Template talk:Dalek novels

This redirect 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.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who

Novels: Sci-fi

	Novels portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
	This redirect is supported by Science fiction task force.

Oringinal novels only?

I see my "good faith edit" has been reverted. I removed all the Target novelisations because they're television stories, rather than novels. It's ludicrous to include them. It's like including Mission to Magnus on a list of Ice Warriors TV stories. I'll revert it back a week from now if no further comment is made. --cartoonmoney (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it back. Please don't revert it back without discussion. --cartoonmoney (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the template is to provide a concise list of literary works of fiction in which Daleks have featured over the years. Whether those works are considered to be 'novels' or novelisations' is an irrelevance. To describe the inclusion of novelisations in the template as "ludicrous" is emotive hyperbole and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the purpose of the template. The use of such terminology is pushing POV, not reasoned argument. The analogy given fails because, whilst quite clearly 'Mission to Magnus' should have no place in a list of novelisations of broadcast Ice Warrior TV stories, this template isn't attempting to provide a list of novelisations of broadcast Dalek TV stories; its remit is wider. This template links into critical commentary regarding creative works featuring Daleks, and may be used and referenced in more than one article. Thus as with all templates, discussion should be entered into and consensus obtained before making significant editorial changes to either the format or content. Donlock (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the novelisations included, the template duplicates the majority of the content of Dalek Stories and to give a better analogy, Survial, The Five Doctors, Terror of the Autons and the rest of the pre-2005 portion of Master Stories aren't included on Master Novels either. --cartoonmoney (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your argument for excluding novelisations fails to address the primary purpose for which the template has been created, which is to provide a concise list of literary works of fiction in which Daleks have featured over the years. The fact that Master Novels doesn't include novelisations is, of itself, insufficient to establish this as an an exemplar on which other templates should be based. Indeed, I would argue strongly that novelisations should be be included in 'Master Novels'.

The listing of novelisations isn't duplication; broadcast television stories and novelisations of those stories are separate creative works in their own right. Your interpretation of 'duplication' and rationale for excluding novelisations on this basis has no more validity than excluding certain TV stories from a list of TV stories because they appear in a list of novelisations. Similarly, are you arguing that lists of available Doctor Who audio stories should exclude TV serial and stage play adaptations, or that a list of Doctor Who stage plays should exclude those which are TV serial adaptations? The application of your reasoning doesn't improve such lists, it merely renders them incomplete.

If you are unswayed by any of the above arguments then the simple answer is for you to create new templates for 'original works of fiction', which would meet the restrictive criteria you are attempting to impose. Article editors would then be able to choose which type of listing, complete or qualified, they feel is most appropriate and informative relative to the subject matter. Donlock (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion regarding the content of the 'Dalek novels' template have been advanced by two parties without agreement being reached. What remains is the fact that Cartoonmoney failed to engage in discussion before making significant editorial changes to the template which left it as a remnant of its previous form, failed to provide a rationale for those changes by way of an edit summary at the time of making those changes, and has failed to obtain consensus regarding those changes either prior or subsequent to the event. Pending something new and apposite being added to the debate, I'm reverting the template to its original state as this represents the status quo prior to Cartoonmoney making the disputed changes referred to. Donlock (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engines of War

Please ignore.

90.214.132.117 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2019 editions of Resurrection of the Daleks and Revelation of the Daleks

As both Resurrection of the Daleks and Revelation of the Daleks have now had official novelisations published by BBC books (with Target editions to follow this year), should these be added in addition to the unofficial TVS novelisations of these stories, or should they replace them given the fact the TVS versions were entirely unofficial and not mass produced? Dunarc (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]