# Talk:Asylum of the Daleks

This may help when sourcing continuity after the episode has aired. Glimmer721 talk 01:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A puppet???... like a marionette, or a muppet?   Puppet as used in the article is figurative. Maybe there is a better word. Otherwise, so far,  I appreciate the quick work on this article. 
But I think that the tool of the Daleks is better described than "puppet".   98.143.107.161 (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the word the Doctor uses. DonQuixote (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
OK. I just wondered about clarifying what these puppets were. So, the initial mention is now changed and that helps.  Thanks!
98.143.107.135 (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Sept 1 transmission contains an image flip. Between 5:15-5:17 on the BBC iPlayer version, as the Doctor says the words "At long last, it's Christmas", the shot changes briefly to another view of the Daleks (three red ones on top row, several bronze ones below). This shot is flipped right-to-left, so the Daleks appear to have their gun hands and sucker hands on the wrong sides. I have no idea whether this was an accidental error or simply a consequence of limited production time. I haven't a clue where this should go in the article (or even if it should), so I'm putting it here. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the spot. However, these things normally require a reliable source commenting to indicate that it is notable. Edgepedia (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a pretty common thing in films and television, and unlikely to be accidental. A number of shots in Lord of the Rings are flipped, for example, because the director wanted to maintain a left-right direction for characters moving from West to East - maybe they needed a shot of Daleks looking in a particular direction and didn't have one handy. It's mildly notable, I suppose, since it's the Daleks and they're known for their asymettrical protruberences, though perhaps not quite worth a mention in the article. David (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

We're told she's to be the new Companion, but she's just been killed off.  And had already become a Dalek.  Any explanations? --GwydionM (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody be de-dalek-ised? We might just meet Jenna earlier in her timeline, a bit like River Song. Either way I'm sure it isn't the last we'll see of her before the Christmas episode (when all should be revealed) and Moffat will probably have come up with something that will get us shouting at the telly and applauding at the same time. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Or the new companion could be her twin, or relative, or parallel universe counterpart. Supposedly at the start of this interview Caroline Skinner says that it was Moffat's idea to put Coleman in the first episode; haven't watched the interview yet myself. Glimmer721 talk 17:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
...or maybe the Doctor's new companion will be the Dalek with Oswin inside or maybe she will be an Oswin looky-likey or maybe we should just wait and see because this is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. 88.109.27.89 (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Erm, excuse me? I was citing the Q&A as a possible source that the new companion won't be the same character. Glimmer721 talk 23:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing the article 'Asylum of the Daleks'. Whether the new companion will turn out to be Oswin Oswald currently has no relevance to it. As the Q&A is taking place on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia cannot be used for or cited as a source for its own articles, this discussion/speculation will be of little, if any, assistance in improving the 'Asylum' article. The only thing which the aricle should legitimately reference (although this in itself is debatable) is that the actress playing Oswin has been cast as the Doctor's new companion, with a citation. The internet abounds with fora which welcome and encourage discussion and speculation regarding the Doctor Who programme, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. 146.101.133.76 (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Would this be considered a reliable source? I'm not quite sure what it is, but the information is important. Glimmer721 talk 15:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The bit about 'The Oncoming Storm' being first mentioned in Remembrance of the Daleks is incorrect. It was first mentioned as the Daleks' nickname for the Doctor in the 2005 series. In fact, 'The Oncoming Storm' was the translation of "Karshtakavaar", which was the Draconians' nickname for the Doctor in the Virgin 'New Adventures' novel Love and War by Paul Cornell. No nickname is given for the Doctor in the television version of Remembrance of the Daleks, however in the novel he is referred to in the Dalek tongue as Ka Faraq Gatri or 'Bringer of Death/Destroyer of Worlds'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.65.174 (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC) 

Thanks for catching that. DonQuixote (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
In addition, the source says it was first in the novel Love and War. Nothing about Remembrance. Glimmer721 talk 01:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

An IP is attempting to add in a very tenacious (but possible!) connection between the fact that Oswin uses eggs for the souffle , and the prolonged "Exterminate" cry of the Asylum Daleks.  The connection by the Doctor of eggs for Oswin's souffle to the word exterminate is never given in the episode.  We do have the scene of Rory trying to understand the Dalek and misinterpreting the first syllable as "eggs", but there is zero connection explicitly given to the eggs Oswin needs for her baking.
It is quite possible this was a subtle hint as to Oswin's identity (her fascination with eggs being the way to ward off the "exterminate" conditioning, but by far there is no confirmed evidence we can make that connection as a summary of the primary source.  If anyone on production confirms this connection, then, hey, we can add it back in with that source. But it presently original research to make that specific connection. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't belong in the article as there is no need to spell out every effect, but actually the connection is there in the scene when Oswin realises she is a Dalek - she too goes from "milk and eggs" to "ex- ex- exterminate!" in a couple of seconds".  Mezigue (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Though, again, that doesn't specifically tied into her drive to make souffle - though again, that may be purposely done but there's no evidence from the primary source that it was intended that way. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
This is the problem when they axe behind the scenes programmes. Within the context of the main show we're always left to make our own minds up, which is the whole reason it was done - so we go away happy we've worked it all out ourselves. The problem is if it's not spelt out, like it would be in Confidential, it can't be cited. Maybe we should wait until the DVD comes out to see if it's mentioned in the commentary? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
"It was done". Meaning, they gave us all the pieces so we can work out an obvious puzzle. Also, Mezigue seems to have confirmed that the plot device actually exists, and Masem also noticed the earlier scene (with Rory) that shows how the plot device is woven through the episode. Throughout the episode, the Doctor keeps wondering where she gets the milk/eggs, and this point is the resolution. What could possible spell it out louder than the plot itself, with the characters actually saying it??? 74.119.161.8 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
As a fan, I really really really want the implication to be true; that's part of the skill of the DW writing team. As a WP editor, that implication is not spelled out well-enough in the plot for us to make the leap of logic and "solve" the puzzle without violating OR.  (Again, specifically, that the fascination Oswin has with milk and eggs was her mind trying to block out the "eggggsterimate" directive throughout the episode).  It could easily have be coincidence that Rory's lines about the Dalek orbs being "eggs" and Oswin's "eggsterimnate" were written separately into the script. We just don't know so we have to stay silent on the issue until we have a source directly from the show to confirm that. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's a puzzle or a "plot device", I think it's a literary device.  Just a little riff on the alliteration - which is why it doesn't need spelling out in a plot outline.  Mezigue (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but "[working] out the obvious puzzle" is analysis. Even though it's obvious, it's still a process that you have to go through. It's fine to do that, but the plot summary is for analysis-free (and rather bland) descriptions of plot points. DonQuixote (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested that the Oswin Oswald article be merged here as I think readers would be served by a redirect and there does not appear to be enough real-world information about her that should not in this article. Edgepedia (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That would seem like the logical thing to do, however there is apparently some subterfuge surrounding this character and the actress who plays her. The actress is confirmed as appearing in again, playing a main character within the same series. The connection to Oswin Oswald, or lack thereof, seems to be intentionally kept secret by show producers. By its very nature, none of this is verifiable and therefore completely useless to Wikipedia at the moment. We just need to be aware that if we merge it, we may very likely end up unmerging it again within a short space of time and the article would immediately be regarded as noteworthy in its own right. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
By short space of time you mean Christmas - three months away? I'm seeing the most likely scenarios that (1) Oswin Oswald is the same character is the new companion, when Oswin Oswald article would re-direct to a new article in the name of the companion or (2) they are related in some way, when we could redirect to this article or the new companion's article. Edgepedia (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd got the impression, somehow, Coleman would be introduced in The Angels Take Manhattan as Amy and Rory left. I pictured weeks not months; a long time for a pointless article to exist. Altering the divert to suit the story makes lots more sense. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The article has been created prematurely: a one-off character doesn't warrant its own page.  I would redirect it to this article for now.  If the character appears again, there will be new material to add there in place of the redirect.  If Coleman turns out to play a related character, then create a page for that one and switch the redirect. Mezigue (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Strongly opposed.  Either this will stay a separate character, in which case the merge is premature in the extreme, or Jenna will return as another character, at which time this article can be merged into that one as a prior incarnation, or whatever the relationship turns out to be.  There is no need to merge this until we have further information one way or the other. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. The characters may not even be related.  This article should have never been created to start as it fails all notability tests. But since its there, if there is a merge with a redirect from that article, should we expand it we have the history to go back to. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Saying the article fails notability is absolute and utter ballshot.  You tell me if The Guardian, The Sun, the Sydney Morning Sun-Herald, Wired, and the California Literary Review  http://www.google.com/search?q=oswin+oswald&num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvnso&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=WC9QUJf-PIrD0QGlxIGwCA&ved=0CA0Q_AUoBA&biw=1600&bih=736 are unnotable or unreliable sources. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Since when has a pole about how sexy Jenna-Louise Coleman is dictated whether a wikipedia article is notable or not? The only other articles there, which are related to the subject, are ones which speculate about how we get from Oswin to Clara and why every episode has featured flickering lightbulbs and explosions and at least one reference to Christmas and eggs, none of it in any way encyclopaedic. I bet Steven Moffat's laughing himself silly at this debate. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The articles establish notability.  Your opinion of the seriousness of her fans is irrelevant.  We are not required only to use encyclopedias as sources.  We are required to write encyclopedically.  So far I have fought to keep speculation out of the stub. μηδείς (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not giving an opinon of the seriousness of her fans (personally I think Jenna-Louise Coleman is awesome). I'm trying to illustrate that none of the references you find when you Google Oswin Oswald can be used to expand the Oswin Oswald article and therefore note worthiness cannot be established encyclopaedically. To someone unfamiliar with the episode the character appears in or the media hype surrounding her, the article is very unhelpful. If it were possible to expand the article sooner rather than later, without breaking any of Wikipedia's guidelines, and without repeating information which already in the Asylum of the Daleks article, why have we stopped at two sentences backed up by one challanged reference? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Notability requires "significant coverage in secondary sources". A handful of pages naming the character "sexy" is not significant coverage. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree nothing can be decided one way or another, expand, or merge, until we have new facts.  Until then the status quo is fine, and better than the speculation I have already deleted.  Masem's description of the sources is hardly fair.  The fact that there is one sexiness poll does not contaminate the other sources, which are indeed all secondary.  Only the BBC is a primary source on this. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Secondary sources are not the same as third-party sources.  Secondary sources provide analytical and critical analysis of the topic. Beyond mention of her name as part of the recap, beyond naming her "sexy", and lots of speculation of the character's relation to the pending companion, there is none of the required secondary information. The status quo is not to create articles until notability's been proven, and it's CRYSTAL to assume more facts will come down the road. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Whatever happens, Jenna-Louise Coleman will be playing a character in the Doctor Who Christmas special. It is most likely that it will be Oswin Oswald reapearing in the episode. So, at some point in time, Oswin will need her own page. For the moment, the page could be merged, or could not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbie262 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Asylum of the Daleks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 14:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I will review. Ruby 2010/2013 14:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


### Comments
As always, you've produced a great quality article. My comments are really just small nitpicks.

A prequel was released to iTunes, Zune, and Amazon Instant Video on 2 September 2012 for US and UK subscribers for the series -- I'm a little confused by the "subscribers for the series" part. Perhaps rewrite or clarify a little?
I removed it because it only applied to iTunes. Glimmer721 talk 21:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
"...coordinates to the planet Skaro" -- first mention of Skaro needs a wikilink; same for Amy and Rory
Done. Glimmer721 talk 21:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Just an observation (no need to change anything): the Daleks stated that don't want to kill the insane Daleks because of what they sense as beautiful, but are willing to destroy the entire planet? I saw the episode, but didn't realize how these two things seemingly contradict each other. Moffat, hmmm...
I haven't seen it in a while either, but from what I understand they had not (in the past) destroyed the unusable Daleks because of "beauty", which has become a problem and now are forced to destroy them in this episode because of the breach in the force field; otherwise insane Daleks would roam about the galaxy without their control. They consider it a dishonor, though, so call up the Doctor to do it (on what's basically a suicide mission). Should I clarify that? Glimmer721 talk 21:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Nah, I think it's fine as is. Ruby 2010/2013 04:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Broadcast and reception: I would change 14 August to 14 August 2012, and then remove "2012" from 1 September (i.e. establish the year earlier in the paragraph)
Done. Glimmer721 talk 21:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
More to come! Ruby 2010/2013 21:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing; in advance, I just want to say that this week is going to be pretty busy. Glimmer721 talk 21:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
After another read through, I think the article is good to go. Its citations are reliable and well-formatted, the article is comprehensive, and the image looks fine. Well done! Were you planning on bringing The Eleventh Hour to FA soon? If so, let me know as I'd be happy to help review it (when I'm back from vacation in June, that is). :) Ruby 2010/2013 04:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The image 'Dr.WhoDalek.JPG' in the article seems to be misplaced. Its use in the Production section, coupled with the caption, appear designed to illustrate the fact that the episode  'contains many of the Dalek types that the Doctor has faced over the years' . It fails in this respect, however, because the image isn't taken from the episode, it shows only a single Dalek and the variant it does show is the one with which a modern audience are likely most familiar. I think consideration should be given to moving, replacing or deleting it because as it stands, it doesn't appear to meet WP:Image use policy. 109.158.122.0 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Asylum of the Daleks. 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/20120827022406/http://www.spacecast.com:80/article/Doctor-Who-Season-7-Premiere-Date-Announced to http://www.spacecast.com/article/Doctor-Who-Season-7-Premiere-Date-Announced
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831060139/http://blogs.abc.net.au:80/abc_tv/2012/08/the-doctor-to-premiere-on-iview.html to http://blogs.abc.net.au/abc_tv/2012/08/the-doctor-to-premiere-on-iview.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://de.twitter.com/Primetv_NZ/status/240692485335175168
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120903153444/http://blogs.independent.co.uk:80/2012/09/01/review-of-doctor-who-%E2%80%98asylum-of-the-daleks%E2%80%99/ to http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/09/01/review-of-doctor-who-%E2%80%98asylum-of-the-daleks%E2%80%99/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)