over the coming week get my head around the finer points of Wikipedia editing and the correct use of citations. I will also need to do a considerable amount of delving and backtracking. A lot of the stuff I have on file is years old and has just been stored randomly, with little thought as to the source!

I hope folk will be patient while I try to put a polish on what's been done already. Of course, this isn't my project. My aim was and is simply to help with providing a comprehenive guide to the various Dalek types which have appeared over the years, suitable for both fans and non-fans alike. All assistance, advice, guidance, constructive criticism and editing by others gratefully received! Thanks, Donlock (talk)

Back Story / Superfluous Text?
Whilst I'm engaged in a major edit of this article, I'm considering stripping-out text and references which don't relate directly to, or place in context, Dalek variant design. It seems to me that there are other Dalek-related Wikipedia articles which cover such matters as I'm considering deleting more appropriately and in greater depth. This would include:

General Design Reference to Bernard Cribbins suggesting the Dalek eye paint-balling scene.

Mark III Dalek Reference to the destruction of the Emperor in "Evil of the Daleks". Discourse on the effect of giving Daleks the ability to fly, and references to this ability in other media.

Necros Dalek Reference to their allegiance.

Special Weapons Dalek References to the variant's creation, demeanor and abilities described in non-canon works and publications, even if BBC Licenced.

New Series - Emperor Dalek Reference to it's god-like status, Daleks worshipping it and the manner of it's apparent destuction.

New Series - Cult of Skaro Reference to the destuction of the Cult.

New Series - Supreme Dalek Reference to the rationale for Nicholas Briggs adopting a deeper voice for the variant, and manner of its destruction.

Comments please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donlock (talk • contribs) 08:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... my general feeling is that if we can reference it, and it's relevant to ways in which one type of Dalek is different from others, we should keep it. That is, the concept of "Dalek variants" isn't limited to physical distinctions, but also includes differences in the ways they're portrayed.  So, for example, the detail of how and why Nicholas Briggs used a deeper voice for the Supreme Dalek is relevant, because a) it speaks to the ways in which the Supreme Dalek is different as a character; b) it presents a detail from the show's production, and as such is "out-of-universe" (a common weakness of Wikipedia articles on fictional subjects is that they place too much weight on the fiction, and not enough weight on the real world context); and c) it's cited to a reliable source (Doctor Who Confidential).  The line about Bernard Cribbins suggesting the paintball scene is borderline, I suppose, but it does provide a bit more real-world context for the claim that the Dalek's eyestalk is its most vulnerable spot.


 * I agree that some plot elements don't need to be discussed here, but if the plot shows something about how this type of Dalek is different from others, then I think it's appropriate. (For example, the New Series Emperor Dalek regarding itself as a god is something that distinguishes it from other Daleks; its destruction by Rose isn't, really.)


 * I'll also note that there really isn't such a thing as Doctor Who canon (see Whoniverse). Unlike Star Trek and Star Wars, in which the copyright owners have made statements about what "counts" and what doesn't, in Doctor Who the BBC has said that every viewer/reader is free to make up his or her mind about what "counts".  So we shouldn't exclude material because it comes from a non-television source.  What we generally do when referring to non-television media is to add a line about how the novels/audios/comics/whatever are of "unclear canonicity", so the reader doesn't take it as gospel but is free to accept or reject it as he or she sees fit.


 * Furthermore, certain aspects of Dalek design (such as flying Daleks) have appeared in non-television media and subsequently made it to the screen. I think it's appropriate to note the influence of spin-off media on the television series, especially if we can find reliable sources that talk about said influence. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've edited the article as suggested. All references have been left where they help to place a Dalek variant in context or expand on its differences to other versions, and use of "canon" deleted except in one instance where "of unclear canonicity" (love it) has been substituted.

Dalek Agents Section - Removal from the Article?
I feel that the section Dalek Agents should be excised from this article. Whilst interesting, Dalek Agents (by any definition) are most definitely not Dalek variants. Neither does the information contained in this section assist in differentiating one Dalek model from another. I suggest that consideration be given to moving this information to the associated Wikipedia article Dalek, where I think it would be better placed, or be set up as a separate, linked stub. Donlock (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No feedback, so Dalek Agents section removed 21/11/08 Donlock (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dalek Variants – Taking the article forwards
After 3 months serious editing of this article I think the time has come to take stock of the improvements or damage I’ve wrought (depending on your point of view). There is a matter which I believe is now worthy of consideration to carry the article forward.

Article Size
As more information has been added the article has grown like topsy. At 75kb the Wikipedia guideline size of 32kb has been exceeded by a considerable margin and it has now firmly entered the realms of ‘probably should be split’. Of course there is an argument for keeping the article as it is so that the casual reader can be easily informed about the rich history of Dalek variants by visiting only one web page. I suspect that the history of the Daleks and Dalek variants has yet to run its course, however, and the article will continue to grow ever larger as time progresses. So the question is; to split or not to split, and if splitting, how? Some suggestions appear below:

Confine main article to Dalek TV and Movie variants My instinct is that most people viewing the article primarily know Daleks from their TV and film appearances and that’s what they will be most interested in.

Confine main article to canon appearances Based on guidance from Wikipedia’s own WikiProject Doctor Who this would mean limiting the main article to Dalek variants seen in the BBC Doctor Who TV programme. The two Dr. Who films and BBC licensed / sanctioned / produced spoofs are considered to be non-canon, with everything else being of unclear canonicity.

Limit subsidiary article(s) to Dalek variants appearing in BBC Licensed Material WikiProject Doctor Who states that, where possible, non-television series material should be limited to officially licensed BBC material. This would allow for the inclusion of Dalek variants appearing in the two Dr. Who films, Dr. Who and Dalek annuals, TV21 comic strips, Doctor Who Magazine comic strips, Big Finish Productions audio plays and story collections, the Telos novellas, Target Books, Virgin New Adventures and BBC Books novels and short stories. Unlicensed fan videos, amateur stage productions and other productions should be excluded unless they are “notable”. I don’t believe this would affect the article as it currently stands as, to the best of my knowledge, all of the productions and use of the Dalek name/image referred to in it are BBC licensed. Donlock (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Dalek Exterminate all humans.ogg
The image File:Dalek Exterminate all humans.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --21:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.157.99 (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)