Talk:Dalek (Doctor Who episode)

message: I'm going to assume that User:NP Chilla got it from here, but, unfortunately, the only cite there is the OG news page, so I'm not sure, but it's probably best to just leave it out. On the other hand, I can totally see Shearman doing that :).--Sean Jelly Baby? 16:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But Khaosworks just found it.  Never mind!--Sean Jelly Baby? 16:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Addtional to this, the "Absense of the Daleks" story was recounted to me, in person, by Shearman when I interviewed him on stage at a Doctor Who convention in October 2004. Marwood 15:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absence of the Daleks 

message: Anyone else notice that it suddenly cut from the Dalek torture to Van S and Doctor's chat (missing out the alien musical instrument)? (I'm on holiday here, so I watched the episode to see any errors - like this one.) --Thelb4 13:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If these new episodes really were 45 minutes in length in Britain I have assumed that we are losing 2-4 minutes on every episode as aired here, in the U.S., on SciFi, as they come in at 41 minutes (give or take several seconds) as I tape them. The longer (sometimes it feels like it is unlimited) commercial breaks are always frustrating and they also occur on many programs shown on BBC America as well. My question re: this new entry in the note section about losing 30 seconds at the start of last nights airing. Was this just the usual edits or is this referring to a specific break in transmission? If it was the latter I did not notice it here in Colorado. I am not saying that that the note should be removed I am just trying to clarify what some readers here may be unaware of. I can't wair for July to see what I have been missing in ALL of the 9th Dr episodes! User:MarnetteD | Talk 00:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cut seemed intentional - it didn't stop or start halfway through any words or sentences... but it did seem a bit sudden. --Thelb4 17:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunatly if your watching abroad I would recomend Limewire because the full version is only in Britain (might be because BBC has no adverts)--Wiggstar69 09:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, you could always buy or rent the DVDs, which are uncut both in the US and the UK. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing to be aware of. BBC America seems to have a little more flexibility as to the amount of commercial time that they put into an hour. As an example the Sci Fi Channel puts about 19 minutes worth of ads per hour (thus the missing material in each Dr Who eps) while BBC Am only puts in about 15 minutes of ads. Thus, their Dr Who showings may be complete, or nearly so. I don't know for sure as I had purchased the DVD's long before BBC Am finally unbent and started showing the series so I haven't been checking (and don't worry although they have shown CE's season they rerun things most of the time). I can heartily second Josiah Rowe's recommendation on adding them to amyones collection. The series of 13 episodes was wonderful and being able to watch them without commercials or annoying programming graphics at the edges, along with the extras, makes the expense of purchasing them well worth it. Now if we could just get them to bring Torchwood to DVD here in the US. MarnetteD | Talk 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a region-free DVD player when I realized how long the US was going to have to wait for the 2005 series of Doctor Who... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Torchwood is on DVD in Britain, and from what I heard USA are getting it in May (or at least part one)--Wiggstar69 16:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SciFi error 

message: I do recall Adam saying that the UN still tries to keep aliens secret in the year 2012. But in the two part series immediately before that, which is set in 2005-2006(depending on when Rose takes place), I don't remember anybody outside of Jones, the Doctor, Rose, Jackie, and Mickey knowing that the space craft was fake. So why would the UN continue trying to hide alien existence? Tim 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the end of World War Three, Mickey notes that people are already calling the alien ship a hoax, as seen in the headlines of a tabloid. More problematic really is that The Christmas Invasion takes place that Christmas (Christmas 2006 to be exact), and that the Doctor seems confident that there is no longer any hiding of the fact that aliens exist. Still, there are ways to work around that if the writers want to. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aliens 

message: I was watching the appearance of the Daleks in Death to the Daleks and practically the entire bit of the Doctor and the Daleks talking up until the Doctor asks what the Dalek's purpose was nearly lifted word for word from that earlier story.  I added it in on the reference page.  Truly astounding.  It's on youtube for anyone curious, Death to the Daleks Part III or whatever. --Anguirus111 23:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death to the Daleks references. 

message: According to "The Toclafane attack Vivien Rook" - at the bottom of page 28 of Issue 385 of Doctor Who Magazine - Russell The Davies says that the "malevolent baby-like creature" that were originally would have been used in "Absence of the Daleks" were the Toclafane; am I right to have included this in the production notes of tis article? If not, I'll of course remove it immediately!! :) - NP Chilla 18:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toclafane 

message: Is it just m, or would EL-EV-ATE! not be a very useful caption for the picture in the aticle. I have'nt seen this episode, but I think someone should write a better one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.119.148 (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just you. The caption provided compliments the action pictured quite well. MarnetteD | Talk 13:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we were moving away from quotations as picture captions - don't they raise fair-use issues, since pictures are not meant to be used for decorative purposes? --Brian Olsen 00:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with the current caption, as "age old weekness" is not actually correct.  Admitedly, I can't think of a better one.  And to answer the IP's questoion, quotes should not be used as captions. StuartDD contributions 16:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "famous" weakness, then? Will (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  caption 

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 15, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Pass, lead needed a little expansion. Remember to summerise the entire article in the lead, including things like critical reception
:2. Factually accurate?: Pass. Note that it would be better if the primary sources for the various reviews were provided espicially as they are quoted.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Pass - added information pertaining to rating.
:4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images?: Pass, good choice of image to illustrate the article though note the image needed a fair use rationale
  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.</div>— Million_Moments (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: As Rich Johnston pointed out in his latest Lying in the Gutters column, Journey's End seems to complicate this episode's continuity a little - in Dalek, the humans aren't initially sure what a Dalek is... which seems difficult to explain after the events of Journey's End. Worth a mention? --Mrph (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I can explain that. The Doctor says that time doesn't run in a straight line, therefore Davros was never supposed to return or the Daleks in Journey's End. Perhaps if Rose and the Doctor went after Journey's End, Henry and the others may have recognised the Dalek. I suppose you could say Davros returning (which was never supposed to happen) caused the Whoniverse to skew off from the original timeline and possibly bend around 2012, where Dalek was set. This caused Henry and the others to not know who Daleks were because in their time, that never happened. Obviously if the Doctor met Adam agaim, he would remember Daleks. Either that or that lady wiped everyone's memories, and left them to be a drunken homeless person in a town something beginning with 'M' of course lol.--°wɧoɳɪvɛʀsɜ 10:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff." Sceptre (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity - Journey's End 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dalek (Doctor Who episode). 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/20070628003603/http://cluebytwelve.net/Hugos2006/07_Dramatic_Short.htm to http://cluebytwelve.net/Hugos2006/07_Dramatic_Short.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gallifreyone.com/episode.php?id=2005-06
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) 21:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified