# Talk:The Daleks

The plot summary added by Konczewski (talk · contribs) appears to be a cut-down and slightly rephrased version of the one at the Doctor Who Reference Guide [1]. This becomes obvious if you do a comparison and see that the same kind of phraseology and structure is used as in the DWRG summary. For example, at the end of episode five: "The Thals hear Elyon's scream and race to the lakeside, unaware of what new horror they will find." DWRG: "At the camp, all they hear is Elyon's terrified scream. Ian and Ganatus leap to their feet and race to the lakeside, unaware of what new horror they will find..."
I point it out here simply to ask if such a precis is enough not to make it a copyright violation. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think something should be done and have started a rewrite. --Litefoot 22:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Have we actually reached a consensus on summary lengths to justify such a dramatic cutdown? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm staggered by this abrupt pruning. What I'd written was hardly excessive - just a few short paras per episode. --Litefoot 16:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The plot is terribly long for a TV serial, no matter that it consists of a few episodes. I've noticed this problem on a few Who episodes on Wikipedia Alastairward 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the spoiler warning, which in this case was particularly redundant because it followed a section heading clearly labelled "Plot".  People read encyclopedia articles because they want to know about subjects.  There's no need to put an extra warning into the articles to say, in effect "sorry, but you might actually find something in this article that you didn't know."  We don't need to bow and apologise for providing information.  This is an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 13:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed again. Anyone whose reading comprehension is poor enough to not realise that a section titled "Plot" contains details of the plot is unlikely to be successfully spoiled anyway. --Stormie 02:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize that there was an editing conflict going on when I made my edit this morning (MDT). I only looked at the edit history after I was finished. So to flesh out my edit summary I feel that both titles should be in this opening. The Mutants was what it was referred to when the story was being made so it should be in the opening. Then, as mentioned later in the article, starting with the 10th Anniversary RT's it was known as The Dead Planet. This title was used for more than a decade in all media when referring to this story, sometimes in conjunction with TM and sometimes not. This would seem to make it notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. I had to search far down into the article to find TDP and that is why I added it in my edit. I certainly think that both titles should be mentioned rather than one over the other. Apologies for not posting here first but again I did not know this was in dispute until after my initial edit. MarnetteD | Talk 15:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been superseded by the next section: to cast your votes on this change, please go there.
OK, I made a change to this table and it was reverted (no reason given). So let's have a discussion here.
I made the change because I feel that this table is most useful if it refers solely to the transmitted episodes i.e. 7 episode story, 7 rows showing transmission dates, archival status etc. To clutter it up with alternative recordings that were never transmitted seems confusing.
Not that I removed the information: I moved it to a separate table where this first shot was discussed. So all the information remains, just separated into 2 tables: one for the transmitted story, one for miscellaneous footage. Every story probably has these extended versions, truncated versions etc etc (e.g. see the "Wiped!" Telos publication for pages and pages for these . . . they are interesting, but the primary focus should be on the transmitted story).
Thoughts?
Metebelis (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Many stories did have additional takes of certain scenes, for various reasons. It was rare that an entire episode was reshot (or "remounted", to use the contemporary technical term). The remount of "The Dead Planet" on 6 December 1963 was the only such instance in DW (other than remaking the pilot for "An Unearthly Child"), and is a documented fact.
Bentham, Jeremy (1986). Doctor Who: The Early Years. London: W.H. Allen. p. 44. ISBN 0 491 03612 4.
Howe, David J.; Stammers, Mark; Walker, Stephen James (1994). Doctor Who The Handbook - The First Doctor. London: Doctor Who Books. pp. 59, 233, 236, 261. ISBN 0 426 20430 1.
Howe, David J.; Walker, Stephen James (1998). "The Mutants". Doctor Who: The Television Companion. London: BBC Worldwide. p. 13. ISBN 0 563 40588 0. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
By contrast, retakes of single scenes are common enough to go largely unmentioned in books. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, good point, but why not have it in a separate table, so transmitted doesn't get mixed up with untransmitted? Metebelis (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The table clearly shows the original Dead Planet was unaired, meaning it wasn't transmitted. If someone is confused by that, they must be blind or just stupid and thefore, they shouldn't be on the Wikipedia. Plus, An Unearthly Child does it (The last time I checked it), so why not here? Babelcolour5 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
No one is blind or stupid: your comment is not constructive. I'm suggesting that dividing the table in two is clearer and logically more sensible, whether someone gets mixed up or not. An Unearthly Child now takes a similar path, and I think it is a vast improvement. Metebelis (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Your statement "An Unearthly Child now takes a similar path, and I think it is a vast improvement." is curious: it only takes that path because you made it so, so naturally you consider it an improvement, but that doesn't mean that everybody else does. I wasn't too happy myself, and fixed up the more glaring failure: the duplication of references. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Why does everyone have to be antagonistic? We're here at the talk page, so if you don't agree, just say so without inserting cute labels like "curious". I never implied everyone else (or indeed, anyone else) agreed with me. I was free to edit it like anyone else, and I was giving my opinion (like everyone else) -- it's clearer, because the tables now match the text. I shouldn't have to mind my Ps and Qs. I appreciated you fixing up the refs, but there was no failure. I thought this was a collaborative project?
Look, the fix is an improvement in my opinion, but I'm not going to die over it. I've found this an unpleasant experience, so I am unwatching both these pages. You can let this discussion continue if anyone else wants to contribute, and then do whatever necessary at the end. All my edits were done in good faith, that's all I can say. Metebelis (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a note, "collaborative" means lots of people agreeing to do the same thing. That doesn't mean that everyone must automatically agree to what one person thinks is a good thing to do, even if it's in good faith. Don't take it personally (even if some people might try to be "cute" in their responses). Lots of other people, including myself, have had their "good" ideas shot down. DonQuixote (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm creating a new section below for voting on the original change, since this discussion got diverted. Metebelis (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please compare the following two versions of the page, and state your preference, with your reasons if applicable:

[2] (Vote "No")
[3] (Vote "Yes")
The nature of the change: No information was added or deleted. The episode table in §2, "Production" combined 2 concepts (Transmitted episodes + unaired/discarded episode). The relevant text for unaired episodes was contained in §2.3 Filming. The change was splitting the episode table into two, leaving the transmitted episodes where they were, and moving the unaired episode into a new table in §2.3 near the related text.
N.B. References need merging in the two tables if split, but this shortcoming is known and will be fixed if updated. Please confine your analysis to the layout change.
Existing votes: Yes: Metebelis (whose change it was); No: Babelcolour5 (whose reversion it was) and Redrose64. 
Question: do you agree with the update?

I guess that you have changed your mind since you posted that you were taking these pages off of your watchlist. There is nothing wrong with that I just wanted to be sure. Please be aware that WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote and also note this section of what Wikipedia is not WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Having said that I prefer the table as it was before the changes which, I guess, is a no. MarnetteD | Talk 04:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
No, didn't change my mind. Decided to come back a month or so later to see the result, and there's none. Why don't we just make this a consensus that there's not enough enthusiasm for the change, and leave it at that. Metebelis (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The article presently says that "The serial was most recently broadcast in the UK on BBC Four ... It was shown ... from 5 to 9 April 2008" (my emphasis). This is now out of date. The serial was broadcast on Freeview channel 70 from 4 to 7 May 2015. It might have been broadcast on that channel last year. Even allowing for the change to widescreen and introduction of commercial breaks, I don't think that what the article says is correct. Either the words "most recently" need to be deleted, or the words "in the UK" need to be replaced with "on the BBC", or something to that effect, to bring the article up to date. James500 (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The number of TV channels is huge compared to 20 years ago; we really shouldn't be keeping track of repeats, some of which may be on minor channels. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. The audience figure for the repeats are relevant to the programme's reception, to determining its fame and popularity. Using the figures for the first broadcast alone could be very misleading. Suppose, for one hypothetical, example that Program X is broadcast once with audience of 20 million and Program Y is broadcast in ten countries with audience of 10 million in each (ie a total audience of 100 million). If you just used the figure for the first broadcast, you would think Program X was more popular, but it isn't. Even if we don't have an actual number for the audience, the number of repeats is an indicator of popularity, like the number of editions of a book. In any event, a book called "Doctor Who: The Complete History" does give complete details of all re-broadcasts, as far as I can see, so it seems that reliable sources regard this information as relevant. I don't think either BBC4 or CBS Horror are minor channels. James500 (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Why was this page suddenly moved to The Daleks (1963 television serial)? Are there other TV serials or other productions by this name (and yes, I know technically its production name is The Mutants) this title would be confused with? No-one searching for "The Daleks" would likely be looking for episode two of The Dalek Invasion of Earth. Not to mention The Daleks currently redirects here, and not to any disambiguation page, so it seems really pointless. TardisTybort (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 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/20121228210500/http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/archive.htm to http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/archive.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gallifreyone.com/review.php?id=b
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 16:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a mad Ian Levine fan but the story of how this story was found all bound up and ready for destruction and was only narrowly saved by Mr L throwing a wobbly surely deserves inclusion? 2.28.124.127 (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done 2.28.124.127 (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

146.101.133.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continues to remove any mention of the film Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. from the Film version section without proper explanation. It is not uncommon to mention a film's sequel in such a section as it demonstrates the response to the film and provides some background information. Not only this, but it avoids having a one sentence paragraph. Per WP:BRD, the user should explain their changes here and maintain the status quo until a consensus is achieved. – Rhain ☔ 00:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. One of Rhain's edit summaries (this one) says maintain the SQ of an article that has undergone a GA content review, and if we look back to the article as it stood eleven months ago, at the time that it passed GA review, this passage is there in almost exactly the form that the IP is objecting to - the only differences (three, all in the linked title of the sequel film) are punctuation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Should the colourised and re-edited 2023 version not have its own section? At the moment it is covered only under Commercial releases, but it was broadcast and heavily publicised and new material was recorded.  Dunarc (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)