Template talk:Dalek stories

Unnamed Section

I'm not sure that categorising them by Doctor is aesthetically pleasing. It's useful, sure, but it winds up, as you can see, with a gap where the Eighth Doctor stuff should be (barring audio plays). How about something on the lines of what is being done for the audio plays, like this? --khaosworks 01:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, khaoswork. it looks better that way- also, is Bad Wolf a dalek story? Sean 22:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Borderline, but since the Daleks are there throughout, just behind the scenes, and actually have dialogue, I'd say so. No less than Frontier in Space. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

What about the Fox movie? Granted they only have a cameo at the beginning, but if you read between the lines it could be argued that the Master and the Daleks might have conspired together. 23skidoo 16:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"If you read between the lines" says it all, really. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition of what this template contains

What about The Five Doctors? Not in the template, but it had a Dalek with a speaking role, or am I just dreaming? Though whether it ought to be listed under First or Fifth Doctor... :-) Stephenb (Talk) 17:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Five Doctors was definitely a Dalek story! A spekaing role, menacing both the Doctor and companion - how can you doubt it? Stephenb (Talk) 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Because one five-minute appearance does not a Dalek story make. It's more a Cyberman story than a Dalek one, more a Master story than a Dalek one, hell, the main villain is Borusa. It's no more a "Dalek story" than the appearance of the Dalek shell in The Space Museum. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is! The Dalek speaks and menaces. How do you define a "Dalek story"? Stephenb (Talk) 08:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

One where they actually participate in the plot or make an appearance that is actually significant rather than a cameo where one gets blown up in a matter of minutes. The Cybermen in this context had a much bigger role (thanks to, in the words of Uncle Terrance, "bloody Saward"). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Had a bigger role, yes, but a Dalek actually appears. It's a Dalek television story. Just because you don't think they appear for long enough doesn't change that. Stephenb (Talk) 09:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait for more opinions. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The contribution is very minor and I personally would ignore it equating it with any "flashback" scenes eg the Master at the end of The Caves of Androzani. GraemeLeggett 09:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my parting message to Khaosworks on his talk page - the template isn't "Significant Dalek television stories" - any user of the encyclopaedia looking for which stories the Daleks appeared in would not find The Five Doctors if it were left out, despite the fact that the Dalek is notable enough to be mentioned in the plot summary. Stephenb (Talk) 09:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd pedantry. Are we going to classify 'Dalek' as a Cyberman story now? It shouldn't be there on common-sense grounds and wordplay regarding whether it says 'significant' is silly. Morwen - Talk 11:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just like to point out that the template is Dalek stories and not Dalek appearances. DonQuixote 13:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not absurd pedantry. This is about whether the encyclopaedia is correct or not - not according to fan designations or what a group of fans has decided is significant or not, but what a non-fan might query for to get correct information. If they were looking for "What television stories the Daleks were in" (which is what the template appears to contain), then missing out on The Five Doctors is misleading. I'm not sure the use of "stories" distinguishes it enough from appearances; either way, The Five Doctors contains a story about the Doctor verses a Dalek - albeit 5 minutes long. It simply isn't clear from "Dalek television stories" that Wikipedia means "Television stories mostly about Daleks" Stephenb (Talk) 15:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little annoyed about the "common sense" point - to me, it is common sense that it should be in there! It's a television story! It has a Dalek in it! It moves and speaks and threatens and everything! It's therefore a Dalek television story! It seems that some people are too close to their own definitions to look at the wider picture - this isn't a fan encyclopaedia. Any impartial, non-fan editor in 500 years time who looked at the plot summary of The Five Doctors and then at the template would conclude that The Five Doctors should be in there... Not that I'm getting worked up about this at all! :-) Stephenb (Talk) 15:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

(9 indents)Perhaps we should open the discussion up by putting it on the main Doctor Who project page - any consensus reached would also serve as an example for any similar templates in future - eg "Sontaran stories" GraemeLeggett 15:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a Dalek story at all; seeing as how Skaro's finest only have as much screen time as the Yeti, and even the Raston Warrior Robot gets more screen time than Davros's progeny. It's a Cyberman and Master story, indubitably, because both have a significant impact on the story. BUT the Dalek that menaces Richard Hurdnall could just as easily have been an Ice Warrior, or (heaven forbid) a Taran Beast! NP Chilla 11:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You're all missing the point. It's not a Dalek story in the sense that it's about the Daleks, given, but it is a television story that features the Daleks. This comes down to the definition of this template. My argument is that the template's meaning is unclear - most non-fan readers would assume (and rightly, I believe) that the template would list all television stories featuring Daleks. Whether the appearance is significant or not is a point of view and ought to be frowned upon in Wikpedia. It is not a point of view as to whether the story features a Dalek, but is a fact. There is a possible compromise here: split the template into two sections (Stories) About the Daleks and (Stories) Featuring the Daleks? I believe any decision should be made by someone not involved with Doctor Who (i.e. a non-fan) - fans are too set in their ways (and likely to gang up behind any opinion leader). Stephenb (Talk) 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:TINC. So far everyone else but you seems to have a different opinion, though. Let's wait for some more. You're welcome to ask an objective non-fan to come in to offer their point of view. Not sure if Wikipedia:Third opinion criteria are satisfied because there's more than two parties involved, or you could post there. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - I'll wait awhile before asking a third party though. And don't worry - I'm not accusing anyone of being in a cabal - more that people tend to follow the easiest route in thinking (as in everything else in life) - i.e. follow the opinions of someone else who you trust and don't think much further about the argument the lesser-known editor is making. It's an undeliberate but subtle bias. And you're a pretty "big name" in Doctor Who on wikipedia :-) (Not that this makes you necessarily wrong or autocratic! I have no "beef" with you!) I'm aware that everyone else has been of a different opinion so far, but no-one has given a good enough reason why it shouldn't be there - just assertions of "common sense" and "insignificance", which are not an argument in themselves. Whereas I have given a very good reason why it should be in there - because it's a television story with the Dalek(s) in it! Anyway, I'll leave it for a few more days (there must be someone who can see my point of view on this!)... Stephenb (Talk) 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

NB: follow the opinions of someone else who you trust and don't think much further doesn't necessarily refer to any of the other posters above, but may simply refer to other readers who are not posting because "Khaosworks is obviously dealing with it". I know I've done the same in the past over other edits you've made. Stephenb (Talk) 17:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a good reason; that the story - the plot - doesn't involve the Daleks, so it's not a Dalek story. It's just a reason that you don't agree with, in the same way I don't agree with yours. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but there's the rub! The story does involve Daleks. The plot doesn't (arguably). You're own clarification shows that there is a problem with the template (Dalek television stories) not including The Five Doctors. As I say, it a question of definition - and story does not equate to plot! Stephenb (Talk) 09:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the point is that a story with a Dalek in it doesn't necessarily make it a Dalek story. Would you consider an episode of The Simpsons with the Doctor in it a 'Doctor Who story'? DonQuixote 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"A story with (one or more) Daleks in it" is exactly a "Dalek story". The Simpsons is a comedy, but if, say, Torchwood or even Spooks had The Doctor in it, I would consider it a '"Doctor story" (not a "Doctor Who story", since that's the title of the TV show). Wouldn't you?

To put it another way, if your mum was looking in Wikipedia to find all the stories that featured the Daleks to make up a list of DVDs for a young Dalek completist fan - "oh, here's a handy box," she thinks, "It tells me all the Dalek stories..." See the point? Stephenb (Talk) 14:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just as an aside, I note that The Five Doctors is listed in the category "Fourth Doctor serials" - come on, his appearance was hardly significant was it? It wasn't really a Fourth Doctor story at all! He was only on-screen for five minutes and contributed nothing to the plot... :-) :-) Stephenb (Talk) 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw man, really. He's in the title - it's not The Four Doctors plus one who doesn't do much. Of course it had something to do with the plot. The fact that he was trapped in that time eddy was an added factor of jeopardy for his other incarnations. Borusa - the main villain - wanted to grab him. Whereas the Dalek was just another of many monsters. I'm sorry, but this is simply getting us nowhere. You're still in a minority of one. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't notice the smileys, then? (And the Dalek wasn't "added factor of jeopardy for his other incarnations"?)

As to getting us nowhere - It's getting us nowhere because noone is actually considering my argument to any great degree - or at least, there's no evidence that anyone is tackling the major point:

"Dalek television stories" either equals "Television stories about the Daleks" or "Television stories with the Daleks". I'm arguing that it means the latter because that's the way most people would read it.

'About would narrow it down (to, um, coin a phrase) to something slightly less intuitive - it implies the reader knows what a "Dalek story" is - i.e. Daleks are integral to the plot, and don't just appear in the story.

I'm wating for the light bulb above other people's heads - I can understand the counter-argument, but I've seen no evidence that anyone understands mine (let alone agress with it!). Hence my over-arguing :-) Stephenb (Talk) 15:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your argument perfectly. I simply don't agree with it - just because other people don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand your argument. I don't think it's less intuitive at all: it's just plain English. You'll note that nobody else seems to have a problem with this except you, again, which kind of dampens your argument that "most people" would read it that way. I'm still waiting for that non-fan opinion, but I won't wait forever. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You say you understand my argument perfectly - but the only definition you've given for "Dalek television stories" is "One where they actually participate in the plot or make an appearance that is actually significant rather than a cameo where one gets blown up in a matter of minutes" - which is not really intuitive, is it? Plain English says to me that "Dalek television stories" is equal to "Television stories with Daleks in them". You disgree - so tell me why that isn't the case, in Plain English terms, and I might shut up! Stephenb (Talk) 17:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll give it a shot - "Dalek television stories" means that the Dalek(s) is/are entirely central to the plot and the story could not do without them. "Television stories with Daleks in them", by your own definition, means that any mention or slight appearance of the creatures would count (be it The Space Museum's five second cameo, or The Sensorites in-passing-mention of the beasts). The difference, I think, is now evident. :) NP Chilla 18:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll jump in on the minority opinion - I think The Five Doctors qualifies for the template. The Dalek isn't the primary villain, but its appearance does advance the plot (if I remember correctly, the explosion it causes blasts a hole in the wall, giving the Doctor and Susan a way out and showing them that they're in the Death Zone). Sure, other monsters could have done the same thing, but other monsters could have stood in for the Cybermen, and other renegade Time Lords could have stood in for the Master. This isn't a story primarily about the Daleks, but it is a Dalek story. --Brian Olsen 05:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Brian! NP Chilla - "Dalek television stories" means that the Dalek(s) is/are entirely central to the plot and the story could not do without them. - That's what, in Plain English the words "Dalek television stories" means, huh? Stephenb (Talk) 08:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Plain English is that "Dalek stories" means "Stories about the Daleks". As I've noted before, I'm quite happy taking away the Master and Cyberman templates, too. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't answer my question above does it?

You just restated your position that it means something else, and I know that!

I think you're reading too much into "Dalek stories" - nothing in that phrase says they're necessarily about the Daleks - but this is all old ground.

But I now want to understand why you think my understanding is wrong...

Why doesn't Dalek television stories equate to Television stories with Daleks?

If you could truly answer that question with something other than "it equals something else", I really might shut up! Stephenb (Talk) 09:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

How many people need to tell you that that is the common sense, plain English and most natural understanding of the phrase before you accept that? Common sense is by nature inexplicable - either you got it or you don't. Morwen - Talk 11:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read my last post? I get that people think that is the meaning! I can even see why! But what I don't get is why the other potential meaning couldn't also apply. I would have preferred if you'd tried actually answering the question rather than repeating points already made! That's all I wanted! Stephenb (Talk) 12:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Because "Television stories with Daleks" would be "Dalek appearances", not "Dalek stories". Dalek stories are in a narrower subset of the much broader category of Dalek appearances. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I disagree, most wholeheartedly, but thank you for actually tackling the ball and not the man. So "Dalek stories" are a narrower subset of "Television stories with Daleks". I just read that out loud to someone in the office and they though it sounded mad, but hey ho. OK, I accept that's the consensus, and consensus is how Wikipedia works, so I'll shut up, even though I still disagree. But for this parting thought: wouldn't the template be more useful if it were "Television stories with Daleks"? Stephenb (Talk) 12:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That would bring in The Space Museum and even The Wheel in Space since the end has a clip from The Evil of the Daleks, and the flashback sequences in Logopolis to Destiny of the Daleks, so... no. Not in my view. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Five Doctors is not a "Dalek story" in my opinion, any more than Dalek counts as a cyberman story, simply because Van Statten's museum contains an old cyberman head which the Doctor muses on for a few seconds. Doomsday, OTOH, clearly isone! (But not Army of Ghosts, IMHO) PaulHammond 20:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Dalek in The Five Doctors is new footage featuring a speaking and functioning Dalek. Comparing it to Dalek being a Cybermen story dosen't make sense.

Reaching an agreement on definition

I don't think we are going to get past this stale at the moment. I would like to find a way that we can sort it out. Now, Without discussing the actual arguments (in this section). Are any of these ideas useful -

Would a moratorium on discussion for (eg a week) help?

Is a simple vote on the inclusion of the episode in question acceptable?

Are there any other ideas on settling this?

GraemeLeggett 10:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Does it actually matter? Not really. Morwen - Talk 11:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor appearances?

What about adding a "minor appearances" section to the template, like on the newly created UNIT Stories? It would avoid the constant adding and deleting of "The Five Doctors," and we could include "The Space Museum" as well. (And possibly others I haven't thought of.) --Brian Olsen 18:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Oncoming Storm??

Why has this suddenly sprung up on the template? - NP Chilla 20:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I ripped it out. Unless they provide proof in the comments, it's just someone's wild fantasy. --74.134.252.119 01:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Frontier in Space

Is this going to be under Third Doctor stories or minor appearances? It's currently under both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

"Army of Ghosts" as a minor appearance

I originally put this in the minor appearance as in the episode, it is a minor appearance. Their appearance is similar to that of Frontier in Space - having a significant presence but don't appear much in the episode himself. While I know the template header says "stories", that's just to prevent a PoV by using "serial" or "episode". 82 also suggested in edit summaries, why we don't we split the First Doctor articles into the episode titles - basically because the BBC have given the serials overall official names.

I've got no objections against the forward slash for new series stories in two-parts, by the way. Just an objection against "Army of Ghosts" being a major appearance because its following episode is. Will ^(talk) 23:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I see! So Rise of the Cybermen is also a minor appearance, and The Age of Steel goes under Tenth Doctor stories, since we only see the Cybermen right near the end.

No, don't make scarecrows. The point's irrelevant, a Cyberman appears in the pre-credits sequence. The lack of Cybermen is because Cybus are building them, and we see that happening throughout the episode. Crane collects the homeless guys, converts them, they crash the Tyler residence. In Army of Ghosts, though, we have no idea at all that the Daleks are in the sphere. We only find out the second the Doctor does. Bad Wolf, though, is up for interpretation: their actual presence is around five or six of the episode, but that's due to Davies' use of dramatics. The Master only appears for five minutes in Utopia (again, written by Davies), but you wouldn't dream of not calling it a Master story. Will ^(talk) 23:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Human Nature?

If this is a reference to the picture in The Journal of Impossible Things then that is a REALLY minor reference isn't it? If that is going to be on here, so should "Invasion of the Bane" for the Dalek picture in SJS's attic. --GracieLizzie 23:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it refers to the flashback to the "Dalek" episode - but I don't think we should have flashbacks in the template. StuartDD 20:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Mawdryn Undead?

A while ago the template featured this under minor appearances, but now it's gone altogether. I don't know what role Dalek appearances played in that story because I haven't seen it. i just wondered if anyone could tell me the details of the demotion - or, for that matter, why it was initially included.

• A Dalek appears briefly during a flashback when the Brigadier regains his memory. I think it should be listed as a minor appearaance. Is there not also a similar brief appearance during the regeneration in Logopolis? 68.146.47.196 15:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I've added them both to a template. Might start an edit war, but that's boldness for you. (I'm the anonymous guy who stated this section, incidentally. I always forget the four tildes.) 85.92.173.186 22:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Italics

The Doctor Who wikiproject established a standard awhile ago that Doctor Who stories titles (and single episodes in the case of the new series) are italicized, so I made the appropriate change to the template. 68.146.47.196 15:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The current standard on old and new stories runs as follows:

Where mentioned in subsequent text, serial titles from the classic series should be italicised and reference should be made to the year it was broadcast (and/or which Doctor's era it belonged to). Episode titles from the new series and its spin-offs, as well as individual episodes within serials from the classic series, should be put in quotes.

So, I'm afraid I had to revert. Thanks, anyway. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Frontier in Space - not a minor appearance?

Why is Frontier in Space in the main list and not under "minor appearances" - there appearance on screen amounts to two very brief scenes, and is only as a lead into the next story. It isn't really any more "major" an appearance that the cliffhanger at The Space museum leading into the Chase - which also features Daleks. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Daleks were the employers of the Master who himself was the employer of the Ogrons. So it's not a literal "appearance", but it's an "appearance" in the sense that they were behind the whole plot of the serial. DonQuixote (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The End of Time?

The End of Time, in my view, qualifies as a minor appearance by the Daleks — not because of the saucers in the preview for Part Two (thank you, Maccy69, for correcting my impetuosity), but (having reviewed the episode) because of Donna's flashbacks in the final seconds of Part One, where we (briefly) glimpse the crazed Caan and exploding Dalek Supreme from "Journey's End". These images would surely justify this story's inclusion on the template if we are going with the rationale that flashbacks from previous stories count as "minor" appearances. If Logopolis is considered such an appearance simply for that one-second vision of a Dalek (re-used from Destiny of the Daleks, I think) saying "Doctor", and Mawdryn Undead counts because of the Brigadier's memory recall (meanwhile, in "Human Nature", the "appearance" in question is nothing more than a sketch in John Smith's journal), then, by reasonable extension, The End of Time should be included also since, as with the Brigadier, Donna's memories are returning to her. Of course, who knows whether or not there will be an unequivocal Dalek appearance (whether minor or not so minor) in the second part, in which case the addition could not be debated, but I believe that the story already satisfies the criteria for inclusion if the examples mentioned above are to remain on the template.

The problem, I suppose, is that some of the minor appearances are more minor than others, some (e.g. Logopolis, Mawdryn Undead) being mere flashbacks using recycled footage, others (e.g. The Five Doctors, "The Waters of Mars") being specially shot, fleshed-out parts. The End of Time is currently on the Davros stories template (Davros also appearing in flashback at the end of Part One); I don't see why it cannot also be considered a minor Dalek appearance for this reason. SuperMarioMan (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was no sign of any Daleks in Part Two, but the point about Part One still stands — it contains a brief flashback just like Logopolis and Mawdryn Undead, so should be included on the template. SuperMarioMan (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The flashback in question lasts exactly 0.2 seconds, this doesn't even constitute any appearance. Freeze-frame flashbacks that do not have any connection to the story should not be included. — Edokter • Talk • 21:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how 0.2 seconds can be considered too short to even be minor (minor doesn't exactly have a lower limit), nor do I see how this flashback was any less connected to the story than all the other minor appearances that are simply flashbacks. 90.210.193.88 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Series 5 finale status

Don't the Daleks technically count as the enemies in the series 5 finale? It might be thought to be an unreliable website, because, of course, it can be changed by anyone, but the Doctor Who Wiki considers the Stone Dalek to be one of the two main enemies in the episode, therefore 'The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang' belongs in the 'Eleventh Doctor' section, not 'minor appearances'. Boushenheiser (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi protected

Semi protected for three days. If involved parties cannot agree on which stories are minor appearences, it is going to be fully protected permanently. — Edokter (talk) — 22:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Day of the Doctor

Is The Day of the Doctor really a minor appearance? Daleks are central to the plot.--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There are so many other elements in this episode which could be categorised as 'central to the plot' that I believe categorising it as a minor Dalek appearance is correct. The Daleks don't actively drive the primary narrative threads in this story, their involvement introduces little new to any of the story arcs, they are no more central to it than the Time War, the Time Lords or the conflicted War Doctor, and their on-screen time is fairly limited. Bowdenford (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The same can be said of Time of the Doctor then, which should be moved to the minor appearances, too. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm bringing this to the Talk Page as per DonQuixote's advice re WP:BRD. Edokter, I would be grateful if you could explain your rationale for the categorisation of The Day of the Doctor as a major, rather than minor, Dalek appearance. It doesn't appear that way to me, for the reasons put forward by Bowdenford above among others. 86.159.46.35 (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the question to be asked is: what constitutes a minor appearence. My definition is when they have no influence on the plot. For instance, the Cyberman head in "Dalek". In "The Day of the Doctor", they are a driving plot element; billions of them are attacking Gallifrey. Screen-time is not the sole criterium here. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Categorisation of "The Pandorica Opens"

I would be grateful if someone could explain why the episode "The Pandorica Opens" isn't being categorised as a minor Dalek appearance? The Daleks aren't central to the plot and are only seen on screen for a short time. The edit summary for a recent reversion by DonQuixote, that linked-episodes need to remain grouped together, holds no water as other linked episodes have been separated without problem ( "Bad Wolf"/"The Parting of the Ways" and "Army of Ghosts"/"Doomsday" ). Unfortunately the logic is escaping me, and reversions simply asking me to stop and take a hint without explaining why "The Pandorica Opens" doesn't qualify as minor, or referring the matter to this talk page for discussion, are doing nothing to improve my understanding. 86.157.166.241 (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The previous version had the multi-episodes grouped together. I was working with that in mind. Someone must have changed it just recently. Personally, I don't mind one way or the other as long as it's consistent. DonQuixote (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, which is appreciated. I think splitting linked episodes has actually been used in the template for some time, but it's difficult to keep track due to frequent reversions. Introduced to resolve a problem, the 'Minor Dalek Appearances' category instead seems to have caused more. I would wholeheartedly agree that, however it is applied, consistency should be a guiding principle. That said, there seems to be a real problem with determining what constitutes a minor appearance. I would like to suggest further discussion to see if consensus can be reached regarding a definition which editors can refer to for guidance (even if they subsequently choose to ignore it!). I think this would be useful if the 'Minor Dalek Appearances' category is to be retained, to help prevent the current version yo-yoing, much of which seems to revolve around this very issue. Perhaps using something such as the rationale for the 'minor' categorisation given for The Day of the Doctor above as a jumping-off point for discussion? 86.157.166.241 (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Any appearance of Daleks that are not in integral part of the plot should be considered minor. In the case of "The Pandorica Opens", they are an integral part, so that is not a minor appearance. — Edokter (talk) — 13:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

First, as the record will indicate, I am not 'edit warring' as your recent article edit summary states. Not even coming close to it by any commonly accepted WP understanding of the term. Second, you are of course entitled to your opinion regarding how the minor/major split should be defined, but that's all it is unless you can direct me to the record of a pre-existing consensus regarding this matter. Using that as the basis for categorisation, however, please explain in what way Daleks are integral to the plot of "The Pandorica Opens"? They are just one of many species shown to be present. They are not described as orchestrating the events, do not take a lead in them and the episode could easily function without problem if their few, brief appearances were edited-out entirely. By your logic is not Frontier in Space an even better candidate for classification as a major Dalek story, because the Daleks are responsible for orchestrating the war between Earth and Draconia which that serial addresses, and are thus integral to events? 86.167.164.106 (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

They take an equal part in the plot aginst the Doctor to lock him away. Also, we tend not to break up (multi-part) stories as they form a whole. — Edokter (talk) — 22:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Taking an equal but minor part, perhaps. In any event, the equality of any given creature's or character's contribution to a plot is not synonymous with it being integral, which is what you now appear to be arguing. Further, your assertion that "The Pandorica Opens" should be categorised as a major appearance to prevent splitting it from the second part of the tale (due, so you claim, to a tendency not to break up multi-part stories) does not stand up to even cursory examination. A 'tendency' is not a rule or even a guideline, and clearly the template does currently embrace the splitting of multi-part stories dependant upon their minor/major categorisation. So I ask again, please, what logical basis is there for classifying "The Pandorica Opens" as a major Dalek appearance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.164.106 (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I already stated what constitutes a minor appearance above. Your classification seems to be based entirely on screen time; that is not the defining factor here. In fact, I cannot make out why you think it is a minor appearance. — Edokter (talk) — 10:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You have stated what, in your opinion, constitutes a minor appearance. I have examined this talk page and can find nothing approaching a consensus definition. This debate will advance more productively if you cease representing your claims as something other than your perspective regarding the matter. Neither am I arguing for screen-time being the defining factor. I continue to doubt that "The Pandorica Opens" is a major appearance because I have raised reasonable questions regarding the rationale(s) you have provided (and upon which, apparently, you wish me to rely) and thus far you have resolutely failed to address them. So, once more unto the breach...

• You say that the episode should be classified as a major Dalek appearance on the basis that Daleks are integral to the plot. I have responded that claiming this to be the defining factor is your personal preference, not a consensus view. Further, I contend that, if taking 'integral' to mean essential or necessary to the whole, Daleks are not integral as their removal would not cause the episode storyline to fail or otherwise suffer any meaningful detriment. You have not answered these points.

• You say that the episode should be classified as a major Dalek appearance because Daleks take an equal part in the story with other species. I have countered that equal prominence is no logical measure of a part being either integral or major. You have not answered this point.

• You say that the episode classification should depend upon keeping it together with a linked episode which is a major appearance, due to a 'tendency' to do this. I say that a tendency (assuming this could be proven) doesn't even equate to a guideline, and the template already contains examples of split multi-part episodes. I am thus unable to see the logic in your argument which would lead to "The Pandorica Opens" being treated differently.

I hope the above clarifies why I do not currently think "The Pandorica Opens" qualifies as a major appearance. There may still be a good case to be made, but I have yet to find the reasons you have provided persuasive. 86.167.164.106 (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have requested some more input from the project. I am not going to get into a discussion where my opinions are disregarded as prima facie invalid. Fact is, you are the only one wanting this change, which means the burden of gaining consensus lies with you. — Edokter (talk) — 23:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You do know what prima facie means, don't you? Nowhere have I discounted your opinions 'at first sight', out of hand, or responded to them without consideration. I have examined what you have said carefully and, where I have been unable follow the logic of your argument, I have asked for clarification. That, I thought, was the Wikipedian way to resolve differences in editors' points of view. It is unfortunate that you now seem reluctant or unable to engage in this process. I would also take issue with your comment regarding my being the ' only one wanting this change ', and the burden for obtaining consensus being mine. First, simply because I am debating this matter doesn't mean that I am the only one who sees any merit in the position I have posited; that's a very large assumption on your part. Second, as no consensus currently seems to exist regarding the categorisation of minor Dalek appearances, surely the 'burden' falls to everyone involved in the debate, not a single individual? All of this seems in danger of obscuring the fact, however, that what we actually have at the moment is two editors with opposing points of view. One has, in good faith, attempted to understand the other's stance and logic. The other, it would seem, holds that his own opinion should take precedence without being questioned and, if it is, refuses to elucidate regarding points which their counterpart cannot understand. Bravo; I will look forward to 'some more input regarding this matter from the project' directly, and will gracefully retire from the field should they find in your favour. Be that as it may, the way you have responded to me seems a long way from the Wikipedian ideals of collaborative and collegiate editing, and does you little credit. You seem to have forgotten that it was you who asked me to raise this matter on the talk page, not the other way around. 86.167.164.106 (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor seems to cover "flashback/archive footage" (eg wheel in space) or cameo (eg Five Doctors) - Daleks are the main villain in Pandorica opens/big bang - therefore it is neither of those. 94.193.96.12 (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Edokter argues that the Daleks take an equal part in the episode. If this is correct, how then can they be the 'main villains'? He also argues, with some force, that categorisation should most definitely not be based upon screen-time, yet is not brevity one of the key components of a cameo rôle? If the 'minor' attribution relies upon the Daleks appearing in flashback, then some of the the serials/episodes currently located in that template section have clearly been mis-classified. I am continuing to struggle with this, because the points now being put in support of the position that "The Pandorica Opens" is not a minor appearance contradict what has been said previously. All opinions are equally valid, however, and most welcome. 86.167.164.106 (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Edokter needs to stop making rash allegations and take part in this discussion properly if he wishes his opinion to carry any weight. His reaction to being invited to support his reasoning seems petulant rather than constructive. I see no evidence of edit warring or prima facie disregarding of opinion. Quite the opposite in fact. His requirement to obtain consensus remains equal to anybody else's. Having examined what has been stated above I see know strong reason for saying this episode is a major appearance, so have altered it to minor accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.159.229.27 (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That is not how the process works. You don't get to determine consensus when you are involved, and there is certainly no consensus to base it on. In which case the burden is yours to gain. — Edokter (talk) — 17:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is saying mere involvement decides consensus. That's a fabrication on your part to support your own position. You are correct, though, there is certainly no consensus. Bold edits have been made, followed by reversions, and there are now serious attempts being made to discuss the matter. You have decided that you no longer wish to participate in that discussion, yet you continue to insist that your opinion should prevail by default, obtaining consensus is anybody's burden but yours, and reverting without consensus contravenes process and is edit warring. Except, apparently, when you do it. Sensible questions have been raised about the logic behind your reasoning - is the status quo going to be maintained based on your refusal to answer them? How does that equate to discussion? 82.159.229.27 (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

86.167.164.106 - I'm giving my own view, not Edokter's. The Daleks role in this story is more than that of other villains, and that is why I think it is a major one. Other villains just get a cameo role at the pandorica, the Daleks are a key part of the the second half of the story. 46.64.138.116 (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

[same contributor as 94.193.96.12 - IP has been changed by computer 46.64.138.116 (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)]

Understood, and fair comment. I would agree with Edokter, though, that while the Daleks play a key role in the multi-part story as a whole, their role in the first episode, "The Pandorica Opens", is no greater (or lesser) than any other villain. To move forward on this basis, then, I think what we need to look at is the fact that the template currently includes the splitting of multi-part stories based on minor and major Dalek appearance categorisations. It doesn't seem that anybody is arguing against consistency being applied throughout, so surely either the currently split multi-partners should be re-categorised as wholly minor or wholly major, or the same reasoning used for splitting them should be applied to "Pandorica"? 82.159.229.179 (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well my view is that they are one story, therefore one entry - we don't split up Dalek Master Plan (the Daleks don't even appear in one of those episodes) for example [once again computer has changing IP] 94.193.96.14 (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That seems sensible to me. If we attempt to edit the template in accordance with this approach, though, we may be quickly reverted. According to Edokter, while the onus to gain consensus is ours, we can't actually do that because we are involved, and that's contrary to process. So, while others have refrained from making adjustments to the template regarding Dalek appearance categorisations while these talk page discussions have been in progress, Edokter has adopted the reverse approach and continued to edit the template in this respect while refusing to participate in content dispute discussions. I really can't invest anymore time in trying to unravel these absurdities, so I'm going to leave it to others to sort this out if they want. Best of luck. 82.159.229.179 (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that with my edit of 19/02/14 I am just trying to get the template up and running again after it was broken by other editors who seem to be engaged in edit warring. There is no other agenda. As I stated in the edit summary, that is the sole purpose of my action - not pushing for episode recategorisation. 86.167.164.106 (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Template Structure

See here, here and here for discussions regarding this edit and subsequent edits regarding the template structure. Bowdenford (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Split Group

Do you reckon this would maybe be a good idea for the templates, and instead split the "Minor Appearances" into 2 groups, a "Minor Appearances" one (which includes scenes which were specially filmed for that episode) and a "Archive" one (which only includes episodes in which only previously filmed footage was used), if you get my drift? Example; like this.

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

• {{Dalek stories|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
• {{Dalek stories|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.

I understand what you are driving at but don't believe there is any advantage to sub-dividing the category as proposed. I don't think the meaning of 'archive' in this context will be readily apparent to most readers, and following the serial/episode links still won't provide an easily accessible explanation. Even if the difference between two types of minor appearance is clear, will it be of any particular interest or improve article navigation for the majority of users? My feeling is that the case for that has yet to be made. Bowdenford (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Including episodes on the basis of which archive footage they use sets a bad precedent that would quickly lead to hundreds of articles being cluttered with almost completely irrelevant templates. I think we should really be talking about whether minor appearances should be included at all. —Flax5 18:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)