Talk:Dalek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Dalek is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 23, 2005.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Doctor Who (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject BBC (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal. WikiProject icon
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

References for computer games[edit]

I was going to use The Eighties as a source for the "Key to Time" game, but it's not mentioned there. Does anyone have access to Howe's Transcendental Toybox, to see if it's mentioned there? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 02:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's something on the games. http://www.sci-fi-online.com/00_features/08-07-03_who-computer.htm Here's an online version of the classic BASIC Daleks game that was ported to just about every computer that had a BASIC language, though in many books and magazines it had no mention of Daleks or Dr. Who. http://complexityworkshop.com/sun/daleks/ I've been trying to find any version of the listing on the web but no luck yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

ANZ ad citation difficulties[edit]

I'm not happy with the citations for the use of the Daleks in the ANZ ad. I think that the citation for the ANZ — Advertising page is fine for establishing the verifiability of the statement that ANZ made an ad featuring the Daleks; the video is linked at the bottom of that page. (I considered using {{cite video}} and linking to the ad itself, but realized that I didn't have any information on the production of the ad, so the citation wouldn't be very complete.)

This is the site of the person who provided the props for the ad makers. I wanted to include that site because it gives the 2005 date for the ad, if you click on "Productions". But how do you indicate 'click on "Productions"' in the citation? Is there a standard way to cite Flash web pages?

Plus, the site doesn't give the author's name (though it does give an email and phone number). I'm tempted to send an email to find out the name, but of course that would amount to original research. Anybody have any suggestions on how to improve these citations? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 03:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved free-use image to infobox[edit]

[1] = Moved free-use image to infobox. Removed fair-use image. No need for fair-use image when there are multiple different available free-use images that are suitable (WP:NFCC#1). Cirt (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are not the original daleks; they are fan-made replicas. Really, you cannot use some mockup to represent the real deal. EdokterTalk 00:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of available free-use images of Daleks. Per WP:NFCC#1, there is simply no reason to have a fair-use image when there are free-use alternatives. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There are no free alternatives, as the appearance of the daleks themselves is subject to copyright; discussion is still pending on that. And remember WP:BRD; do not reinstate your edit when reverted; discuss first. EdokterTalk 00:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The same can be said for you, Edokter - except in your case across multiple pages you are attempting to go against WP:NFCC#1, which is very odd behavior for an admin. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I have explained repeatedly why NFCC#1 does not apply. Now you can keep on ignoring my explanation, or keep edit warring; your choice. EdokterTalk 00:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Pick another free-use alternative image. There is no reason to use a fair-use image. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no free use alternative; the free one is possibly a copyvio in itself, as it is a photographic representation of a copyrighted design. I have pointed you to the discussion where this is being discussed. Until that discssion is closed, no further changes should be made. Doing so only disrupts discussion. EdokterTalk 00:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
ROFLMAO to changing arguments mid-step. First the replacement free-use alternative is said by Edokter to not be accurate, then changes argument to claim "copyrighted design". Cirt (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
(←) Where did I change arguments? I explained repeatedly that photographed daleks are subject to copyright, thereby making it impossible to find a free replacement. And no, mockups cannot be used to depict the subject. Now come with some arguments instead if laughing as if someone actually said something stupid. EdokterTalk 01:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There are free-use alternatives. Perhaps you could suggest how we can bring the infobox image use in this article into compliance with WP:NFCC#1? Cirt (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't see any free-use alternatives personally. The Brighton image is a derivative work of the copyrighted design (and has been nominated for deletion). Any fan-made mockup would also be a derivative work. The only way I can think of a free image being made available is if a Dalek model properly owned by the BBC was permanently installed in a public place, at which stage a photograph made of it would not violate its copyright (s. 62, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988). Stifle (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Free-use image for infobox picture?[edit]

Should a free-use image be used for the infobox picture? 01:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: Please do not have threaded discussions in your individual subsection. Please only do that in the subsection, Further discussion. 02:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Previously involved editors[edit]

Comments from Cirt[edit]

  1. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is site policy on Wikipedia.
  2. WP:NFCC#1 states: No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available.
  3. There are free equivalents that could be used in the infobox to depict the subject matter "Daleks". [2]
  4. A fair-use image should not be used in the infobox. A free-use image is preferred, per Wikipedia site policy on image use.

Cirt (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Edokter[edit]

Cirt is wrong on point 3, making all other points moot. The Dalek is a copyrighted design, and any photographed Dalek automatically become a derivative work, and as such cannot be freely licensed. That means there is no free alternative available, hence NFCC#1 is satisfied. Note that any fan-made mockups are also possibly copyrighted, but these cannot be used to depict the original design; this article descibes the original Daleks made by the BBC, not hose made by fans. EdokterTalk 14:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors[edit]

Comments from Masem[edit]

Uh, I'm pretty sure it will be impossible to get a free image of a Dalek. Regardless if a WP editor took the picture themselves of a model they created, the work is derivative of the copyrighted Dalek design and would never be in the PD until normal copyright process has completed. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jclemens[edit]

  • comment a "free" image would depict a fan's interpretation of the copyrighted work, rather than the subject of the article. Are we sure that's really the best solution? Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Angus McLellan[edit]

I think the question cannot be answered definitively without more information and a lawyer.

commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom notes that English law has a broad definition compared to some jurisdictions. It quotes experts as saying: 'The expression "open to the public" presumably extends the section to premises to which the public are admitted only on licence or on payment'. If the BBC do tours, whether regularly scheduled or one-offs on special request, which take in prop stores where you can see a Dalek in its usual place of storage there seems to me to be at least a case for a free image being obtainable under circumstances where the photograph would be covered by section 62 and so be able to be released under a free license just as the fine picture of Gormley's Angel of the North which currently decorates my user page was. I'll confess that I'm easily baffled by questions about derivative works and freedom of panorama so that it's very possible that I am mistaken on some key point here - or talking mince as we say round here - but I do think this is something worth considering as a long-term solution. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Josiah Rowe[edit]

There are several intertwined issues here. First is whether any image of a Dalek can be considered free, since the Dalek design is owned by the BBC and the estate of Terry Nation. Second is whether a photograph of a fan-made Dalek, such as the ones seen in Image:Daleks in Brighton.jpg, can be considered "more free" than a screenshot from Doctor Who — does the presence of the Dalek make it a derivative work, or not? Is a derivative work considered just as unfree as a screenshot, or is there some gradation? Third is whether the potential inaccuracy of a fan-made replica presents significantly less encyclopedic value than a photograph or screenshot of an actual Dalek prop used in production. This last can probably be resolved if there is a consensus that Commons:File:DALEK.jpg is appropriately licensed; I believe that is one of the BBC props, not a replica.

IANAL, so I don't have the slightest clue what the answer to the first two issues is. But for what it's worth, the issue came up before at Commons here, and the image was deleted as a derivative work.

As for Angus' suggestion that a photograph could be taken during a tour of the Doctor Who studios in Cardiff (well, Upper Boat, really) — as far as I know, there are no regularly scheduled tours of those studios. There are occasional tours given as prizes to Blue Peter winners and the like, but I don't think that there's anything that could be considered "on license or on payment".—Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Elen of the Roads[edit]

From s62 of the current UK Act (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988)


Representation of certain artistic works on public display

(1) This section applies to—:(a) buildings, and

(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.

(2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—

(a) making a graphic work representing it,
(b) making a photograph or film of it, or
(c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it.

(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.

It follows that if one can find a permanent display featuring an actual Dalek, and the owner of the premises permits photography, provided one is in the UK one might be able to get a PD snap of a Dalek. It must however be an actual dalek, not a cut out poster, as one is claiming it is a work of artistic craftsmanship. Dalek fan art, however, is a breach of copyright, as this exemption does not cover making a derivative copy based on an idea.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion[edit]

I think Masem is correct. I'm not sure what the free image is that we're talking about, but it's probably an incorrectly licensed derivative work. I don't think freedom of panorama is going to cut it. A movie poster outside a theater does not become free. It's more for stuff like buildings. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I got some Dalek photos somewhere on my computer I took at ComiCon in San Diego, so I think that is what Cirt wants us to do. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that would present the same difficulties as the existing photographs. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Alright, just seeing if I could help. Really, the amount of images now in the article looks fine to me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Taken in San Diego, they would definitely not be usable, because the USA does not have the same exemption I mentioned above for works located permanently in a public place. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A possibly usable image[edit]

I'm waiting to see what the experts at Commons decide to do about this and this, but if those images are deleted we might still be able to use File:Dalek - Brighton.jpg as a free alternative. I think the question to be answered is whether the Brighton Doctor Who exhibit constituted a "permanent display". I don't know how long that exhibit was open for, and I think (although I'm not certain) that it's closed now. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Brighton Doctor Who exhibition ran from 14 May to 6 November 2005, and is now closed. It seems that the application of s62 The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 will hinge around the interpretation of permanence and the intentions (either explicit or implicit) of the exhibitors. Posters from the time refer to 'The Doctor Who Exhibition 2005' indicating a planned, comparatively short, duration. Most definitions of "permanently" don't really seem to apply in this case, unfortunately. Donlock (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks for checking that. So it looks like all the images of Daleks we have are fair use. Is the Cardiff Doctor Who exhibition more permanent? If there's a Dalek on display there, could we get a photo of it? --Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that the free use image should be added. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Which one do you mean? There are several options under discussion, and there are disputes over how free they really are. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 21:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a subsidiary issue to be taken into account when considering the suitability of photographs of Daleks displayed at Doctor Who Exhibitions (whether displayed permanently or otherwise). In some cases the Daleks in question are specially produced exhibition models and not the props seen in the TV show. Examination of photographs available from various sources on the net reveals that some examples have a number of detail differences from the screen props, particularly regarding the appendages. The encyclopaedic value of photographs of anything other the screen props has already been questioned in relation to fan-made replicas. The same may be true of some exhibition models, even if licensed. Donlock (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
RE User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe: I think that all images should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Quinn UK (talkcontribs) 14:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Jack Quinn UK (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Image update[edit]

The images under discussion at Commons (here and here) have been deleted, as they do not meet the requirements for freedom of panorama. I think the same is likely to be true of any photograph of a Dalek, unless we can find one on permanent display in a museum or something; which means that if we want to have any images of a Dalek (which I think we all agree is encyclopedically valid, since the article discusses the elements of the Dalek design), they've got to be nonfree images. So the screenshots are OK. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 13:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Human dalek.jpg[edit]

This non-free image is currently being used in four articles, including this one. This seems far from being a minimal use of non-free content. Once would be enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. That is indeed stretching use of non-free content way too far. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The number of non-free images only matters per article. This article may have too many (and it does), but the fact that the Human dalek.jpg is used in four articles doesn't matter. Minimal use pertains to a minimum per article, not a minimum of uses total. If four (say) non free images are going to be used in four different articles, it's actually better that they all be the same one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, as far as this particular article goes - I agree with you that it has too many nonfree images used. Cirt (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
If you want to get technical, there are some fair use images administrators are notified about because of their use in many articles. I notice this for articles related to TV stations, radio stations and other media outlets. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, this article probably has too many FU images, but how can we constructively reduce the number? I haven't read it, but generally we should keep the ones that are discussed in reliable sources and remove the rest. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually think this image should go. The only mention about the Black Dalek is just in that section about Fictional history and that is it. There is no commentary about his appearance at all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this comment by Zscout370 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what search terms we could use to see if the image, or what the image depicts, has received coverage or not? I'm not a bit DW guy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I can recall two ways in which this image (or subjects closely related to it) received some out-of-universe coverage: there was some discussion when the Radio Times placed this picture (or a similar picture of the Dalek/human hybrid) on its cover prior to the airing of the first part of the episode, thus "spoiling" the episode's cliffhanger ending, and after the episode aired, I think there was some tut-tutting by the more conservative tabloids about whether the Dalek/human creature was too frightening for the youngest members of the Doctor Who audience. I could try to search for news articles related to these, but frankly I don't think that either is terribly important in the larger context of Doctor Who. I wouldn't object to the image being removed from this article. The other non-free image that I think could probably be removed is File:Dalekattackgame.jpg; I don't think it adds much to the article (especially since the section on computer games still needs better citations). —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 14:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy Rewse-Davies[edit]

An anonymous editor recently added Jeremy Rewse-Davies as the co-designer of the Dalek prop. I'd never heard of him, but a quick Google search found this article from The Independent which describes him (in passing) as the Daleks' co-designer. All the references I own credit Cusick alone. I've added the Indy citation in the opening section, and added this sentence to the "History" section, with references for each clause:

Cusick is generally given sole credit for the design of the Dalek, but Jeremy Rewse-Davies is occasionally described as the Daleks' co-designer.

Does this seem appropriate? Given the silence of the most reliable sources on Rewse-Davies' role, should he be mentioned in the lede? Or is the sentence in the "History" section enough? Does anyone know any more about this person and his role in designing the Daleks? (I'm guessing that he was another designer working for the BBC at the time, who may have assisted Cusick or something — but I'd like to know more.) —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 18:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The only other reference to Mr. Rewse-Davies' association with Daleks I can find (beside the Independent article) is an entry in Debretts, which states under Career: prodn designer BBC TV 1964-74 (jtly designed Dr Who Daleks)[3] This doesn't stack up. The first appearance of a Dalek (albeit only a plunger) was on a Dr. Who episode screened 21 December 1963. I haven't been able to establish a precise time line, but obviously the design and construction of the props must have commenced some weeks before transmission. There is at least one authenticated early design drawing in existence, headed 20th Nov Dr Who No 2 Series B, for instance. On the available evidence, it thus appears that Mr. Rewse-Davies' position with the BBC commenced after the Daleks props had been designed and built. I don't proclaim myself to be a Dalek expert but I do have a keen interest going back over decades, and I've never heard of Mr. Rewse-Davies being connected with Daleks before. Of course all of this means nothing other than that perhaps a little caution needs to be exercised regarding this attribution until further information comes to light. Even if The Independent and Debretts are acceptable as sources, in this instance the accuracy of their statements regarding Mr. Rewse-Davis co-designing the Daleks seems questionable. If it's to be included in the article then I think, at least for the time being, it should be presented as such. Donlock (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Between 1964 and 1974, when Debretts says Mr. Rewse-Davies was a production designer for the BBC, there were ten Doctor Who serials featuring the Daleks. I've checked the crew details for each of these serials as given at the BBC's 'Doctor Who: The Classic Series' website.[4] Jeremy Rewse-Davies isn't listed as a production designer, or in any other capacity, for any of them. Neither does he appear in the credits for 1963's 'The Daleks', their first outing. After a disgracefully long period of silence the BBC finally acknowledged Ray Cusick as being responsible for the Dalek design. Never a mention of any contribution by Mr. Rewse-Davies. It's possible that The Independent picked up on the Dalek joint-design reference from Debretts when researching their article; I can't find it anywhere else. I would suggest that the accuracy of the Debretts entry, in the face of all the information to the contrary, is questionable at best. As things stand I think that even including mention in the article of Jeremy Rewse-Davies "occasionally (being) described as the Daleks' co-designer" is in danger of giving far too much weight to what may be a single uncorroborated source of (in this instance) dubious accuracy. Donlock (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all the hard work in your research! I agree that Rewse-Davies should be removed until (if and when) a more solid source appears. DonQuixote (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I also agree, and have removed the mention in the lede and (for now) commented out the mention in the "History" section. I also second DonQuixote's thanks to Donlock for doing the research on this! —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Debretts may be relying on Mr Rewse-Davies for their information - most of what they publish is supplied by the subject.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

An additional bit of information. According to The Official Doctor Who & the Daleks Book Ray Cusick was the designer for every episode of the Dalek's first serial, The Daleks, except episode 6 where it was Jeremy Davis.(Peel, John; Nation, Terry (1988). The Official Doctor Who & the Daleks Book. New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 13. ISBN 0-312-02264-6) The similarity in names is probably purely coincidental and still gives no credence to JR-D having anything to do with designing the Daleks, but I thought I would raise this in case it gets mentioned again at some point in the future. Donlock (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy Rewse-Davies was credited on the BBC credits as a set and prop designer for the era. However at the time you will find he went by the name of Jeremy Davies. A look at official bbc credits for Dr. Who (available online) show this. He also worked on many other shows at the time such as Z Cars. He will also shortly be appearing in an interview for a release of Dr. Who classic series on dvd. I can confirm that Jeremy Rewse-Davies was the co-designer of the Daleks, though as at the time he was the less senior of the two designers, he was not given as much credit - or in many cases none at all if many internet sources are to be believed. Added by Zander Rewse-Davies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.74.167 (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Screensaver[edit]

I've been able to find citations for most of the computer games, but I still can't find any references to the one that supposedly has a "K-9 versus Daleks" game embedded in it. Does anyone know whether it's one of the ones found here on the BBC's site? I can't install them myself to see whether any of them is the one being referred to, and absent a reliable source I'm removing the sentence. If anyone can find a source discussing the K9/Dalek game, this sentence can be restored to the article:

In 1998 the BBC released a Doctor Who screensaver done in Macromedia Shockwave which had a built-in minigame, where the player controlled K-9 battling the Daleks through seven increasingly difficult levels.

Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 10:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave Allen[edit]

I haven't been able to find a source which discusses the Dave Allen sketch. The sketch itself is on YouTube here, but I don't think we can use that as a source, because it's a copyright violation. Can anyone else find a source discussing this? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 10:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody's been able to provide a better citation for this, I'm removing it for the time being:

One sketch on Dave Allen At Large portrayed a baptismal font behaving like a Dalek.

If anyone can find a mention of this sketch in a reliable source, we can restore this. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 23:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed from "Music"[edit]

I'm removing the following from the "Music" section, as it seems a bit too trivial to mention that various musicians have nicknamed technical equipment as "Dalek":

As part of their light show in the 1960s, Pink Floyd used a light which they dubbed the "Dalek", due to its erratic behaviour and tendency to break down.[1]
On Muse's Absolution tour in 2004, Matt Bellamy used a Kawai MP9500 piano which they nicknamed "The Dalek" due to its appearance; it was mounted on a metal podium and had LED lights to synch with the MIDI keyboard and the stage lights.[2]

  1. ^ McHugh, Catherine (September 1994). "Welcome to the machine". Lighting Dimensions. Retrieved 2007-01-21. 
  2. ^ "Keyboards - Muse Wiki". Retrieved 2009-12-16. 

If anyone feels that these belong in the article, feel free to discuss it here.—Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

New Dalek Image[edit]

In "Victory of the Daleks" a new design of Dalek appeared. It would be helpful to have an image of the mentioned Dalek. It's a pretty radical re-design, so we should put in an image so the viewer can clearly see the differences betweeen the old version and the new version. 86.28.171.246 (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, looks like the image has been placed. Thanks to the person who uploaded it. 86.28.171.246 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

i know what you mean. by the way,if you asked, that type of dalek's name is a "new paradgrim dalek". by the way,i like the design too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdude122 (talkcontribs) 21:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate IP claim[edit]

I removed:

The word and Dalek image have been copyrighted by the BBC, whilst the rights to the Dalek concept reside with the (Terry) Nation estate.

Clearly this is incorrect. You can't copyright words (and you don't "copyright" things as an active verb anyway, they either are or are not). There's no IP in a "concept", so its unclear what Terry Nation is claimed to have, and as to the "Dalek image" you can only have copyright in a specific image or images. The BBC might be able to stop me using pictures of Daleks that I have taken on the ground that it infringes (say) copyright in the design drawings of the Dalek, but that's another matter. Doubtless there are trade marks and possibly design rights here, perhaps someone who knows about Daleks can put in the correct information? Francis Davey (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the IP's information is substantially correct. The BBC had to negotiate with Nation's estate to relaunch the Daleks in the film. Nation owned the IP rights in the concept of the Daleks, and the BBC used them with Nation's consent.
It is perfectly possible to copyright a "thing", if that "thing" has been designed. The BBC holds the copyright to all the Dalek designs, all the plans and the Dalek builds - (and all the screenshots of Daleks that are or were in this article). If you built something that looks vaguely Dalek-y the BBC and the Terry Nation estate could both sue you.
No, copyright might subsist in a work of artistic craftsmanship or an artistic work, the latter including the design drawings of the Dalek, it is also possible to have one of four possible "design rights" in a design. None of these are ownership of the idea of a Dalek. I am not disputing that if I built a Dalek, the BBC and/or someone else might be able to successfully sue me, but the sentence I removed was incorrect and the true situation is unclear and unknown to me. If you have some cited materials that would be useful as it would enable me at least to appreciate what rights Terry Nation might have. Francis Davey (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of references actually in the article, including a reference to the BBC and the Nation estate falling out over reintroducing the Daleks in New Who. What you may not be taking into consideration is that the Daleks exist as a work of fiction as well as the plans and builds. Basically, Nation 'created the story' of the Daleks, and wrote the first script in which they appeared (in fact, he wrote the first several scripts). Forgive me if I'm wrong, but under the Berne Convention, this would give Nation the right to be recognised as the author of the fictional conceit that is the Daleks. Further, the Berne Convention provides 6(1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. I would anticipate this plays a part in the relationship between the Nation estate and the BBC.


It is also perfectly possible to copyright a made up word, and my understanding is the BBC owns the copyright on the name. This doesn't stop it being used to describe the Mk 3 Travel Machines, but it would stop it being used for example by Dyson as the name for his new vacuum cleaner. The IP's statement should probably be put back. If you are interested in copyright legislation, you might perhaps find it helpful to read around the many wikipedia articles pertaining to copyright - there's piles of stuff.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I am an intellectual property lawyer with a specialist expertise in copyright law, so what I say is not without the benefit of some background knowledge. The Court of Appeal's view in Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] Ch. 119 was that copyright could not subsist in a single word because it would not be a literary work. My understanding is that is still good law. The BBC may have a trade mark in the word "Dalek" (I'd be surprised if they don't) but that is quite another matter. If you have a citation that demonstrates they do, then its worth putting in the article, but that doesn't change the incorrectness of what was written there. Francis Davey (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you are almost certainly correct with regard to the trademarking of 'Dalek'. However, I am not convinced that made-up words that are part of a literary work (as is the case with Dalek - see above) do not have the protection of law. Christopher Tolkien has probably trademarked every word his father ever wrote by now, but even before that, I am not convinced that I could have marketed the Bombadil range of hiking boots without getting a cease and desist from the lawyers of George Allen & Unwin.
Having read the article, it appears that the removed statement was superfluous, as it already says in several places in the article that Nation and the BBC jointly own the copyright (also see here re Nation and the Beeb suing you if you build a Dalek). Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Romans were better[edit]

I think it is worth mentioning that the Romans were a better military machine in the history of the universe than the Daleks, as stated in Season 5, Episode 12, The Pandorica Opens. felinoel (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that was just a joke/play on the historical description of the Romans. Not a literal fact. Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a fact anyway, just a statement of analysis by the Doctor. Even if we accept the Doctor meant his words in earnest, it would be justification for saying that the Doctor thinks the Romans are a better military machine than the Daleks, but not for saying that the Romans are a better military machine. Binabik80 (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

i believe, personally, he was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdude122 (talkcontribs) 21:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

STONE DALEK[edit]

It wasn't Amy's memories that brought the Dalek back to life. The Dalek was re-energised by the restoration field of the Pandorica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.148.136 (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done DonQuixote (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

i don't think we need to know that. some say it was amy's memories,some say otherwise.

Reception section[edit]

Thoughts: This article is sorely lacking a reception section. For example, the mention of some poll which the Daleks topped looks misplaced in the lead. Rather, the lead should summarise a much more competent reception section at the bottom of the article. Given how many reviews talk about
1. the Daleks generally,
2. Dalek fatigue,
3. Dalek anticipation, and whatnot,
4. how many "Favourite monster" polls there are (both in and outside of Doctor Who fandom)
5. and the sales of Dalek merchandise,
...it shouldn't be hard for someone who cares to compile such a section. I don't, though.~ZytheTalk to me! 23:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Voices[edit]

Just noticed this in the opening

Their famous catchphrase is "Exterminate!", with each syllable individually synthesised in a frantic electronic voice.

And wondered if it should read, "...each syllable individually emphasised in a frantic synthesised voice..."

As it reads it sounds like each syllable is treated with a different vocal effect. I would go ahead and change it but don't want to step on anyone's toes. 119.15.65.1 (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Pronounce[edit]

Does anybody else think the pronunciation .ogg should be an actual dalek voice? 207.118.34.58 (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No. It shoult remain a human pronounciation. EdokterTalk 14:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Guest Appearance on The Late Late show with Craig Ferguson[edit]

The past episode and tonights of the late late show have featured a dalek on the set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.221.217 (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but everywhere anyone who plays the Doctor goes there's always either a TARDIS or Dalek. It would be tedious to list every single one of them. Crimsonraptor (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Pornography[edit]

Is this really relevant ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.26.160 (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fictional Species?[edit]

Do the Daleks count as a fictional species? Isn't the species name either Dals or Kaleds? 92.7.185.27 (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dalek Voice Creation[edit]

In the 1970s I got a letter from Dick Mills of the BBC Radiophonic Workshop informing me of how the Dalek voice was made. It included a photocopy of a circuit board with transistors and a circuit diagram.

I later discovered it was directly taken from the magazine Practical Electronics issue #1 dated November 1964. There is a circuit diagram for a Rolf Harris electronic 'didgeridoo'. AKA a Ring Modulator by any other name. The text in the magazine suggested it could be used in creating robot voices.

Did the Radiophonic people take this project and make the famous Dalek voice from it?

--Quatermass (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No (unless they had a time machine), because November 1964 would be one year too late. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If you listen to the first Dalek story you may notice that the Dalek voices are not ring modulated. I suspect that the demand from viewers on how the Dalek sound was created caused them to make a general explanation letter to pass on to the public?

Dick Mills did say personally to me some years ago that he noticed the circuit diagram in PE, tried it and used it for a time. But was vague about how long for. (Not surprising, given the length of time has past.) --Quatermass (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Daleks in other media[edit]

No mention of the use of Daleks in the theatre? I'm sure there have been several plays with Daleks in them. Heck, one even had Jon Pertwee playing the Doctor!

I was involved with the 1984 Edinburgh Fringe play Recall U.N.I.T. (by Richard Franklin) in which a Dalek appeared with permission from Terry Nation/BBC. John Scott Martin did the voice. --Quatermass (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Dr Who Daleks lost and found[edit]

I thought it would be interesting to add this or another part of the Dr Who section.

A Dalek from Dr Who was found submerged in a pond by volunteers enlisted to clear it of rubbish.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/doctor-who/4935903/Dr-Who-Dalek-found-in-pond.html Articseahorse (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, I am surprised there is no mention in the article of the theft of 3 Daleks in the 1970s from BBC Television Centre. The show Blue Peter put out an appeal to all viewers to look out for them, and amazingly they were recovered within 24 hours. It was big news at the time. Not sure what section that should go in though...suggestions? Tweesdad 22:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Recovered Daleks? Thanks Jenova20 (email) 22:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Appearances and disappearances? ;) The recovery of the Dalek head from a pond is now thought to be a hoax, staged using a fan-built component, I believe. I don't think it's notable unless definitive confirmation of its provenance as an actual screen-used prop can be sourced and cited. The 1973 theft was widely reported at the time and has since been well-documented, including as a special feature on the BBC's Planet of the Daleks DVD. Probably worth a mention if it can be shoe-horned in somewhere. Bowdenford (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a mention under 'Full-size reproductions' ('The Dalek in the Pond (ref) is considered to be a hoax/construct' or somesuch). Or 'Genesis of the out of place artefact Daleks' (can't double direct the two references) 80.254.147.68 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Punch or Private Eye Cartoon?[edit]

I just corrected the page to reflect my memory - from reading the original magazine in a dentist's waiting room around the time of publication - of the cartoon of Daleks being stopped by stairs: punch.photoshelter.com/image/I0000ZvleumhOmDo ; this was listed as being published in the magazine 'Private Eye'. This is a possibility given the topics covered and the style of 'Private Eye', though it would be unusual while being and absolutely, completely in the scope & style of 'Punch'. Perhaps "Private Eye" printed a similar cartoon (or reprinted with permission - an event worthy of inclusion in the page if so) though that I am unaware of? Can anybody find a source for it? The 'Punch' cartoon was trivial to find with a Net Search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:1D:203:D4BE:FEEC:45C2:5D46 (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

OED definition[edit]

The following definition of dalek from the OED was added on 21 March 2010:

a type of robot appearing in ‘Dr. Who‘, a B.B.C. Television science-fiction programme; hence used allusively.

The title was amended on 24 January 2012 to read Doctor Who. "Sic " was added on 16 May 2012 after the word robot. The definition now reads:

a type of robot [sic] appearing in 'Doctor Who', a B.B.C. Television science-fiction programme; hence used allusively.

There does not appear to be any doubt that the word robot is faithfully reproduced from the original. However, sic is generally used to denote a spelling error or unusual presentation in the original, rather than errors of fact or disagreements of opinion. Notwithstanding that a dalek is not a robot, it is evident from the quotation that the word robot was used in the original definition, and therefore I don't think that the sic is needed in this case. (I acknowledge that the article at sic states: "use of sic may serve to draw the reader's attention to a factual or logical error"; however, this is tagged as needing a citation and I'm not convinced that this is correct or, at least, appropriate in this case.)

On the other hand, it would be appropriate to revert the wording Doctor Who to read Dr. Who to match the original text (if this is correct) and include sic in that case.

In any case, it might be worth checking the latest edition of the OED to see whether the definition has since been revised (and might no longer use robot). sroc 💬 04:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who: Greatest Monsters & Villains[edit]

Should something be added to this article about the Dalek's appearance in "Doctor Who: Greatest Monsters & Villains"? -GWires — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.188.204 (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC) yes,yes it should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdude122 (talkcontribs) 00:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.dalekvoices.co.nr
    Triggered by \bco\.nr\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Who invented the look of the Dalek? - Nikola Tesla ![edit]

Have a good look at these and then re-evaluate your beliefs.

http://www.institutotesla.org/
http://www.institutotesla.org/tech/tesla-letterhead.jpg
http://www.clipartillustration.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Tesla-Tower-on-White.jpg
http://www.reformation.org/nikola-tesla.html
http://www.reformation.org/e-tesla-world-system2.jpg

This is not a forum for general discussion about Daleks, so what has it got to do with the WP article? This is all pure speculation and WP:OR. The world is full of conical structures with lumps down the side, so thanks for providing additional confirmation (if any were needed) that the look of the Daleks was indeed 'invented' by Raymond Cusick. 86.157.166.241 (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Are Daleks child soldiers and fictional tanks?[edit]

The Daleks were never intended to sell cars; they are clearly based off of Nazi tanks. That Daleks are the single most talented species at tank piloting is what makes them horrifying. In Doomsday the tenth Doctor says, "Sealed inside your casing, no feeling anything, ever. From birth to death, locked inside a cold metal cage." No anime mech pilot has spent that much time piloting. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this Nazi tank assertion? I have seen numerous interviews and documentaries about their creation and this was never mentioned. They are neither of the things mentioned in your section header either. In reading your question you will want to read wikipedias policies regarding Original research and WP:SYNTHESIS MarnetteD | Talk 03:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Your attempts to rationalise the attribution to articles of the dozens of WP Templates you create is becoming ever more desperate and tenuous. Let us consider what you have written:
1. "...intended to sell cars". A comment masquerading as supporting logic for your argument where none exists. Where in the article is any claim made that Daleks have any similarity to car salesmen?
2. "...clearly based off of Nazi tanks". Unsupportable unless you can point toward some Nazi tank designs which show an unmistakeable similarity to Daleks, and/or can provide reliable sources where this identification has been made.
3. "...the single most talented species at tank piloting is what makes them horrifying". Your assertion, then, is that despite significant attempts by the media over the years to identify what makes Daleks such 'successful monsters', it is actually the result of the skill with which they are shown to maneuver their travel machines. One can only wonder how you feel about Zamboni drivers...
4. "No anime mech pilot has spent that much time piloting". This supports your argument how? Do you believe that categorisation as either a child soldier or a fictional tank is dependent upon time behind the wheel?
None of you comments address at all why you consider Daleks should be categorised as child soldiers. You appear to have a poor grasp of what 'child soldiers' means, how the addition of such templates to articles should function to assist and guide Wikipedia readers, or both. I also fully concur with what MarnetteD has advised regarding Original research and WP:SYNTHESIS. These matters have been raised with you before, both on article talk pages and your own talk page, and your activities have been the subject of discussion at ANI. This is not the application of censorship; people are trying to assist you to improve your editing skills in the best interests of the WP community. It really is time that you took this on board. Bowdenford (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Pic in infobox Apr 2014[edit]

Currently we have a pic of the 2010 redesign. While there was a plan to use this design in all subsequent episodes this was abandoned by "Asylum of the Daleks". I think we should have a pic from either the Classic series or from the current series before this change. Either one would be more representative of the overall look of the iconic creatures look. We could move the redesign version to the appropriate section in the article. Other input is welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 23:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The old one (File:Daleks appearence.jpg) was deleted since it was replaced. Tell me if I should reupload. Edokter (talk) — 23:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Edoktor. I think that would be a good idea. I just think that the infobox should have a pic of the Daleks that are (or were in the case of the Classic series) seen regularly. While the 2010 redesign is seen in the background of the 'Parliament of the Daleks' in "Asylum..." we haven't seen them since then. If you want to wait until others add their thoughts that is okay with me. MarnetteD | Talk 00:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Go for a montage that gives you both older and newer designs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry that we let the conversation go stale. @Edokter: if you could please put back the previous pic I think that would be great. If anyone else wants to work on a montage that would be fine as well but we should have a more representative pic of them as I suggested at the start of this conversation. MarnetteD|Talk 01:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
File has been restored. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 14:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming Dalek story[edit]

This article is about the Daleks in general. It is not a space to advertize the upcoming episode - which BTW wont be upcoming in a couple of weeks. Individual episodes are listed in the navbox at the bottom of the article and the next one is already there. MarnetteD|Talk 01:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Rusty as a nickname?[edit]

A minor point, but should the Doctor's use of the name 'Rusty' for the main antagonist in Into the Dalek be classified in the article as giving it a nickname, or just naming it? I would say it's the latter, because all of the dictionary sources I have consulted define 'nickname' as follows, or very similar.

1. A familiar or humorous name given to a person or thing instead of or as well as the real name.
2. A byname; a secondary name; a person's surname.

On that basis if Daleks don't have names in the first place (Cult of Skaro excepted) how can any name assigned to a Dalek be a nickname? 'Dalek' isn't a Dalek's name, it's what it is. 109.158.123.179 (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

All of this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH on your part. BTW he does refer to it as a Dalek earlier in the episode. MarnetteD|Talk 19:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
It's neither WP:OR or WP:SYNTH on my part. Since when did citing dictionary definitions in support of a proposal that a word is being used incorrectly qualify on either count? With the one exception quoted, throughout the history of Dalek appearances in the Doctor who programme they have remained nameless; that's an evidential fact, not research or synthesis. BTW nowhere have I claimed that he doesn't refer to it as a Dalek earlier in the episode; he does because that's what it is, not because it's name is 'Dalek'. I have dog but that's what it is, not what it's name is. (Actually it's name is Bentley. I've called it that several times earlier this evening, BTW. It remains a dog, however, and not a Bentley, no matter how much I might wish it otherwise). 109.158.123.179 (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
You are not making much sense. Rusty is a nickname because it's just what the Doctor decides to call him. The Dalek isn't actually called that. It's not like he's adopted and christened it. Mezigue (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying (except for the adoption and christening bit). The point I'm trying to make is that the definition of 'nickname' isn't just what somebody decides to call something. It's a name that's given instead of or as well as the real name. So, to qualify as a nickname, the person or thing needs to have a real name in the first place. Daleks don't have real names. They have a descriptive or species identification, 'Dalek', but that isn't any individual Dalek's name. Rusty isn't Dalek the Dalek, it's yet another nameless Dalek creature. That being the case I'm suggesting that while it's definitely been named, it can't have been nicknamed. 109.158.123.179 (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)