Talk:Dalek variants

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dalek variants article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Doctor Who Low‑importance

	Doctor Who portal 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.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dalek variants. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dalek variants at the Reference desk.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Dalek variants was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 22, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dalek variants/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WesleyDodds (talk · contribs) 06:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be reviewing this. Right off the bat I'm seeing some major issues. Details to follow.

I'm going to have to fail this. There are large unreferenced sections (note the "Overview", the second paragraph of "Mark I Daleks", and the last paragraph of "Mark II Daleks", for starters), huge reliance on in-universe fiction (episodes, books, etc.) for sourcing, not to mention the Dalek Autopsy and Dalek6388 websites, which are fansites and thus are not considered a reliable source. Reference formatting is erratic, too: date formatting is both of the "10 March 1973" and "1973-04-07" variety. More real-world information about the creation and propagation of these character variants is required. The article needs to be completely overhauled to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding writing about fiction, as well as dispense with all the sourcing to fansites, before it can pass GAN. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Order

I think the article should be re-ordered. It skips eras all over the place, dealing with 1970s Daleks and then jumping to more recent Daleks. I haven't watched all of these older stories, and I don't have any reference books, so I can't do it myself; however, someone with more knowledge must do an overhaul. 76.18.4.243 (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Must they? Perhaps you should read the article again. The focus is on the various Dalek types, not the chronological history of their appearances in various media. It tracks the development of the main variants in a logical manner and only 'skips eras' (if I understand correctly what you mean by that) where nothing of any note regarding the Dalek variants occurred. Further, although the article failed WP:GA review, the matter you have raised did not figure among the reasons. If you still feel that your proposal has merit then you should discuss your rationale for it here. I believe a change of the magnitude you are suggesting would certainly warrant debate and the establishment of a clear supporting consensus before it was implemented. Bowdenford (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dalek variants. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.longleatcyberman.com/TussaudsDalek/Home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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. Bowdenford (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dalek variants. 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/20150622150702/http://www.dwasonline.co.uk/node/760?cat=node%2F758 to https://www.dwasonline.co.uk/node/760?cat=node%2F758
Corrected formatting/usage for http://nzdwfc.tetrap.com/archive/tsv61/sevenkeys.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://nzdwfc.tetrap.com/archive/tsv44/darkdimension.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160808043653/http://www.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/dalek/types/ to https://www.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/dalek/types/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 19:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to Dalek variants

In the section General design/Casing, it should be mentioned that Dalekanium is also referred to in Day of the Daleks (1972).Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doen't appear to be the same stuff. In Day of the Daleks the term is used to refer to an extremely volatile explosive. I'm not going to attempt discussing a rationale for that as it crosses into an in universe perspective. Suffice to say it's yet another example of the programme's fact/continuity/history checker going AWOL during the screenplay read-through. Be that as it may, the substance in Day of the Daleks has no relevance to Dalek variants, the subject of this article. Nowhere does "dalekanium" require capitalisation unless at the start of a sentence, btw, in the same way that "plutonium", "aluminium" and "polytetrafluoroethylene" don't. Sprite96 (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date auditing

Hi, could we please let the system work as intended? Both bots and editors need to know when dates were audited. Chaos would ensue if there were no system to show when that process happened. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 15:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]