Talk:Dalek variants/Archive 3

dalek variants
Have downloaded this excellent article-however i just get a blank page for 8 and 21. how do i sort this out? Regards Anthony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.252.43 (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Blank Page" would seem to indicate that you are perhaps attempting to save the article by highlighting it, copying and then pasting into an application such as MS Word. Have you tried saving it by using the 'Page, Save As...' function, accessible from your browser toolbar? Saving it as a Web Archive, single file (*.mht) should result in a file on your hard drive which, when opened, should be effectively indistinguishable from the web page which you access over the internet.

Donlock (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'Necros Dalek' as a unique variant
There appears to be a difference of opinion amongst some editors as to whether or not the term 'Imperial' should be applied to the white & gold Daleks (created by Davros) seen in the serial Revelation of the Daleks. I’m thus hoping to generate discussion regarding the subject in the hope that a consensus might be reached. So, to set the ball rolling...

a) I take the view that there are insufficient grounds for using the term 'Imperial' to describe the white & gold Daleks in Revelation. They are not referred to as such in the serial. Further, the story makes it clear that Davros, and the Dalek army he is building, are a break-away faction from the established order. If the term 'Imperial' is to be applied at all to Daleks in the serial, then it would seem more appropriate to use it to describe the grey Daleks from Skaro, loyal to the Dalek Supreme, who appear towards the end of the story. This position is confirmed by the BBC itself in their Dr. Who website synopsis of the episode, in the Continuity section, where it is the grey Daleks which are descibed as being 'Imperial Daleks'..

b) The situation is reversed in Remembrance of the Daleks, where Davros has seized control of Skaro under the guise of the Emperor. The white & gold Daleks seen are loyal to the Emperor and described in the story as ‘Imperial Daleks’. That it eventually transpires the Emperor is actually Davros in disguise is irrelevant. They are opposed by grey Daleks, under the command of the Black Dalek, which have now become the 'renegades'.

c) The white & gold Daleks in Revelation exhibit significant design differences from other models, and were realised using new Dalek props (the first major build in over a decade). The white & gold Daleks in Remembrance exhibit even more significant design differences from other models, including those seen in Revelation, and again were realised using new Dalek props. The creation of these props and the design elements which differentiate them from other builds/variants is well-documented. Nothing is mentioned in either serial to confirm that the white & gold Daleks in Remembrance depict an improved or more advanced 'Imperial build' over any Dalek model previously seen.

d) As stated in the article the Dalek variant naming conventions used are, in the main, attributed to the various models as a matter of convenience. Use by the BBC or 'canonicity' isn’t implied. The primary purpose of attributing names to the variants is to assist readers in differentiating Dalek types which exhibit significant design changes. The term 'Necros Dalek' has previously been used in the article for the white & gold Daleks seen in Revelation. For editors who are uncomfortable with this name, then perhaps another descriptive can be found. I would venture that using the term 'Imperial Dalek' to describe them is undesirable, however, as in the story neither Davros or his Daleks are in the service of an empire and have yet to create one of their own.

So, comments invited.

Thanks Donlock (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Having checked various sources around the internet I suspect that the position that the gold and cream Daleks seen in Revelation of the Daleks shouldn’t be referred to as Imperial Daleks may be technically correct. It seems to me however that calling all gold and cream Daleks Imperial Daleks has fallen into common usage. That’s what many people think is true and calling them something different will just confuse them. Obviously the article shouldn’t be confusing, so wouldn’t it be best to stick with Imperial Dalek to describe the gold and cream Daleks seen in both Revelation of the Daleks and Remembrance of the Daleks? Mcaibo M (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mcaibo M, your argument is well made. I would respond with the following:


 * ‘Many people’ might think it true that all cream and gold Daleks are Imperials, but that doesn’t mean it is true. Many people were once convinced that the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it.  Conviction, even if widely held, doesn’t affect the facts of a matter and, I believe, is insufficient reason for propagating (possibly) incorrect information.  Surely our duty should be to the facts, as best as we can establish them?


 * Agreed, Wikipedia should strive to inform/ educate, and not confuse people. Why should classifying the cream and gold Daleks seen in Revelation separately to those in Remembrance confuse, however, even if people thought otherwise prior to reading the article?  It’s focus is Dalek variants and I would argue that providing accurate, verifiable information about them, categorised in a logical manner to assist in distinguishing the various major models seen over the years, only serves to improve the article rather than diminish it.


 * Confusion is just as likely to arise from categorising the Daleks in Revelation as an ‘early type’ of Imperial, and those in Remembrance as a more 'advanced' Imperial version, without providing verifiable sources to support this position.


 * I’m not unmoveably attached to using the term ‘Necros Dalek’ to classify the cream and gold Daleks seen in Revelation. I currently see no justification for describing them as ‘Imperial’, however. In addition to the points I’ve already raised I would say:


 * There seems to be no reason within the story why they should be thought of as ‘Imperial Daleks’.
 * I haven’t been able to find any good sources or references to support or verify their categorisation as Imperial.
 * Classifying them as Imperial seems to rely on some sort of retconning process on the part of the viewer/reader, to produce a result to which the BBC appears never to have subscribed. This retconning postulates that if the cream and gold Daleks in Remembrance are described as Imperials, then it must follow that the cream and gold Daleks in Revelation must also have been Imperials.  I would suggest there’s scant evidence to support this line of thinking.  I also suspect that if the imperial Daleks in Remembrance been painted in a colour scheme different to the Daleks in Revelation, then attributing the term ‘Imperial’ to Davros’ Daleks in Revelation would never have occurred.  A colour scheme alone an Imperial maketh not, I would say...
 * Donlock (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Unless anybody wants to join in with another point of view I’ll have a go at editing the article to make the Necros/Imperial split and try to include a rationale for this to avoid any future confusion. Mcaibo M (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dalek variants in comics, books and audio dramas - The Klade
I have only been able to find a single reference which any way supports the assertions made in the article for The Klade qualifying as a Dalek variant. This is at the Tardis Index File wiki listing for the Father Time novel. This simply states that “Klade is an interesting anagram”. Can anybody provide anything more substantial? If not then this entry begins to look more like speculation than fact, in which case I would suggest that it be deleted. Mcaibo M (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the Klade entry. It can easily be put back if evidence to support their classification as a Dalek variant comes to light. Mcaibo M (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Lance Parkin's "AHistory: An Unauthorized History of the Doctor Who Universe" identifies the Klade as "the super-evolved descendants of the Daleks" on p372. Parkin was also the author of "Father Time", the novel in which I believe the Klade first appeared. 129.71.204.146 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Help needed with citations
There are two 'facts' regarding the Dalek props which have been removed from the article for want of reliable citations.


 * The Glass Dalek seen in Revelation of the Daleks was manufactured by Denny’s Film Props of West London.
 * The spherical head section of the Imperial Dalek Emperor seen in Remembrance of the Daleks originated as a giant eyeball prop produced for an episode of the BBC health show "Bodymatters" (July 1985). It was constructed by Feggans Brown Ltd, London.

Both of these snippets of information originate from a knowledgable source on a fan-based web site. This doesn't meet the Wikipedia criteria for citations, however. Thus far I've been unable to find any independant verificatrion, either in published material or on the web. Can anybody help please? Donlock (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Is an Assault Dalek really a variant?
The name 'assault dalek' only seems to have been coined by a toy manufacturer. That's hardly enough to make it a separate variant is it? Surely its just a standard 'NSD' with the sucker replaced by that blowtorch/claw thing. Crucible Dalek I'll give you. Beside the paint-stirrer they are a different 'breed' created from bits of Davros (yuk). Emperors Personal Guard - ok. Black domes and interesting 'appendages' are probably enough to seperate them from the common herd. With the Cult Of Skaro the Doctor Who programme makes it plain they are exceptional. Assault dalek is just yet another standard dalek fitted with something else besides a sucker. What do you think? Mcaibo M (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * An arguable point. There's not much that sneaks past the BBC, especially where licensed products are concerned, so 'Assault Dalek' could be taken as officially sanctioned. Granted a non-standard appendage by itself isn't that noteable, however, so I don’t see an issue with just referring to it as having been shown attached to a standard NSD. Donlock (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

New Series Dalek - more variant re-classification
In response to Mcaibo M's question about Assault Daleks I did a bit of fact-checking. If you look at 'Who's That Dalek?' on the BBC Dr. Who website, they give a listing of various NSD types. The quoted variant names sometimes differ from those currently used in the article. They refer to Emperor's Personal Guard as 'Imperial Guard Daleks', the Emperor Dalek as 'the Dalek Emperor' and Crucible Dalek as 'Vault Dalek'. Interestingly, it also describes 'Imperial Guard Daleks' as having "…additional weapons for maximum defense capability".

So, should we align the names with those used in the 'Who's That Dalek?' section of the BBC website? I'm up for 'Vault Dalek' as the paint stirrer attachment is only seen fitted to Daleks in this particular section of the Crucible. I'm a bit uneasy about Imperial Guard Daleks, but probably only because every time I hear 'Imperial' in conjunction with 'Dalek' these days, a small muscle near the corner of one eye starts to twitch uncontrollably… Donlock (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed 'Crucible Dalek' to 'Vault Dalek' in the article as this seems to more accurately describe the variant with the specialised appendage, which is only seen in the Vault. I've left everything else as is; the use of 'imperial' already causes enough confusion without re-introducing it and 'Emperor Dalek'/'Dalek Emperor' seem to be almost interchangeable - either version will do I think. Donlock (talk) 12:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Revelation of the Daleks
Why does the article continually refer to Imperial and Renegade daleks as appearing in "Rememberance of the Daleks", when in fact they both first appeared in the Sixth Doctor serial "Revelation of the Daleks"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.175.82 (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They might have been Imperial Dalek prototypes in "Revelation", but they didn't become Imperial Daleks until Davros had taken control by "Remembrance". As for Renegades Daleks, they can't be "Renegades" until they become overthrown, which doesn't happen until after "Revelation" and before "Rememberance". DonQuixote (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The attribution of the terms/naming conventions used to describe the Dalek variants seen in Revelation and Remembrance has been the subject of previous debate (see The 'Necros Dalek' as a unique variant). This discussion contains detailed argument for the current consensus position, and the article itself now includes details of the basis for the distinctions being made. In addition to the previous discussion, the term 'Renegade Daleks' to describe the grey Daleks in Remembrance is confirmed in the BBC's Dr. Who website synopsis of the episode, amongst other places. Don  lock  11:36, 21 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) 19:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Don lock  (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. 86.28.171.246 (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it looks as if the image has been deleted, but we need the image. 86.28.171.246 (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then add it back or insert a replacement, dude. This is wikipedia - get editing, it's fun! Don't sit around asking others to do the leg-work.80.41.133.18 (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually almost all Dalek images were deleted from Commons as derivative works. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For Gallifrey's sake, please DON'T make drawings of daleks and try to upload them to Commons. If they look like 'real' Daleks, it will ALWAYS be a derivative work, and the Commons admins will delete it. A better course is to upload publicity shots (not screencaps) to Wikipedia (not Commons) under a non free content rationale - since the article consists of nothing but describing the different Daleks, the photographs are of high relevance, and it should be possible to construct proper rationales. Anyone want a hand with that, let me know. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I kept the two images on the right as they are apparently on permanent display in a public place, and thus are allowable under Freedom of Panorama rules. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Of course they will be, although that effectively prevents any non-free images of those MK of dalek being used.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately both the 'Bookstore Dalek.jpg' and 'Red Dalek by Sarah McCulloch.jpg' images show fan-builds which are insufficiently accurate to illustrate an encyclopedic article dealing with the actual variants/props seen in the Doctor Who TV programme and films. If photographs of fan-builds are to be allowed then I'm fairly sure there are more accurate examples to be had, and how do you prove the 'permanence' of any public display? I still don't see how this solves the problem, however. Is not the Dalek image copyright, aren't fan builds derivative and don't photographs of same qualify as fan art? This issue has been debated in depth at Talk:Dalek. Personally I believe the article would benefit greatly from good images of the different variants. As much as it pains me to say it however, I'm not sure it's worth going over the same ground unless anybody has something new to bring to the party. If you want a starting point for a rationale for using publicity shots of Daleks then you could do worse than look at that for 'Dalek 2010 Redesign.jpg', which appeared in the Dalek variants article first, then got deleted for some reason, and has now popped up again on the Dalek article. 80.41.156.64 (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooooook... I can't do it: IPs can't upload images! Soooo... what shall we do? 86.28.171.246 (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What can you do? Well, first consider stopping contributing as IP and get yourself a WP username/account - a simple procedure, I'm told. Next, how about adding the image at http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/characters/Dalek to the article lede? This can be copied for uploading using right click and 'Save Background As...'. Two Dalek variants for the price of one, keeping the copyright image count down. Result! The photograph © will be BBC Worldwide, btw, if anybody is thinking of taking the bait. Just a suggestion, of course... 80.41.191.13 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the thing: It's copyrighted. You can't just copy-and-paste ANY image. Anyway, I'm outta here; uploading cpoyrighted images is not my thing... 86.28.171.246 (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Guys, can we stop edit warring please
The reference that Mattbuck is giving is to the TV show, not to the Wikipedia article on the TV show. The TV show itself is valid as a source of primary information - if the Daleks in the show say that the blue dalek is the nursery teacher, then we may take it that this is the current intention of the show's producers. Citing what it says in the show also is not Original Research (I've heard that said before) as everyone who watches will hear the same thing.

Can we stop edit warring over this please. If anyone believes that the Daleks did not say it in the TV show, please state that here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that the daleks actually say in the show that they are each different types, although it is implied. In confidential they're more explicit, stating that the different colours are different types, and strongly implying which is which but without stating it explicitly. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I think we can say what you said above, and source it to Confidential, without there being any problems (I have on two occasions now sat down to watch Confidential and - the perils of a mum - been interrupted half way thru, so I've not yet heard this bit).  If they didn't directly link a colour to a role, it's probably better to be a bit more vague - it can be updated at a later stage if more info becomes available (or when we actually see the blue dalek teaching the little daleklets to say "Exterminate!").--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, they said there were five types and as each was said switched to a different colour dalek image, which is implication but not proof. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, I still remember the original Torchwood Hub, where the BBC put piles of stuff on it that mostly turned out to be irrelevant or just plain wrong. There's no harm in waiting - the Daleks will be back, or more info will be released by the Beeb. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was very clear from Doctor Who Confidential. White is Supreme, red is Drone, orange is Scientist, blue is Strategist and yellow is Eternal. Either way, there's the list for anyone interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.2.185 (talk)
 * It's implied, but I don't feel it's made explicit. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This was just re-added with the ref "TV & Satellite Guide" - does anyone have this article to confirm? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://whatsontv.co.uk/blogs/tvspy/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/tvsw-wk16/doctor-who.jpg - See 'Daleks with a difference' box
 * Looks like the BBC press pack must have that info - can't think how these dudes would have got it pre-show otherwise. I'm reasonably happy to go with that as a reference. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a bit confused that they have the info when DWC seems unwilling to state it, which leads me to think that maybe it's not set in stone, but I guess NOTCRYSTAL applies here, as well as the criteria for inclusion being verifiability, not truth. I support the inclusion as long as it's stated that DWC/DW didn't specifically state designations other than supreme. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At first, I thought they must have seen a preview tape of confidential, and made the same assumption everyone else did, but I don't think anyone got to see those.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The flash panoramic at the BBC website has a section entitled 'colour coded killers' (Click on Base of the Red Dalek) which has the same colour designations, not sure if that is citable though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/episodes/b00s56d2/panoramic?id=d11/s01/d11s01e03_posttx_170410 . AlexanderJBateman (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly citeable - one would expect primary source data for this, and the BBC is the primary source. In fact, probably a better source than the one currently cited. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

New Paradigm Dalek prop construction
I've inserted against the statement that 'Both the shoulder piece and the neck bin are made of a black moulded material'.

a) Reference photographs available around the web indicate the shoulder piece and neck bin are coloured grey, not black.

b) What evidence is there for these components being moulded, please? They might look moulded, but 'might look' doesn't cut it for an encyclopedic article. In particular it seems that the neck bin rings are carved out of solid MDF discs. Until we can cite reliably one way or the other, I think care needs to be exercised in making this type of claim. 80.41.133.18 (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Article edited, removing issue. 80.41.155.220 (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've inserted against the description of the recessed rear skirt panel as 'a large louvred vent'. We have no evidence that it's a vent until it's described as such either by a reliable source or within the programme, or we see it venting something in an episode. Until then I would suggest this is both speculation and straying towards an in-universe perspective. 80.41.135.229 (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Article edited, removing issue. 80.41.155.220 (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits by U-Mos
I've asked U-Mos to discuss a series of edits they have made to the Dalek variants article, including this. The request and details of the points for discussion are on Umos' talk page - User talk:U-Mos. I have asked that they respond here. 80.41.183.27 (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Morning all. I'd firstly like to thank our IP friend for starting a discussion rather than edit warring, if only all anonymous users did the same! So, to address the points raised:


 * Grammar I do not suggest for a second that your revision is grammatically incorrect, but it is incredibly messy and confusing to read. That's why I changed it. However, I take your point about the plurality of Eternal and Supreme being incorrect and will fix this.


 * Hemisphere colour The problem with that section was it said something like "It is unknown if there is any reason for this." If that's not OR I don't know what is. It was also terribly written: "the yellow Dalek is notable because..." It is not OR alongside discussion of the general features, as there it does not imply any meaning behind it. In fact, it would be best to introduce the colours and roles first in the section, another edit I will make in a minute.


 * Steven Moffat comment It's simpler, it's clearer and it's still fully cited. What else is there to say? U-Mos (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect, you seem to have a tendency to attempt to justify your position with negative hyperbole when expressing your personal opinion of style and content. I note that the summary for your initial edit includes the statement "…remove some rubbish." Agreed, some of the text in question had become obsolete, both as the article evolved and new information and sources came to light. It had been included only after discussion, however, (see this talk page) and was properly referenced. So, 'redundant', yes, but 'rubbish' I would suggest is emotive, inaccurate and denigrates those editors who strove hard to find and cite early reliable sources for NPD colour attribution. I would also take issue with your comments that sections of the article were, prior to your intervention, "…incredibly messy and confusing to read" and "…terribly written". That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. It doesn't constitute reasoned argument by which these matters can be carried forward, however. I'm also struggling to see any evidence of 'assuming good faith' when I read such remarks.


 * The above notwithstanding, I would respond to each of your points as follows:


 * Grammar. You have edited in accordance with your opinion of what constitutes good style, which is arguable. The results of those edits are incorrect in terms of grammar and punctuation; which is an established fact. This is an encyclopaedic article, yet you are putting form before content. Given the enormous amount of effort which goes into ensuring that other aspects of Wikipedia articles conform to encyclopaedic requirements, at what point was it decided that grammar and punctuation should be ignored or 'simplified' dependant upon the whim of individual editors? Further, how far is this process to be carried? If I edited an article to remove all commas because I thought it looked better, I suspect it would quickly be reverted as vandalism (and rightly so). The rules for grammar and punctuation have evolved for a reason, and should be adhered to. Attempting to impose our own individual view of 'presentability' in this matter is unconstructive and, I would suggest, the thin end of the wedge.


 * I appreciate that the points regarding the plurality of the Eternal and Supreme sub-variants have been taken on board. You have failed to address the query raised regarding the use of plurals in the naming of roles in general, however, and I would be grateful if you could take another look at this.


 * Hemisphere colour. I think that moving the description of the different Dalek roles, and their 'colour codes', to the beginning of the New Paradigm Dalek section is a distinct improvement, this being amongst the most striking aspects of the new variant. On reflection I also agree that "It is unknown if there is any reason for this." (referring to the different Eternal hemi colour) should not be reinstated. Whilst I disagree with your interpretation of this as being OR, as written it's impossible to support this assertion in any meaningful way.


 * Steven Moffat. What else is there to say? Well, for one thing that dismissive misdirection regarding the effects of your edit are unlikely to prove persuasive. Simpler, but only by virtue of excising attributive detail. You are making a fallacious argument; the fact that something is simpler doesn't automatically render it better. Clearer; most certainly not. As originally written this matter was clearly and succinctly encapsulated in a single short sentence within the article itself, including attribution. Combined with the citation, the reader had to look no further to establish that this information had come from (for want of a better expression) the highest authority. This is now entirely lost. As I said in my original query, in terms of the article it's of sufficient interest and significance to warrant the detail and attribution as originally presented. 80.41.135.221 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well on the grammar points all I can say is neither version is grammatically wrong, and we are clearly not going to agree without another opinion being presented. There is nothing wrong with pluralising drones, scientists and strategists as, well, red Daleks are droneS etc. As for the cite, it is perfectly acceptable to have a simple sentence backed up by a reference in place of extra phrasing which complicates the structure of the section and only serves to explain what is in the citation. This is unnecessary. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I felt it was better to explain that the Eternal Dalek has no specific role as soon as the name was mentioned. It is a stylistic choice, you're quite right, and again I don't feel we're going to agree on which is better. We could potentially ask for a third opinion, but is it really worth it? U-Mos (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi U-Mos, and thanks for the quick response. Do I think requesting WP:3 is worth it? Whoa there, tiger. I think we've both been around the Wikipedia block enough times to know that's premature at this stage. A period needs to be provided to see if anybody else wants to chip in here on the talk page and consensus can be reached in the normal way. I would suggest leaving matters in abeyance for a week to see what occurs. If nothing comes of it then I would say no, it's not worth it, as long as you don't mind my editing the article in accordance with my take on the points raised above and would be prepared to let them stand without reversion. Your call.

While I think of it, allow me to congratulate you on that remark about anonymous users and edit warring. I don't know how I missed it the first time around! I must say I thought that took considerable chutzpah, coming as it does from somebody who (according to your own talk page) has received at least three formal warnings for WP:EW and actually been blocked for 3RR. Bravo, and smuuuuurrggg. (That's the sound of me cracking an appreciative smile. I wish you could see it; my eyes go all crinkly around the edges). 80.41.182.175 (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh dear! I can't believe somebody is actually arguing for incorrect grammar and punctuation and its having to be debated like this. Lord knows we've already got an uphill struggle on our hands trying to convince people to take Wikipedia and Wiki articles seriously, without being seen to be dumbing down the prose. This sort of thing just feeds more ammunition to the naysayers. Grammar and punctuation by the rules please - anything else is just aiming low and making a rod for our own backs. Can't be definitive about the 'plurals' thing without doing some research (sorry, didn't major in Eng. Lang.) but to me it's just the listing of job names - tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor. No plural s - simple as that. As for the Moffat citation first U-mos has got things arse about face. Citations are there to support text in an article and not the other way round. Using his reasoning your never going to get articles containing referenced quotes from a newspaper for instance, so calling this 'extra phrasing' and 'complicating the structure' is nonsensical. Second he seems to be avoiding the fact that his stylistic choice of a "simple sentence backed up by a reference" causes the fact that Mr. Moffat said it to disappear into the ether, even if we still know when and where it was mentioned. To me that's a backwards step particularly because I think Moffat's helming of the show and his treatment of the Daleks is seen as being quite controversial in some quarters, so having info available pointing to him being the source of some of these 'artistic decisions' is very much of the moment. All of this needs to be reverted IMHO. Mcaibo M (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, point taken. I'll address these points in the article. A straight reversion is not the way to go though, there have been some agreed upon improvements. U-Mos (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Colour of the scientist
I thought I remember reading somewhere that the blue was the scientist.Dalek9 (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You may have, but the colour attributions listed in the article are correct and have been referenced to reliable sources including the BBC's own Doctor Who website. Don lock  (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Glass Darlek
I added a picture of a (the) glass Dalek, but I am told there is a ten-copyrighted-image-per-page limit. For that reason, would it be possible to create a Glass Dalek page?

Ion Zone (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no “ten-copyrighted-image-per-page limit”. Articles with more than ten copyright images may attract the attention of Wikipedia editors and Administrators who monitor image use, however, some of whom believe that no copyright images should appear in a Wikipedia article at all. The subject of Dalek images is contentious at best; you can find some of the debate about it on this Talk Page as well as at Talk:Dalek. It would appear that all of this has already been raised with you on your Talk Page, but you have blanked the discussion. Why? As to your enquiry, you appear to be asking if it is possible to create a Glass Dalek article for the primary purpose of hosting an image of a Glass Dalek. Technically the answer is yes. I suspect, however, that it would probably be a short-lived Stub (according to your Talk Page you “…just write stubs…”) which would be deleted quickly as the subject seems to be adequately covered both within the Dalek variants article and the Revelation of the Daleks article about the serial in which it appeared. Have you considered adding the image to the Revelation of the Daleks article? If you decide to do this then you should re-upload the image to Wikipedia with an appropriate copyright attribution, purpose of use and license. Your current claims for it being ineligible for copyright and in the public domain are simply incorrect, and WP:Commons is the wrong place for it. 146.101.133.76 (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Daleks episode title
I would like to throw open for discussion | this IP edit regarding the naming of the first serial in which the Daleks appeared.

The situation regarding the naming of the early ‘Hartnell’ Doctor Who serials is described in some detail at Doctor Who story title debate, and for The Daleks serial in particular at The Daleks - Alternative titles. Commonly cited works including The BBC Classic Series Episode Guide, Shannon Patrick Sullivan's "A Brief History of Time Travel" and The Doctor Who Reference Guide all refer to the serial by the name The Daleks, as do both the Wikipedia article on the serial and List of Doctor Who serials. It seems to me that there is no compelling reason for preferring The Dead Planet to The Mutants as the serial title, but in any event referring to it as anything other than The Daleks may cause confusion rather than improving the article. Comments? Don lock (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Dead Planet" has no weight because it's only the title of the first episode. The serial proper is either "The Mutants" which is the title used in contemporary documents or "The Daleks" which is used in all secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * After looking at it a little more closely, the IP meant to cite the episode rather than the serial but forgot to change the wording of the sentence. Anyway, citing the episode is a little anoraky (besides, they don't really appear until the next episode, we only see the plunger). DonQuixote (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are reasonable arguments for choosing both The Mutants and The Dead Planet as serial titles. Claiming The Daleks as only a (VHS/DVD) release compilation title is simply incorrect, however. Further, The Daleks is now demonstrably the most widely accepted title. Consequently I support DonQuixote's reversion. 146.101.133.76 (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

New Paradigm Daleks - 'Progenator'
I think the time may have come to consider flipping the spelling of this device to 'Progenitor'. The only place I can find it spelled with an 'a' and not an 'i' is on the McKinstry drawing. References to 'Progenitor' can be found in the BBC Dalek Handbook (pp143, 145 and 146) with p146 including a script extract containing the 'i' spelling. It's also 'Progenitor' in the BBC/DK Doctor Who Visual Dictionary (p60) and the BBC Brilliant Book of Doctor Who 2011 (p37). Any pedants beside myself feeling sufficiently fired-up about this to say yay or nay? If the consensus is for change then, given the body of apparently supporting evidence, would a citation still be useful? Progenitor is, after all, listed in dictionaries while progenator is not. It seems unlikely the spelling would be queried in future. Don lock (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have changed the device spelling to 'Progenitor', referenced to the BBC Dalek Handbook publication. Don lock  (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Mk II Dalek Saucer Commander colour scheme dispute
I was wondering if the copy regarding the black/red Saucer Commander skirt panel 'dispute' should now be deleted as it appears the dispute may no longer exist. The Mind Robber website is fairly unequivocal regarding the matter. Following a revamp the well-respected Dalek 6388 website no longer references the matter at all, stating that the stripes were black. In fairness it should be noted that 'The Mind Robber' is a major contributor to Dalek 6388 and the reasonably authoritative BBC Dalek Handbook fudges the issue by referring to the Saucer Commander as having "...dark and light vertical panels..." (p30). Maybe the article should just go with "dark and light as well? Thoughts? Don lock  (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the copy relating to the historic panel colour dispute which now seems irrelevant as it appears to have been resolved. Don lock  (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

New Paradigm Daleks nonsense
Not sure if anyone noticed, but in the New Paradigm section this appears at the end: 'a sategt wich a gold cooulr is seen in the doctor who vido game the einginy colk.' I've not edited this, mainly because I can't actually decipher what it's saying! Thought it best to point out, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sovietware (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I can't figure it out either, so I just undid the edit. DonQuixote (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Article or list?
I saw that this article is up for Good Article review, but it reads more like a list. Have you considered nominating it for Featured List instead? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Prime Minister
Any thoughts on whether the Prime Minister of the Daleks, as it appears in Asylum of the Daleks, would be considered a variant? --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To me it seems pretty much indistinguishable from other Dalek mutants seen since the show was re-booted in 2005 (the version seen in "The Parting of the Ways" excepted). Within the established parameters of the article rank, status or position in the Dalek hierarchy alone are insufficient to create a variant. There has to be notable differnces in appearance, abilities and/or character to qualify. Don lock  (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)