# Talk:Victory of the Daleks

Theres a tad confusion. Whilst most episodes are 45 minutes, according to the bbc press office, this episode is 65 minutes, going from 6:20-7:25. Possible discussion on this?
Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/2010/wk16/sat.shtml#sat_drwho
Goku1st (talk • contribs) 14:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point ! Hektor (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
No, this episode was a touch under 45 mins as well. --Nantonos (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure the last time we had Daleks was the season 4 finale, not Waters of Mars?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.68.151 (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC) 
nope, they were in waters of mars. Ratemonth (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Still seems a misleading way of phrasing the point, since they only feature in a short cameo, in flashback.  It'd be like listing the Sycorax's previous story as The End of Time because of the bar scene at the end.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.233.158 (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC) 

The Dalek played a key part in Waters of Mars. DonQuixote (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
And going on about the difference between a "full appearance" and a flashback in other episodes in the lead of this article looks very unencyclopedic. If there's to be a whole sentence detailing the difference of the Daleks' appearance in Journeys' End and Waters of Mars, then I say delete the whole sentence and don't mention it at all. It's not important enough to warrant being in the lead of the article. Ratemonth (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a problem with the link in reference 5 - perhaps change it to BBC press office 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 Done DonQuixote (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}
I just wanted to change the episode plotline with this:
The Doctor and Amy are called to London during the Second World War by an old friend of the Doctor: Winston Churchill.
It's the height of the Blitz and the cabinet war room quakes from the German bombs pounding the streets above. Churchill has had enough and, with a glint in his eye, says, "Time to roll out the secret weapon." The Bracewell Ironside (a Dalek), and when the Doctor spies his greatest enemy aiding the Allied effort, carrying box files and toadying around government high-ups asking, "Would you care for some tea?" he knows something is horribly wrong.
Deadpoolninja (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The tone of your suggestion, while amusing, is not really encyclopedic, so I suggest you get a consensus from others involved in editing Doctor Who articles, such as WikiProject Doctor Who. --Darkwind (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The correct spelling of "Progenitor" is "Progenator". Look here. 86.28.171.246 (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Closed captions gave it as "Progenitor" on iPlayer. Given the Daleks' love of using words as meaningful object names (Crucible, Genesis Ark, etc), I'd put it as a spelling mistake on the concept art, corrected for the closed captioning. Sceptre (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Closed captioning is some guy typing at a computer; the concept art comes from the production team. Unless further sources come to light, whatever we might believe to be the intended spelling we have to go with the concept art source. U-Mos (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we should go with the concept art, for U-Mos' reason. Plus, the image will be around long after the closed-captioning has gone... ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 10:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a thing: What's "closed captioning"?!? 86.28.171.246 (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
See closed captioning. DonQuixote (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks. So, to make everything clear, shall we continue with "Progenator"? 86.28.171.246 (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with using the word "Progenator" for now, but once more media become available (e.g. scripts, Radio Times articles, etc.), we'll likely have to revisit this issue. I'm deeply unhappy about embedding into this article (and thus, before we know it, into Doctor Who fandom) what seems to me almost certainly a spelling mistake by the guy who did the "concept art". Believe me, I know plenty of graphic artists, and I wouldn't trust one of them to spell any word of more than two syllables correctly. :-) RomanSpa (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's the only reliable source that we have, so to question it is basically original research... ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 17:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't we just avoid to use both words till the situation is clearer ? Use a periphrase ? Hektor (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
...aaaaaand what's a periphrase? Wikipedia's explanation is... confusing! Excuse my ignorance... 86.28.171.246 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Presumably is a misspelling of paraphrase, ie. an alternative word/phrase to avoid the contentious word in question. U-Mos (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
And what can be the "paraphrase" for "Progenator" and "Progenitor"? 86.28.171.246 (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
@TreasuryTag: Nonsense. It's not "original research" to question the reliability of a source. We're Wikipedians, not acolytes of some dogmatic religion. I do agree that at present we don't have any other sources to go on, which is why I haven't made the obvious edits to the article, but suggesting that there might be a typo in the "reliable source" certainly doesn't fall into the category of "original research", any more than a priest would be guilty of heresy for questioning the reliability of the Wicked Bible. RomanSpa (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello.
If your basis for questioning the reliability of a reliable source is "Believe me, I know plenty of graphic artists," then it is obviously original research!! ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 21:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
My basis for questioning the reliability of the source is the obviously high probability that it's a typo. Many people make spelling mistakes, but graphic artists are relevant here, so I cited them. Had it been more relevant, I would have cited hairdressers, or Wikipedia editors, or any other class of people I've noticed are poor at spelling. If I thought it would do any good, I'd spend some time making a more detailed case to you, but inspection of your user-page and edits shows that you don't matter enough to waste my time quibbling with. RomanSpa (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
(Warned on talkpage for completely needless insulting tone.) ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 06:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd expect the correct spelling to be "Progenitor". The "i" sound (IPA: [ɪ]) is commonly shortened and sounds the same as the second "i" "definite" and the "separate", two infamously misspelt words. Closed captioning hasn't strayed me wrong before; I used the iPlayer captions to transcribe the French in "Planet of the Dead" for the Wikiquote page. And really, why are we bothering arguing? It's. A. Fucking. Doctor. Who. Episode. There's more important things to bother about in the world. Sceptre (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with all the above, but we have only one source from the production team, and to guess that it's wrong (whether based on our personal anecdotes of hairdressers, graphic designers or phoneticists) may be an interesting intellectual exercise, but it can't trump the concept art. That's simply the policy—"the threshold is verifiability not truth," etc. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 06:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. Why is the concept art (created before production) trumping the subtitles (created post production, with sight of the script)? Things change during production. Presumably the subtitles will be available on subsequent broadcasts and the DVD. Edgepedia (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The subtitles aren't necessarily created by someone associated with the programme (see The End of the World (Doctor Who)--"Bad Wolf" vs "bad-move").  But personally, I'd go with the subtitles since we only have two conflicting sources with one spelling it normally and the other spelling it differently (see The Time Monster--Thascalos vs Thascales).  But then again, see also Pyramids of Mars (Osiran vs Osirian).  Need more sources.... DonQuixote (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The concept art is currently the single most reliable source, so I would agree with using the spelling on that art until a more concrete source is available.  In my experience, subtitles are often littered with spelling errors, especially on Sc-Fi shows with it's weirder words. magnius (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey hey, no insulting or swearing here! Let's not become hot-headed over a concept art man's spelling mistake of some fictional alien device! Ok?!? 86.28.171.246 (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The subtitles were what was broadcast, and are therefore surely part of the published work? Edgepedia (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No, absolutely not. Did you not read the answer to your earlier question? The subtitles are done by a stenographer in an office somewhere, who often has no idea. DonQuixote mentioned above that in one episode, "bad wolf" was transcribed as "bad-move" – whereas, the concept art is produced by the program's production team. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Why not? If I could not hear the dialogue, I would certainly consider the subtitles to be part of the programme. I don't see how concept art on it's own can be a reliable source, this can be changed during development, hence the word 'concept'. Yes, I did read the earlier opinions about how this is all done, but that does not change what was broadcast. Edgepedia (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The subtitles are produced by people who are not associated with the show, and know nothing about its content, they simply listen and type; whereas, the concept-art is produced by the show's production team, who conceptualise it based on the script. If there's any part of that sentence you don't understand, please don't hesitate to ask. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning the irony of the Daleks fighting for the British considering who it was that Terry Nation based them on? (See paragraph 3) Jrmh (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That might breach rules on synthesis. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

... is an obvious allusion to the Daleks' "I am your servant" catchphrase in "Power of the Daleks". Nick Briggs even performs the line in exactly the same way. I know there's no point in adding it to the article now as it won't get past the OR police, so it would be nice if anyone could find a reference - was it mentioned in the Confidential by any chance?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If there's a referene then that would be fine, but without one it is not at all obvious. It's not even the same wording! U-Mos (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Well it's mentioned in the BBC website's Fact File for the episode, but I don't know if that's an acceptable source.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. I can't recall if we do consider these factfiles as decent sources for this, but I wouldn't have a problem with it. Anyone? U-Mos (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I say it's ok. Mind you, I'm not an expert on sources, but, since it's the Doctor Who site who says it, it should be reliable enough. There's a problem though: The Fact File is Flash based, so we can't put it here. We have to put it here somehow... 86.28.171.246 (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a way to do those sort of things properly. The issue is, however, that the fact file does tend to have some non-notable rubbish in it sometimes. Look at the beast below one and its comments on the first episode not to show the Tenth Doctor or the old TARDIS in any form... U-Mos (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Um, don't understand the "Beast Below" thing... 86.28.171.246 (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It mentions things that are not at all notable for that episode. The TARDIS changing in The Eleventh Hour is notable, that the old one doesn't appear in the next episode isn't. U-Mos (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So, decision? How to cite a Flash based source? 86.28.171.246 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Any other editors feel it is worth removing this tag now? The intro seems to now provide adequate information.

I tagged it, I think it still lacks some content. eg what is the setting of the episode (location, time period). If you blanked the rest of the article you should still know enough about it from the lede. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this as being inaccurate.
The link is to a review of Russell T Davies' "The Writer's Tale" which states: "that World War 2 script looks like it's been hanging around for a while, for example, but got shunted out the way in series four because of promises to Freema Agyeman among others (assuming that's Mark Gatiss's that is)."
This is an assumption on the part of the reviewer and is incorrect.
The actual text from Davies book merely says:
"World War II. Monsters on the loose in the Natural History Museum as a Nazi strike-force invades... Plus, an Indiana Jones-type chamber hidden beneath, with sliding stone doors and stuff." (p. 19)
No mention of Daleks, of Winston Churchill, of the Blitz, or any of the other elements that appear in "Victory of the Daleks". As I say, the only similarity is the era that the two stories are set in. 
Furthermore, the only reasons given for Gatiss' World War II script not being produced under Davies are Davies' statement that "I'm worried about recreating World War II again so soon" (p.19) and that it was replaced by the Pompeii episode (p. 69). There is certainly no evidence at all that its being "shunted" had anything to do with Freema Agyeman!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.8.226 (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC) 

The rationale seems sound; having reviewed the page in question (which is a blog, after all), it does not support the assertion about the script. "Victory" may or may not be derived from the earlier script - I'm not judging that aspect of the discussion - but the current reference doesn't work. The text should remain out unless/until we can supply a valid reference for the claim. --Ckatzchatspy 09:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

At the back of the book "Prisoner of the Daleks" it has a blurb for "The Dalek Project" which is remarkably similar to this episode. For example, it's set in world war 1 and a human claims to have invented the Daleks for use as weapons. Is it possible this episode was based on that?Dalek9 (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Daleks retrieved it, planning to create a new race of Daleks, but were unable to activate the capsule, as it couldn't identify them as pure Daleks, due to their DNA coming from Davros"
Does this add up? Since Davros is a Kaled (I don't thionk this has ever been disputed?), surely the Daleks created from his cells they must be considered pure daleks? As such, the Progenator should have responded to their requests.
Jpmct (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Jpmct

I don't think this is an appropriate venue for such a discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 12:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the section linking to the Sun:

An article in The Sun newspaper led with comments that the Daleks now looked like toys, sparking anger amongst fans. A poll on Gallifrey Base gave a unanimous 'thumbs down' to the new design.
"New-look coloured Daleks like toys". The Sun. London. 19 April 2010. Retrieved 7 July 2011.
Brian J. Robb called them "horribly plastic dodgem Daleks".
I think I've tracked down that Gallifrey Base poll on the forum here: http://gallifreybase.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45652 (note: accessing the forum requires registration, captcha check, acceptance of terms and conditions and two pints of blood). The final results were:

A Great Re-invention!    307   12.41%
Very Good Job            433   17.51%
They Were Ok             512   20.70%
Didn't Really Like Them  620   25.07%
Absolutely Awful!        601   24.30%

which is hardly a "unanimous 'thumbs down'". Take that out, and there's not much substantial taken from the Sun article that makes it worth including at all. The last bit about "dodgem Daleks" doesn't seem to be sourced at all. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Victory of the Daleks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Matthew R Dunn (talk · contribs) 01:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'll be conducting the review. -- Matthew RD 01:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


### Criteria
Well written: See notes below
Sources:  Pass
Broadness in coverage:  Pass
Neutral:  Pass
Stability:  Pass
Images:  Pass


### Comments
"It is written by Mark Gatiss and first broadcast on BBC One on 17 April 2010."  No director?
"Gatiss was not sure what to do with the premise at first, but then became excited about doing a war movie, of which he was fond, and his own Dalek story." Add bolded word.
"Final consolidated ratings for BBC One were 7.92 million and 381,000 for BBC HD, therefore making the total to? 8.2 million viewers."
I'll put it on hold for seven days (like those minor issues will take that long to fix :P). -- Matthew RD 14:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but "Final consolidated ratings for BBC One were 7.92 million and 381,000 for BBC HD, therefore making the total 8.2 million viewers." makes perfect, logical sense to me as a native English speaker from England, the addition of the word "to" just seems to stop the sentence from scanning properly. Jasonfward (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's why I added the question mark, I wasn't sure if it made more sense at all. -- Matthew RD 16:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Issues fixed! Thanks for the review :) Glimmer721 talk 17:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
No probs. All loks good now so I'll pass it. -- Matthew RD 18:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Victory 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/20121217063204/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-10?_s=4 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-10?_s=4
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) 06:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

What's putting the article title in italics? I couldn't find an {{italic title}} template anywhere and episode titles aren't supposed to be in italics. —holly  {chat} 18:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)