Template talk:Dalek Stories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

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)

Dalek television stories
The Daleks | The Dalek Invasion of Earth | The Chase | Mission to the Unknown | The Daleks' Master Plan
The Power of the Daleks | The Evil of the Daleks | Day of the Daleks | Frontier in Space | Planet of the Daleks | Death to the Daleks
Genesis of the Daleks | Destiny of the Daleks | Resurrection of the Daleks | Revelation of the Daleks | Remembrance of the Daleks
Bad Wolf | The Parting of the Ways
Doctor Who serials

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)

Contents 1 Definition of what this template contains 2 Reaching an agreement on definition 3 Minor appearances? 4 The Oncoming Storm?? 5 Frontier in Space

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).