Talk:Death to the Daleks

Untitled

Stub created at temp page Tim! (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Episode 1 recovery

Nothing at the End of the Lane 2 contains the true story on the recovery, as part of Richard Molesworth's revisiting and updating his previous articles on the archive holdings. Back in about 1998/1999 this story first came out on rec.arts.drwho when the Restoration Team members admitted there had been a cover story that was now no longer needed. Timrollpickering 16:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. My original source for adding it was the original Archive Holdings articles from 1997 [1], which have been updated a bit since then, adding stuff like The Lion and Day of Armageddon, but still feature the Amateur Television Society story. BillyH 22:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

For a web source I've just checked the Google archives and there are two threads on this. This one from October 1998 corrected my assumption that the batch of videotapes was returned from Kuwait in 1993 (an article on the web had had the wrong info) and there are a few hints dropped (blatant in hindsight) that an episode might have been recovered from there. This thread from November 1999 saw the cover story dropped since the relevant people were no longer at the BBC. Timrollpickering 01:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating! But it's not clear from the links exactly why the cover story was needed in the first place. Can that be told, or is it still verboten? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Nothing at the End of the Lane, the "junior member of staff (who we'll call Mr X)" who spotted the tapes and found episode one of Death "didn't want to start throwing around accusations of incompetence" (i.e. that loads of money was spent to bring the tapes home, then leaving them in an external store in the rain and that they were to be disposed of without either checking to see if they contained any missing/superior quality material or informing the BBC Archive) and so smuggled out the one relevant tape (before anyone asks the collection didn't include Planet of the Daleks episode 3 - this is referenced multiple times). In turn a cover story was needed to hide Mr X's identity. Timrollpickering 02:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah! So the story was to protect the innocent (Mr. X) rather than the guilty (his superiors). And the "relevant people" who are no longer at the BBC — would those be Mr. X or his superiors? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea - but they wouldn't necessarily have even been his own superiors. The BBC structure is notoriously convoluted. I'd presume the "relevant people" would be whoever was responsible for doing bugger all with the tapes but that's mere speculation. Timrollpickering 11:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Last use of the original TARDIS console

Hello to all you good Dr Who wikipedians. There is a note here claiming that this story is the last time we see the original console. There is a note just like it in the note section for Inferno. Thus, one of these mentions must be in error, or at least referring to different console models. Unfortunately, all of my Dr Who reference books are in storage at the moment so I come to you in the hopes that one of you will be able to clear this up. MarnetteD | Talk 03:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A quick check of About Time reveals that Inferno was the last time we saw the original console. Now, About Time is known for the occasional factual error, but I believe in this case it is correct because by the time of The Three Doctors, the Second Doctor notes the redecoration of the console room, and the console controls have been changed around enough that he isn't quite sure how to operate it. Death to the Daleks takes place after that. I'll remove the note from here. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the TARDIS Console in Inferno, you can see it's a pale green colour. This was so it would not appear too bright on the black and white film that the eras of the first two Doctors were filmed in. Obviously when the series was filmed in colour from Season 7 on, the console could be a white colour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newrynyuck (talk • contribs) 16:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed a mistake in the plot

removed the sentence "taking with it the two Daleks who had ventured inside." from the plot. as the 2 daleks who entered the city did NOT died with it. they escaped the city after the Doctor. and later catches him hiding near their spacecraft.

Daleks in Manhattan is not a Dalek story

I noticed this in the continuity section.

"This is the only other story (next to Daleks in Manhattan) where the Daleks do not fire their energy weapon..."

Daleks in manhattan is not a story, it is an episode in a two part story in the same way that episode one of this story was only one part of the story. In other dalek "episodes" such as "The daleks" episode 1 and "Dalek invasion of earth" episode 1 the weapons are not fired, but they are fired in other episodes of the story. I feel that this statement should be reverted back to "This is the only story where the Daleks do not fire their energy weapon..." StuartDD 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Exxcity.jpg

Image:Exxcity.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Episode 1

This mentions that the original VHS release contained the only copy of part 1 available - minus it's opening scene. On the 1987 video, the opening scene was there. --82.0.207.86 (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Continuity section

Several editors have attempted to add continuity information to the article regarding mention of the events of 'Death to the Daleks' in the episode Asylum of the Daleks. This has consistently been reverted, however. Originally the reason given in September 2012 was that was that the edit was unsourced and contained incorrect information about the Dalek props. It was next reverted in October 2012 as still being unsourced. In October 2013 it was reverted again, with the summary stating "we decided more than a year ago that this was not relevant here". There is no indication of who the "we" referred to is, however, and neither is there any prior mention in a reverting edit summary or on this talk page regarding a decision about relevance regarding this matter. Most recently, a similar entry was reverted, stating "we agreed way back in September 2012 that this should not be included". Again, there is no information regarding who "we" is or when, where or how agreement was reached that the information should be excluded. A subsequent edit to add this information has now been reverted once more, with the summary simply saying "please stop adding that". In its latest form the the information is sourced, accurate and as relevant regarding continuity as anything else in the section. So, the question is, what's the problem? 86.160.232.4 (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

A continuity section is supposed to be for references within this story back to an earlier story. It is not supposed to be for references from a later story back to this one. Thus, it is permissible for our writeup of "Asylum of the Daleks" to mention "Death to the Daleks". Such content, if included, must also observe the core content policies of WP:NOR and WP:V. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

1. OK, based upon your rationale I've removed the reference to the story being mentioned in Pyramids of Mars, which post dates DttD.

2. You have raised the issue of compliance with WP:NOR and VP:V (sic), although I don't know why. Accepting that reference to the story being mentioned in Asylum of the Daleks is misplaced in the article continuity section, how does this constitute original research or fail to meet the test of verifiability?

3. As regards your edit summaries when reverting the addition of references to 'Asylum' in the continuity section, who are the 'we' that decided and agreed that this should not be included and when and where did that take place? Not on this talk page, apparently, which is where one would expect that sort of thing to be hashed out. Because, if there is no 'we' and/or that decision and agreement wasn't conducted with complete transparency so that other editors could chip in their ten penneth should they so wish, that's beginning to smack of WP:OWN, even if the requirements for inclusion in a continuity section are being correctly addressed. 86.160.232.4 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I've found this in the past - editors will revert on the basis of past discussion without referencing where that is, and act as if the person should know it with consideration of the possibility that they might be new and/or unfamiliar with it - even bordering on assuming bad faith as if the person is doing it deliberately rather than thinking "this person might be genuinely trying to help here". The issue here seems to have been sorted out [continuity is for previous things not future things] but I think there needs to be a wider look at how things are dealt with. Don't just go "this was discussed A YEAR ago" - the person may not have been there a year ago, and 'consensus can change' - actually take time to consider that the person may be unaware, is probably trying to help - and actually show the discussion in question. 213.104.176.176 (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Just as you say, 213.104.176.176, but there's more. Upon doing some checking it turns out this talk of only unidirectional, backward-facing continuity being allowed isn't the case. WP:WikiProject Doctor Who/MOS doesn't state that, and WP:MOS and WP:WAF don't mention continuity at all. Further, sampling various Doctor Who serial/episode articles, including at least one with WP:GA status, reveals that many include forward-facing continuity information. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here as examples. So, Redrose64, I'm asking again; why do you keep reverting reference to 'DttD' being mentioned in 'Asylum' when the original issues of inaccuracy and lack of sourcing have been fixed, it doesn't even come close to contravening WP:NOR and WP:V, and there are actually no constraints that I can find on continuity information referencing either earlier or later stories. Upon critical examination, none of the reasons you have given hold water and they are beginning to appear disingenuous at best. Also, I still wish to know, please, when, where and by whom the decisions and agreements you have cited regarding this matter were made. 86.160.232.4 (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall who told me that, perhaps it was MarnetteD (talk · contribs). Do you want me to go back through six years of edits made by other people to this page and others? WP:NOR and WP:V mean that you can't watch an episode and write "such-and-such happened which also happened in this other story" - what you need to do is find an independent source that has already commented on that. As far as "many include forward-facing continuity information" is concerned, see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I have followed your lead in this Redrose64 over the years so it must have originated with someone else. Continuity sections are magnets for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You are correct to point out that it needs to be noted in independent sources for inclusion in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 14:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

wait, what? - so you guys can't even remember where the basis for the 'consensus' you're reverting with came from? 2.122.164.63 (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC) [same user as 213.104.176.176, have moving IP]

ps - I'm not really making an argument either way on this issue - as I said I think this is more of a comment about the general workigns on wiki and something that people need to think about. 2.122.164.63 (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Forward-facing continuity. So, Redrose64, you now say that you have been reverting edits containing forward-facing continuity not on the basis that a decision or agreement had been made deprecating it, but because somebody told you that one had been. But you can't remember who that was, when or where. You will forgive me if I'm a little sceptical. The fact is that you have made claims based on this purported decision/agreement in edit summaries and on this talk page in support of your position and actions. I'm simply asking for the supporting evidence, because I can't find any and so far nobody else can either, including you. Consequently, if that decision/agreement was never made (whether or not you were 'misinformed') that does rather blow a large hole in your argument. I accept wholeheartedly that nothing in WP:Doctor Who MOS is graven in stone, but its the closest we've got to a 'bible' for writing articles about the programme. It contains nothing to indicate any problem with forward-facing continuity. Fact. That's good enough for me. Maybe it should be good enough for you too?

2. Independant sources. OK, I've found a reliable and independent source that can be cited for the 'Asylum' continuity (the BBC), so that takes care of the WP:NOR and WP:V issues.

3. OTHERSTUFF. You can quote WP:OTHERSTUFF all you like but it doesn't alter the fact that there's a plethora of Wikipedia Doctor Who serial and episode articles containing bidirectional continuity information. What this indicates is that bidirectional continuity information exists in many other DW articles, without problem or continued reversion. WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't support its exclusion from this one.

4. INDISCRIMINATE. Well, frankly that just seems like a complete red herring. Nobody here is promoting the indiscriminate inclusion of information. If you are going to base your argument around WP:INDISCRIMINATE, however, then the question to be answered is; what renders the 'Asylum' continuity information more indiscriminate than other entries in the section, to the point that its continued reversion is necessary? I really don't know; perhaps you would enlighten me?

5. Synthesis. I agree with MarnetteD that Continuity sections attract copious amounts of egregious WP:SYNTH. Surely nobody is maintaining that the inclusion of a simple, properly sourced statement that Exxilon is later mentioned in 'Asylum' constitutes synthesis, though? If they are, I would be grateful if somebody could lead me through that one, because I can't see it. 86.160.232.4 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As nobody has responded regarding the above points, I have reinstated the forward-facing continuity items, cited to independent sources. At the same time I have placed 'citation needed' tags on the rearward-facing continuity items, because you can't just watch an episode and write "such-and-such happened which also happened in this other story". Independent sources are required that have already commented on that. 86.160.232.4 (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Death to the Daleks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041212055435/http://www.gallifreyone.com:80/episode.php?id=xxx to http://gallifreyone.com/episode.php?id=xxx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)