# Talk:The Dalek Invasion of Earth

I'm opening this to discussion. So far the way we've been writing synopses do not distinguish between episodes. While I can see the usefulness of this, at the same time some synopses don't cleanly break at the episode ends and beginnings. Since this is quite a radical change to the way things have been done, can we come to a consensus on this? --khaosworks 20:23, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

It's not stated in this story how the Daleks gain their power -- they don't have the solar panels seen in The Chase onwards, and they're clearly not drawing static electricity from the floor like in The Daleks.  I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the intention was they received their power through the dishes on their backs; hence when David and Susan destroy the tower, they're left immobilised -- one of the things that Dalek screeches moments later seems to be "power loss complete!".  (However, a Dalek is seen moving shortly afterwards -- perhaps it recovered from the shock enough to use its battery backup?).  In the novelisation it stated the dishes and antenna were part of a communications network (the disruption of which confuses and immobilises them), but there's no explanation in the show for why the antenna's destruction causes them so much trouble... what do you guys think? Dave-ros 00:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In this story it is pronounced as "Dalekenium", even coming up like that in the subtitles. Should this be addressed?
--86.2.173.190 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So the Daleks were gonna dig to the core of the earth. If they had succeeded, they would have found the ship of that spiderlike alien creature from "The Runaway Bride" which was hidden there since the earth was created. Might we wanna mention that?
Also, how is it with the continuity of history in general? This episode states the Daleks attacked earth in the 22nd Century, and that Daleks existed on Skaro one million years in the future. Does this somehow contradict any of the modern episodes? E.g. some that show London still standing after the 22nd Century with no signs of a volcano erruption, or the like? --Mithcoriel (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

They would have probs blown it up and never noticed it...it would have been empty by this time anyway, or possible excavated at an earlier date...Gavin Scott (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Big Ball of Timey Wimey stuff. Given that the daleks were wiped out/ locked in the time war it is possible that this entire timeline of the dalek invasion never comes into existance leaving the way open for the Great and Bountiful Human Empire to expand ahead of schedule. 147.188.254.124 (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright so in the first doctor page Edmund Warwick is listed in the sidebar as playing the first doctor in part of the dalek invasion of Earth (he was the stand in, in episode 4) so if he gets a mention in the sidebar on the page of the first doctor shouldn't he get a mention in the side bar in this article as well.  Therealluke (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We do not need this much detail. It is excessive, see WP:TVPLOT and also WP:PLOTBLOAT. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not excessive for a serial with six episodes, see WP:WIKIPROJECT DOCTOR WHO/MOS. 86.174.107.27 (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Dalek Invasion of Earth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 15:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll pick this one up as part of the GAN backlog drive. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


### Basic GA criteria
GACR#1a. Well written: the prose is clear, concise and understandable. 
GACR#1a. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct. 
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections. 
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout. 
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch. 
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction. 
GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation. 
GACR#2a. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline. 
GACR#2b. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided. 
GACR#2b. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc. 
GACR#2b. All quotations are cited and their usage complies with MOS guidelines. 
GACR#2c. No original research. 
GACR#2d. No copyright violations or plagiarism. 
GACR#3. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style. 
GACR#4. Neutral (NPOV). 
GACR#5. Stable. 
GACR#6a. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright. 
GACR#6b. Images are relevant to the topic with appropriate captions. 
I'll be using this checklist to assist with the review. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


### Passed
This is without doubt a good article and I'm promoting it. It needed a few tweaks but they were all minor so I did them myself as I worked through. I'm old enough to remember the serial from when it was first broadcast. All of us lads were sad to see the departure of Carole Ann Ford. Anyway, a bit of nostalgia. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Numerous signs and banners reading "Vetoed" are seen around London, in the 4th episode The End of Tomorrow (I think). Could this be a reference to the fact that the application of the United Kingdom to join the European Economic Community had been vetoed by the president of France, Charles De Gaulle, in january 1963 ?
If so, would it be interesting to include this tidbit in the present article, or would it be too trivial ?
--00:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Noliscient (talk)

@Noliscient: If a reliable source confirms the reference and considers it notable, then it may be worth including; otherwise, no. – Rhain ☔ 01:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)