Talk:Daleks in Manhattan

Joe Montana
I notice we have an article about Joe Montana. Is there a reason he is not linked there? Should I be bold and do it? 67.151.97.194 (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Not unless the Joe Montana who played Worker #1 is demonstrably the same as the 59 year old retired American football quarterback of the same name. The convention is for new Talk Page sections to be added at the bottom of the page, btw. :) Bowdenford (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Background scoring
It might be interesting to note the music playing in the background during the hybrid's big reveal. I could only make out a few words but it sounded like "Form of the Dalek" with another line or two being repeated by the singers. I'm not sure if it would fit in anywhere though... 74.232.70.76 (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Title of part 2
At this point it's just 'net rumor, so not applicable for the article, but rumor has it that part 2 of this serial will be titled Sec's in the City. -- MisterHand 21:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do believe that began as a message board joke, thus it's fan-created and 100% unofficial as far as I'm concerned... Radagast 23:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The name of part two is supposed to be 'The on Coming Storm' but as this isn't 100% confirmed soI wouldn't use it yet, much like the name of episode 3.--Wiggstar69 18:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Source? --OZOO 14:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

UNCONFIRMED TITLE
Could someone please confirm the validity of the title "Daleks in Manhattan"? Hikan 22:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's being discussed on Outpost Gallifrey's forum — apparently it's in the next issue of Doctor Who Magazine, which is officially released on Jan. 4. Supposedly early copies are in the shops now.  I'd rather have waited until closer to the actual release date, but if someone actually has a copy of the magazine in hand that's fine. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Does DWM mention these 'sewer monsters' as well? If so, that should be specifically referenced. Radagast 15:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sec
Well, it seems a reasonable assumption; we've only been introduced to one Black Dalek, and the last time we saw him he made a "temporal shift". Now here's a Black Dalek in 1930s New York. In theory the Void Daleks should have been the last in the universe, and at least the majority of them were sucked back into the Void. In addition, all of the Daleks inside the Genesis Arc appeared to be the bronze sort.

Granted, a footprint doesn't look like a boot -- still, hell. If this weren't Sec, the circumstances sure are arranged to make everybody -- in particular new viewers -- fully expect it's him. Indeed, it's the only simple and obvious solution as to the identity of the Black Dalek. For that matter, the only non-obvious solution is to contrive an arbitrary reason to introduce another Black Dalek, from yet another unexplored corner of the universe -- which would seem a bizarre thing to do, if you've already introduced Sec and then prominently allowed him to escape.

All in all, it appears to me that until something is specifically stated to clarify that the Dalek in question is not Sec, the most reasonable expectation should be that it is. Again, on the basis of everything put forward within the new series to date, who on Earth wouldn't identify that as Sec? And if everyone expects it is Sec, what could be the purpose of making it anything else?

So. Yes. Visual identification does seem to be enough, in this case. That's not to say there isn't the remote possibility that it could be proved wrong; it's just to say that it's not worth fussing about. On the one hand, it's unlikely to be. On the other, so what if it is? It's a TV show. If the wind changes, so can the article. --Aderack 21:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * All that being said, it is nonetheless original research. We must keep to verifiable sources, please. Radagast 23:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a TV show, so we have to remember that they want to bring back characters that people like, so i think it is fair to say that that is Dalek Sec.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 13:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is entirely reasonably, 99.9% likely speculation. But it's still speculation.  If we can get a reliable source noting that it must be Sec, we can say, it is thought likely to be Sec, that's great.  Morwen - Talk 15:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It must be sec, as we can clearly see that the black dalek in these episodes has the same identification tag (under the eye stalk) as the one which sec has. No two daleks have the same tag. Lumic 19:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And the episode reveals that Dalek Thay also survived, although the other two members of the Cult of Skaro weren't named, as far as I can tell. Kelvingreen 18:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

oops
Just, oops. Could have sworn Invasion from Mars had Daleks. But obviously not. Morwen - Talk 15:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Carnes note
The note about Ryan Carnes being cast for his American accent seems odd to me — I think that the ability to do an American accent was probably a factor for most of the cast of this episode. Is there some source that mentioned Carnes' accent specifically? If not, why does it merit especial notice? The same goes for his Desperate Housewives role — we don't mention Hugh Quarshie's role on Holby City, and rightly so. (Interested readers can just click on his name.) I'm inclined to remove the Carnes note entirely unless anyone objects. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Year
Interview with Helen Raynor in DWM 379 says the year is 1930 itself. Morwen - Talk 20:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Art Deco Daleks Confirmed
Apparently Outpost Gallifrey has a blurb from TV Times confirming Art Deco Daleks. For the life of me I have no idea what one would look like nor why they would be Art Deco designed in the first place(and yes I know Art Deco was prevalent in the 30s but why Daleks would use it is beyond me). --128.174.178.148 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Camoflague, clearly! Morwen - Talk 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's been disproved, the bbc have said that there won't be any, and, if you look closely at the picture from starburst magazine, it's just a replicated version of the black daleks... hate to burst the bubble and all... but now i've said that they'll probably turn up... --Sekhmort 15:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Whatever, for those interested I took the liberty of designing one anyway. Art Deco Dalek --Promus Kaa 06:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I realize the Starburst thing was wrong, but TV Times has Tennant quoted as saying 'art deco' daleks would show up and then there's a British Toy Company still planning to release some. Not as to say it'll happen but at least it's not completely impossible.--130.126.37.15 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WhoIsDoctorWho.co.uk, Lifeboat Museum game
In the Lifeboat Museum game on Whoisdoctorwho.co.uk, somewhere in the third level there's an item that, according to the description was found in the 1930's in New York. It appears to be an energy weapon of sorts. Just thought I'd make mention of it. --JohanTenge - /spit 20:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That item has a date of 1938. That and the reference to the Brooklyn Bridge suggest that the item is a reference to the Big Finish audio story Invaders from Mars. Daleks in Manhattan takes place in 1930. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Henry van Statten
I'm absolutly sure that in the episode 'Darlek' in series one (2005) when Van Statten is being taken away and having his mind wiped one of the places she said to dump him was Manhatttan. Is there any chance of him poppong up agin?--Wiggstar69 09:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"San Diego, Seattle, Sacramento. Some place beginning with S." And I also doubt Van Statten to have mastered time travel. --Ozoo 12:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

-- Sorry, all those American cities must have confused me.--Wiggstar69 13:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's more than that, Dalek takes place in 2012, this story takes place in 1930. How do you propose he travelled back in time?  At any rate, this isn't a messageboard so it's best to leave this stuff for websties that are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.126.37.13 (talk • contribs).

Picture
The "freemaagyeman.com" logo in the picture isn't allowed, is it?--Rambutan (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Aliens
This looks like it is goinmg to be the story with the pig aliens seen in the trailer []. What role they play remains unclear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StuartDD (talk • contribs) 12:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

FA Cup Gridlock Delay
If Gridlock is delayed for a week as a result of the FA Cup Semi-final extra-time, does anyone know if this episode will also be delayed for a week or broadcast after Gridlock? -OZOO (vote saxon) 09:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be so cool, but I compulsively buy TV guides and none of them say a thing about that, though I am in Scotland so...--Sekhmort 18:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear. I meant would it still be broadcast on the 21st (after Gridlock) or pushed back to the 28th--OZOO (vote saxon) 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Genesis Of The Daleks?
I could've sworn that the daleks were grey and black in that story —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sekhmort (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC). woops frgot to sign (i'm ne to this)--Sekhmort 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in the classic series, black dalek and supreme dalek were interchangable terms, and there was definatly more than one, meaning that the black dalek is the same one is unlikely(Black Dalek 19:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)).

nah, I was meaning about the note where it said about the art deco daleks, becase yesterday it said that blue-and-silver ones appeared, but now someone's changed it to the daleks, sorry --Sekhmort 18:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture of dalek sec
Do you think the picture should be another dalek rather than 'dalek sec'(because the same picture is in the article for Evolution of the Daleks. Also, the pig men are servants to dalek sec, but take orders from no other dalek (or man). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.39 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 April 2007


 * And you know this... how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.195.129 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 16 April 2007


 * Well, in the most recent series three trailer, the pig men do exactly what daleks sec says, but not what the doctor says (although i could be wrong) NEW TO WIKIPEDIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.162.160 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 17 April 2007


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Please type ~ after comments on this page and other talk pages, to ensure that your comment will be automatically identified by your signature and a timestamp. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Human Daleks...
...http://www.radiotimes.com/content/magflash/...

and if you click on 'cover story' there's a nice big image... --Sekhmort 16:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Eeeeeew! Reminds me of Davros...--Totoro99 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me more of Scaroth.

It reminds me of my biology teacher, but that's a different story...

Speculation based on a trailer
This:
 * The cover for the Radio Times for the week from 21-27 April shows a picture of the Dalek/Human hybrid. It features a how they made it and a small section on a half man half pig. They appear to be Dalek experiments gone wrong. A trailer also shows Dalek Sec and two members of the Cult of Skaro and says "prepare the final experiment"

was edited to this :


 * *The cover for the Radio Times for the week from 21-27 April shows a picture of the Dalek/Human hybrid. It features a how they made it and a small section on a half man half pig. The half man half pig is called Laszlo and the dalek/human hybrid appears to be Mr Diagoras.Laszlo is a dalek experiment gone wrong. A trailer also shows Dalek Sec and two members of the Cult of Skaro and Dalek Sec says "The final experiment will begin". It is most probably that this is the start of production for daleks and near the end of the episode before Dalek Sec becomes reborn as a human.

Added text is shown in italics above.

Much of this appears to be speculation based on a trailer. The episode will be broadcast on BBC this Saturday so rather than separate fact from speculation I have reverted the edit. --Tony Sidaway 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

cast list
I added the cast list from the BBC factfile but seem to have severely buggered it up in the process. Sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

!Warning Spoiler!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/RT-2007-04-1-.jpg

now we know what they look like should somthing be writen?--Wiggstar69 17:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And say what? We know the basics but not the specifics, leave it until Saturday. --128.174.178.148 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And it's a big spoiler besides


 * In my opinion, it'd cease being a spoiler if it's splashed on the front page of a well-selling magazine. Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 19:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Run!"
Please don't annotate the fact that the Doctor shouts "Run!" It isn't necessary. --Tony Sidaway 18:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He does shout it alot, though. --QUADRATUS (speak to me, human) (yes i've been here) (vote saxon) 18:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're stuck in a sewer with two men and a woman, and pig mutants are chasing after you. You'd shout "Run!", not walk briskly. Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 19:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Quadratus, please add an extra  tag at the end of your signature, it's breaking all the formatting on this page, thank you--172.164.131.52 22:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, if I'm not mistaken. --QUADRATUS (speak to me, human) (yes i've been here)(vote saxon) 08:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

'Art Deco Daleks'
Now that the Art Deco Daleks are pretty much no where to be seen, is it time to remove this tidbit from the article?--172.164.131.52 22:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they were art deco. I spotted that without even reading all the fanguff/spoilers/teasers.Totnesmartin 22:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually they remind me of The De La Warr Pavilion. Totnesmartin 14:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The art deco thing was just a tie-in with the period and design of the Empire State Building. It's not a huge big deal. --Tony Sidaway 23:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I never saw any "Art Deco Daleks," I just saw the same props they used in "Doomsday..." did I miss something?!? O.o --Promus Kaa 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think you are all missing something. New dalek toys are, or were, planned for release later this year (meaning different to gold, or black ones) and when Tennant said we shall see Art Deco daleks, it didn't necessarily mean this episode, nor even Evolution Of The Daleks... And Art Deco daleks aren't the gold ones! That wouldn't make any sense (they have never been referred to as Art Deco before and they wouldn't be just because the story is set in 1930, for god's sake!). If Art Deco daleks don't make an appearance this series I believe it is because of CGI budget constraints. Andy B 13:55, 27 April 2007

Toys
Character Options (Toy maker) announced that a remote controlled Art Deco Dalek and a 5" Art Deco Dalek will be released later this year. This means that the Art Deco dalek has to be something new, not the gold or black ones (toys of these are already on the market). Nor could it be a Human-Dalek (remote control figure? Don't think so). I predict it would have to be either Sec with a larger dalek creature reveal, or a different coloured dalek that we have yet to see.

As it appears that a 1x dalek + 1x human is needed to produce a Human Dalek, then more daleks are needed, presumably from the same era. I hope the aerial on top of the Empire State building is used to contact them, far out in space. They would turn up, disagree with Sec (impure!), wipe out the Cult Of Skaro (Daleks killing themselves off!), then say something like "We will conquer this planet later" and warp off back to where ever they came from. If this doesn't happen, expect some crap about transmitting something over Manhatten to turn people into daleks... Andy B 21 April 2007


 * Toymakers are very good at picking up on consumer demand but notoriously poor for authoritative statements about what's up in a television production. The "art deco daleks" comment, which was made by an actor, not a writer, seems to me to be an interpretation of Davies' design concept for the program, which was that the basic design of daleks fits the era, and the art deco ethic of the Empire State Building, quite well. --Tony Sidaway 23:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you might be right there but is a fact that Character Options declared that a remote control and 5" Art Deco Daleks will be released later this year. They may well be gold ones again, fingers crossed they are not (and we already have gold dalek toys). Andy B 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So the upshot of all this seems to be that the daleks might not be art deco, but are verifiably considered to be (by the toymaker}. Thinks: Perhaps we could get in an art critic to talk bollocks offer an expert opinion on the art-deco-ness of these daleks. Totnesmartin 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The upshot of this is that dalek toys different to the gold or black ones are, or were, planned for production :) Andy B 00:20, 24 April (UTC).
 * I realize this isn't a messageboard, but Daleks killing off Daleks is nothing new, Ressurection, Revelation, and especially Remembrance all featured Daleks attacking one another, Remembrance especially because the whole point was how one change to the Daleks genetic structure and they automatically hated the other.--130.126.84.218 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Helen Raynor has stated that she watched all the Dalek stories from the 1980's before writing this, two of which had daleks fighting daleks and all had conflicting dalek factions in them. Andy B 22:10, 24 April 2007

I guess the real question is what do we do if this doesn't pan out. Pretend it never happened and delete the reference or say it was supposed to happen but never did.--Anguirus111 21:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The hybrid
Is it just me or does that thing look an aweful lot like the picture of the ancient "Thal Warrior" we see in the serial The Daleks? Deliberate? coincidence? Do we even know if the Thals and the Kaleds were even the species? Should it really even be a cyclops considering that both the Thals and the Kaleds/Dals had two eyes? Am I talking way too much?--172.134.61.220 22:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * also kind of reminds me of Jagaroth--172.146.24.110 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dalek (in)vulnerability to bullets
This might seem pedantic, but the trailer for the next episode seems to show a bullet ricochet off a Dalek casing. I seem to remember the Daleks being able to block bullets with a force-field. This is probably completely irrelevant. RWyn 23:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Check the dalek article for details, and remember that Dalek Sec in this episode remarks that the daleks have made sacrifices, and as he does so the camera scans over the rear skirt of a dalek showing that some of its armor is missing. So to speculate a little, it's quite possible that the casing of these daleks lacks its usual capabilities. --23:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

continuity
in the scenes when the dalek was escorting prisoners underground its id plate kept changing86.112.249.240 08:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Accents
Has anyone noticed how when the Dalek Sec still speaks in a dalek accent even when the casing is opened, if you remember back to The Daleks the casing causes the accent.Gabrielhobro 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Why couldn't the voice still be projected through the shell? It was also hinted in this episode that daleks are telepathic and in Death To The Daleks (1974) the Doctor says they have telekinetic powers. Perhaps the shell broadcasts their telepathic speech. If they are the supreme beings (or were) then I expect they would have such powers. Andy B 21 April 2007

I see your point, maybe the Daleks can't speak, which is made up for with telepathic powers. Gabrielhobro 00:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it would be a good idea as it explains why daleks often say what they are doing or about to do ("Exterminate!" "Elevate" etc.). And again, as daleks are practically super-brains (with tentacles) then surely such an intellect would have telepathic powers (like the Time Lords). Andy B 19:00 25 April 2007

Rose
Is it worth mentioning that this is the first episode not to mention Rose since her departure? U-Mos 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC) CzechOut - an interesting theory, but I don't take that to imply Rose. Surely he's talking about the Timelords? U-Mos 20:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I don't see that being done for the other companions so Rose shouldn't be held any differently. --74.134.239.15 17:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I disagree with the above anon poster as to the reason (Rose is different from past companions in that her absence has formed a running subplot.  At most you got a throwaway reference to departed companions in the classic series.  She should be treated differently because she is different.)  I think no mention should be made of the "fact" because it's not true.  FIne, the name "Rose" doesn't come up, but she's implied by the line, "They always survive when I lose everything?" CzechOut 18:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that the Doctor's "everything" most likely refers to both of his major Dalek-related losses of the past two or three incarnations - Gallifrey/the Time Lords and Rose. The current article covers this adequately, IMO (as of Tony's edit last night), without getting too OR about it. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 20:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hero Pig?
Who actually was the Hero Pig? And why was he credited after Nick Briggs (who, until now, was always credited last in a cast list)? - NP Chilla 17:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the audio commentary, it was the pig that was featured in a couple of scenes, the one with the "sad" eyes. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 01:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thank you, my dear. :) - NP Chilla 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Solomon
I suppose it would be too "original research"-y to point out Biblical relevance of the name "Solomon," given that he specifically resolves an arugment by splitting the disputed item in two, even if it is screamingly obvious? - Chris McFeely 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, that is indeed original research until it's seen in a reliable source. Sorry. QmunkE 18:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I must disagree about it being too OR, precisely because it is screamingly obvious. It could be worded in a way that makes no claims except that he shares a name with a Biblical leader who also settled a dispute by proposing that something be divided in half.  (Also, Tennant mentioned something about the character being "wise", a term associated with King Solomon.) Perhaps something more citable will turn up- next week.  The name Diagoras also has an historic connection; it would be nice to find something citable about that. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 01:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it's original research by the Wikipedia definition - it's unsourced, hence it is unverifiable. If Russell T. Davies or Helen Raynor come out and says that's what they intended then great, stick it in - otherwise it's just fan speculation. QmunkE 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Diagoras of Rhodes? Except that he "walks a straight path that hates arrogance" which is out of character for the DW bloke. Diagoras the Atheist? he chopped up an idol to boil his turnips. hmm. Totnesmartin 15:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not so much that it's original research. Rather the reverse--it's so blatantly obvious that laboring the reference in the article would be futile.  The reference is used here solely to provide a means of sketching the nobility of Solomon's character in a short scene. The casting of a "king" actor, Hugh Quarshie, serves a similar purpose.  --Tony Sidaway 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Goofs and Anachronisms
The listing under ‘Goofs’ of the apparently anachronistic state of completion on the Empire State Building seems unfounded. The story itself makes it quite explicit that the construction workers are being placed under significant pressure to complete the building (and in particular the mast) to a deadline set by their Dalek overseers. The story is not designed to be a depiction of the ‘real world’, but rather an alternate timeline in which the Daleks either inspired or commandeered the construction of the Empire State Building, which renders any comparison to the actual building’s construction academic, not a ‘goof’. In fact, the two apparent ‘goofs’ singled out as construction anachronisms - the mast and elevator – are those most easily explainable in terms of the episode’s plot: the mast was constructed early as it is an important aspect of the Daleks’ plan, and the elevator, for both Dalek and ‘pig slave’, provides a form of covert, but direct, transportation between the Daleks’ underground laboratory and the upper levels of the building from where the construction is being directed by Mr Diagoras.

While I can appreciate the effort involved in researching the anachronisms, it seems to me that this shows the danger in trying to be ‘too clever’, as it were, and being overly nitpicky about fictional storylines (particularly over anachronisms in plots involving time travel).

Additionally, the conclusion drawn (that it is a ‘goof’) seems to constitute original research. Even if records show that this-and-that happened on such-and-such a date, in making the comparison to what the episode states or shows, one has engaged in original research and posted what is at best their own conclusion, or at worst, their own opinion.Dr Faustus AU 03:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree that some of the language originally used could have been tightened, I protest the notion that it is inappropriate to note when Doctor Who historical episodes go afoul of established historical facts. The program started as an educational exercise, and the producers are still partially aiming to fulfill that mission.   This episode, in particular, makes such a discussion notable, because of the early scene in which the Doctor tries to surmise the time period with the line, "If I've got my history right . . . "  It's therefore immediately relevant to the episode to discuss where he hasn't.


 * You seem to be saying that simply because it's fiction, it's rather silly to care whether it's right. But the settings here, Central Park's Hooverville and the Empire State Buildings are essential to the drama.  Whether they're "correct" isn't trivial, but central.  This isn't, as you assert, an "alternate" time line.  It's a fictional one.  There's a big difference.


 * And it's not it original research to point out the distinction between fact or fiction. Original research, as I read the Wikipedia guidelines, would involve coming up with some novel new interpretation or theory.  Answering a yes/no question is hardly coming up with a novel synthesis of ideas. It's simply taking the in-episode assertion that the date is November 1 1930 and noting, with reliable sources, if the episode accurately reflects that date.  I'm not sure where the "opinion" or "conclusion" or "novel research" is in saying that, for instance, the Statue of Liberty didn't have a golden flame on 1 November 1930, or that the Empire State Building's signature interior elevator wasn't working on that date as they were still adding floors.   If the history of Dalekenium can be cited in this article, why can't the history of New York?


 * I honestly think there are a substantial number of Wikipedia users who would indeed find a well-researched historical section useful.  CzechOut 09:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You write You seem to be saying that simply because it's fiction, it's rather silly to care whether it's right. Well if he is saying that, he has a very good point.  It is a work of fiction and it's rather silly to care whether it's right.  There, I said it, too.  This kind of "goofs" list might be suitable for a fan site, but at best it's simply a catalog of original research, equivalent to those complaints they used to fill in Points of View in quiet weeks. It's bad practice to focus on these minor details and it encourages a lot of unencyclopedic work that clutters the article. --Tony Sidaway 09:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. That wasn't rude at all.  Well, I honestly tried to understand what was so wrong about carefully citing things and trying to provide useful. plot-central information.  But, hey, thank God we kept the references to War of the Daleks, and the Hand of Omega.  Those are clearly more relevant to understanding Daleks and Manhattan than trying to get an accurate picture of New York on 1 November 1930. CzechOut 10:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to assume that an accurate picture of a historical era is not particularly useful in understanding works of fiction. Doctor Who historical characters aren't works of scholarly study, but are broadly drawn pastiches.  They're the products of writers, who while talented are valued more for their powers of imaginative creation than their painstaking research skills. --Tony Sidaway 10:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in this case it's wrong for a reason.  The New York of Manhattan is slightly off historical records because of the Daleks.  In other words, the fact that we get the precise date served up to us, then pan across to a view of the ESB with its spire in scaffolding is an immediate red flag, or to put it in literary terms, foreshadowing.  Knowing history helps your understanding of the story.  Now, I'm not saying that the section should go so far as saying that.  That would definitely be original research.  But simply pointing out that it's wrong for the spire to be at that level of development on 1 November, is, since it can be sourced, completely within Wikipedia guidelines, I think. CzechOut 11:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking about this off-Wiki a few days ago. Fiction always differs from reality in some details. That's why it's fiction. To cite a reference that in the real world the ESB was completed on x date might be entirely relevant, though, in terms of perspective, and no more OR than if so mentioned in an article about the actual building. Where the "Goofs" section goes wrong, I think, is that the title implies that the writers made a mistake. We don't know that. There are often good story-based reasons for a fictional reality to differ from ours in historic details; it is therefore not a mistake if things don't line up exactly. (This is especially true in time travel fiction, which frequently is about those discrepancies.) Mentioning the differences in passing might provide useful perspective, but looking for every possible anachronism and labeling it a "goof" is going a bit far, I think, because it draws a conclusion and is kinda funcrufty. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well see this is my point exactly. I didn't start the section, but I should have edited the title.  I wasn't actually trying to imply anything by the inclusion of the information, other than that there was a noteworthy variance between the reality and the fiction.  I think it's at least as relevant as attempting to demonstrate how the relatively obscure War of the Daleks might potentially be relevant to this story.  Put a Doctor Who story in context of the larger mythology (even the most disused basements of that mythology) and no one seems to cry "original research".  But attempt to give the story some well-cited historical context and it's a big hullabaloo.   Not only does it not make sense, but it's not actually a part of the definition of original research.   To me, this is so cut and dried.  Manhattan gives us, unusually, a very specific date, and is centered around a construction project for which reliable dates are equally, if you'll forgive the pun, set in stone—and even captured by photographs.  It's not "research" to note the obvious, dry facts—much less original.  The fact that it's slightly anachronistic is as obvious, and as relevant, as the notation about the Judgment of Solomon, which has apparently survived a challenge on similar grounds.CzechOut 05:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

While I was hoping to avoid getting all ‘fanboyish’, I see it may be unavoidable here. Concerned readers: please indulge me for moment. In defence of the ‘construction anachronism’ as ‘goof’ CzechOut states that “This isn't, as you assert, an "alternate" time line. It's a fictional one,” (and as such should conform to what we know of the historical Empire State Building to be other than a ‘goof’ - or more succinctly, ‘correct’). I must beg to differ and argue that while it is indeed fictional, it is also alternate. A fictional alternate timeline. An alternate timeline explored through fiction …you get the point. Let’s explore this a little, shall we?

Given the episode as evidence, we can pretty safely assume that the Daleks arrived in New York prior to our intrepid Doctor. This may have been two weeks before, this may have been 100 years before – we don’t know. It doesn’t really matter too much anyway, because at the instant the Daleks arrived, the course of historical events was changed, and an alternate timeline – within the fictional Doctor Who universe - was created. In this fictional New York the presence of the Daleks may have caused the construction of the Empire State Building to be advanced beyond what the ‘real world’ records it as being; the odd extermination here and there may have caused the founding of Hooverville a few months earlier; and Dalek Sec, in a state of disorientation following his emergency temporal shift, may have careened into and destroyed the Statue of Liberty’s torch in 1920, thereby advancing the installation of the gold flame… thing, bit, or whatever you call it.

This, folks, is the trouble with pointing out ‘anachronisms’ and ‘goofs’ in fictional works, and in particular, works involving time travel. You are deciding, concluding, and/or opining that certain details are in error, when in a fictional world who’s to say? For every detail that you claim is in error, I can invent a host of explanations to show how it may be so. Some may incorrectly assert that you are right, while others may, with wisdom beyond their years, agree with me – either way it is your opinion versus mine, and opinions have no place within an encyclopedia. Although, you’ve got to admit, that whole Dalek Sec crashing into the torch thing would uber-sweet. Can we add that to the article? Please?

Later it is argued that historical ‘discrepancies’ perhaps shouldn’t have been placed under the banner ‘Goofs’ – and of course they shouldn’t, for the reasons above. However, the problem that arises from putting them in their own section, in which they stand as a little bit of historical background, is that they are rendered trivial beyond belief. I mean, what would “By November 1930, there were no functional elevators in the Empire State Building” add to the article, or the reader’s contextual understanding of Daleks in Manhattan? On the other hand, any more detailed information than this should be available at the Empire State Building’s page on Wikipedia, and therefore need not be included here. The problem is that the only thing that makes this information remotely notable is if it is regarded as an error on the writer’s behalf, and, as I have argued above, I don’t believe that this is a viable accusation.Dr Faustus AU 13:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This whole discussion strikes me as original research and has no place in the article itself. -- MisterHand 13:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly.Dr Faustus AU 17:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Statue of Liberty wasn't a solid green like that until its renovation in the 1980s, when they forced the copper to rapidly oxidize. Can anyone else confirm that, cause that could be another goof.

There are a couple of ahistorical points in this episode. For example, there is not and never has been an elevator from the ground floor to the 102d floor. You go to the 86th floor observatory deck and then take another elevator (or walk) to the 102d. Also, in reality, the racial situation in New York's Hooverville was considerably less sanguine than Solomon avers. Jeff (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Some episode articles have "historical discrepancy" sections and some don't. I've wondered about that, and whether I should add something. For example, more than once during a WW-II episode, the Doctor has used a tape recorder; tape recording was a German military secret until 1944. Jeff (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Gershwin/Woody Allen
Are we sure this is a specific reference to Manhattan? Rhapsody in Blue has been associated with New York for much longer than the Woody Allen film has been in existence, so it looks like OR to me. Kelvingreen 09:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree.Dr Faustus AU 13:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not completely wrong. Woody Allen's use in the film, which is described by Allen as a love letter to New York, was probably the first direct association of the piece with the city itself, although it was first performed there and already had strong associations.  As in Doctor Who, I seem to recall that the opening clarinet glissando is heard over a view of the New York skyline.  --Tony Sidaway 13:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, should it be there unless there's a statement from the producers confirming it's a reference? Kelvingreen 20:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's extraneous, and OR. You might as well say "as famously used in United Airlines commercials". I don't see it as a reference to Manhattan or Allen; as Kelvingreen points out, "Rhapsody" has been an informal theme song for NYC for a long time -- Woody used it because of that, not the other way around. An interesting fact, but without a citation, it's OR as I understand it. Jeff (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And TreasuryTag decided to take out the whole thing. Makes sense, I guess. It's use, as well as the use of "Puttin' on the Ritz" a couple of scenes later were, I would surmise, intended to evoke the spirit of the setting, i.e., 1930 NYC, and probably not intended to be specific references to, e.g., Manhattan or Young Frankenstein. Jeff (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Continuity note removed
I have removed this note in the continuity section as it serves no purpose here unless it is related to this episode.--Nosxalc 18:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Torchwood Institute website states that 1930s New York suffered an infestation similar to the Weevil infestation of Cardiff, and that it was covered up by rumours of sewer crocodiles. This may or may not be linked to these episodes.

Do not revert this edit without an explaination, I have explained the reason for removing it. If you feel it should be kept here, explain why?--Nosxalc 08:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The second part has not yet aired; there's no reason to suppose that there's no connection - yet.--Rambutan (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but this continuity section is suppose to retain fact. If the fact remains that the factual standing of this fact is ambigiuous then it has to be removed otherwise there is confusion.--Nosxalc 09:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been there a very long time, and nobody's yet complained. This suggests one of two things:


 * People agree that it should be there; or
 * Everyone's been hypnotised so as to ignore its presence.


 * What do you think?--Rambutan (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Should a connection between this Doctor Who story and the note on the Torchwood site ever emerge, the continuity note can be added. Since none has yet emerged, it can be left out for now (if only because its inclusion is rather confusing). --Tony Sidaway 12:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Later: the new version shorn of any reference to Weevils is much better. Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 12:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The current version does reference the Weevils; I'm not sure if someone's changed it, or if you mean that one.--Rambutan (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been there a very long time, and nobody's yet complained. This suggests one of two things: Must be the latter if Judge Rehnquist's opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey means anything. Anyway, my question would be if it is removed what about that reference to War of the Worlds when some other alien race invaded NY under those pretenses? Is that still here or is it gone as well?--Anguirus111 21:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * People agree that it should be there; or
 * Everyone's been hypnotised so as to ignore its presence.

Double sided bumps?
What gives this impression? Not only is it just as likely two plates are geing held back to back but we see the FLAT areas where they have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.210.78 (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, we don't see the Flat areas; Dalek Thay has sheets of metal where the bumps were.(atleast, we don't see flat areas in DIM; I'm yet to see EotD)--OZOO (vote saxon) 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that we were already aware that the Dalek 'bumps' were actually complete spheres as they were shown in the episode Dalek separating from the Dalek's casing as a part of its self-destruct device. I'm not sure whether this makes the 'double sided' plates in Daleks in Manhattan notable enough for inclusion in this article, as it seems to imply that this is a revelation unique to this episode.  What do other folks think?Dr Faustus AU 02:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The relevant point is not that the casing bumps are double sided, but that they appeared to be mounted on a flat metal sheet- however, I feel that the most likely explanation is that the casing was replaced with the metal afterwards. (84.71.245.11 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

Unnecessary editing
I noted under cultural references that Telullah employs the Yiddish slang "shmuk" which in Standard German (Schmuck) means an ornament but in Yiddish refers to a penis. It's the equivalent of somebody saying "you prick". I strongly suspect that the writer of this story was unaware of this; indeed, her grasp of American cultural history of this period seemed pretty poor. Unfortunately, some self-appointed guardian of propriety chose to erase my comment from the "cultural references" section almost as soon as I'd written it.


 * It would be pointless nitpicking. This is just a family TV programme, for entertainment only.  The writer isn't a scholar, just a writer with a reasonably good imagination. --Tony Sidaway 17:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Caption
I changed the caption for the image, which illustrates a Busby-Berkeley style overhead shot of dancers, to say The production features music and choreography on a scale never seen before on Doctor Who. This has been changed to a quotation from the song "My angel, she put the devil... in me!" Not sure if the quote is accurate, but that's not the point. The point here is that there is nothing in the article about the choreography. If this image is to be used to illustrate this article, we really should give more than a passing mention the choreography and musical arrangement which is its centerpiece. This was the reason for my caption. The current caption is useless unless you have actually watched the episode. Context-free fragments of quotes from an episode are uninformative and substantially weaken the fair use case for using the non-free images in the first place. --Tony Sidaway 20:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now see, this is something I've been wondering about, especially with respect to an episode like this one that has an original song (as opposed to scoring). Would it not be worthwhile to have a music subsection or bullet point under Production? Then we could mention that Gold wrote the song being performed in the image, give the name of the choreographer, etc. It's all in the Confidential for sourcing. And no, I'm pretty sure the correct lyric is, "My bad bad angel / you put the devil in me." -- Karen | Talk | contribs 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was, "My cold, dark angel..."!--Rambutan (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Daleks in Manhattan.jpg
Image:Daleks in Manhattan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rationale provided. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Image
Could someone find a better picture for this article-it is of bad quality and not a significant enough image in my opinion Harmless 77 (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Daleks in Manhattan. 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 tag to http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/downloadtrial/doctorwho/doctorwho-seriesthree/doctorwho-seriesthree_20070421-1910_40_pc.mp3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128214855/http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2007/04/when-is-a-spoiler-not-a-spoiler/ to http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2007/04/when-is-a-spoiler-not-a-spoiler/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128215210/http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2007/04/doctor-who-34-daleks-in-manhattan/ to http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2007/04/doctor-who-34-daleks-in-manhattan/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daleks in Manhattan. 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/20070312164215/http://www.dwscifi.com:80/articles/show/227 to http://www.dwscifi.com/articles/show/227

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) 07:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

B-Grade
What can I do to help improve this article to a B-Grade? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 02:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)