Talk:Davros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who WikiProject
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This is particularly in regard to the increasingly implausible mechanisms by which Davros' almost universally sticky fate at the end of the previous story is explained away.

I'm not sure that's right. Let's see:

end of Genesis... - killed by Daleks
beginning of Destiny... - revived by chair's built-in handwavium devices
end of Destiny... - arrested and sent to trial
beginning of Resurrection... - in prison
end of Resurrection... - infected by deadly virus
beginning of Revelation... - has found cure
end of Revelation... - captured by Daleks, hauled off to Skaro
beginning of Remembrance... - has become leader of the Daleks
end of Remembrance... - leaves exploding ship in escape capsule

Most of those are downright reasonable, and the first one beats all the rest for stickyness and implausibility of resolution. (If this had been the Master we were talking about, on the other hand...)

—Paul A 00:51, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Cleanup

Someone inserted a BBC comment in the middle of a paragraph using [ and ]... needs to be worked into the article. -Tux256ac 04:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that needs to be removed. It's not the BBC position, but from the Discontinuity Guide, which is excerpted for the BBC Doctor Who website; but that doesn't make it a "BBC comment". Thanks for pointing it out. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek-inspired?

Never seen the show, but saw this:

he depended completely upon his mobile life-support chair which enclosed the lower half of his body

Anyone know if this was borrow from Christopher Pike's chair in the original series' "Menagerie" episode?

Not really. Chris Pike was enclosed from his neck down; Davros only from his waist. The idea was to explain how the Dalek design came about, based on his chair. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
It's more likely to have come from real life motorised wheelchairs, and the ball gowns that directly inspired the original Dalek design from 1963. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
Was the Dalek look not inspired by the salt and peper shakers in the BBC canteen? Duke of Whitstable 16:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess the voice wasn't inspired by Maggie Thatcher. ;) Type 40 (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wisher vs. Gooderson: Who's smaller?

After reading the notes for Destiny of the Daleks, I'm now confused as to whether David Gooderson was too small for Michael Wisher's Davros mask, or the mask was too small for him! To me it looked too big for him, and I'm sure that's what I read somewhere, but maybe someone else can clarify... Dave-ros 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The final condition of Davros in the show

Is it certain the Davros was merely a head in Remembrance of the Daleks? I might check the DVD again however it looked like he still had his black suit on and the upper portion of his body was visible. The Tollan 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There probably was a black suit, but that was probably cheap SFX. I'm pretty certain that the intent was to have him as a head, much like he was in Revelation of the Daleks. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The real Davros still possessed his body in that episode (the head was a decoy). This does not necessarily determine whether or not Davros was supposed to be a head in Remembrance though.The Tollan 02:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As good as it can be?

I note that almost every change these days is to do with the mind-numbing number of categories... does that mean the article itself is pretty much finished (barring any future Davros-related releases)? Featured article status, perchance? :-P Dave-ros 10:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there might be some bits about the conceptual history of Davros which I'll add over the next day or so once I digest the features on the DVD of Genesis of the Daleks. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead, I look forward to it... meanwhile, I've added a warning (which shows up in editing mode) about not putting in any more categories without discussing it here first, as it's getting beyond a joke! How long before someone puts Davros into "Fictional people whose names begin with 'D'" or "Fictional people with only one name"... or indeed "Fictional people after whom Wikipedians have named themselves"? Dave-ros 11:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Supervillains? :) ~ZytheTalk to me! 01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind. I've installed Davros into the category of Hubris as it is something he exhibits and Fictional characters with mental illness as despite his genius, you can't deny the guy's completely bonkers!

Anon

Removing it. Fictional narcissists, megalomaniacs and socio/psychopaths were all removed because it is a personal POV calling whether or not a character is inclusive.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sooo, in that rambling note were you saying you were removing the Big D from the category of Hubris?

Anon

Would you mind terribly if I installed him into the category of Major Doctor Who Villains? Just thought I'd mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.83.229 (talk • contribs)

If the category exists, please go ahead -- but presumably it's a subcategory of "Doctor Who characters", which would thus need to come out to avoid duplication. Dave-ros 16:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Davros and the Sun

I think the Sun thing should be related since from I understand they're claiming it's just a rumor as well.--Anguirus111 23:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been in other papers - the Standard had it this evening with no mention of rumor but a quote from a spokesman for the actor cited - but I guess they're just picking up on the Sun. Timrollpickering 23:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It's even got in to DailyIndia's publications. Here's something for us to consider. The other Wikipedia article that had the Sun story added was List of Doctor Who serials. While both a citation and the point that this was unconfirmed were included, it was eventually decided it was inappropriate there, because the Sun isn't reliable enough as far as press goes. The article in question is regularly looked over by at least one recent-change analyser,and several of its regular editors tend to take a "if it's even arguably speculation, get rid of it" attitude. That might be good. I'm not sure. One of them points to the fact that Wikipedia' verifiability principle technically means "has not been confirmed" can never be included. Denied yes, but not has not been confirmed. Given that science works on falsifiability, the Ignore all rules principle is important here. Do people here think that there is any good reason for the Kingsley story to be but not there, or vice evrsa? if not, should it be in both articles, or neither? Have a mull over that. 85.92.173.186 10:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want to address bringing separate articles into line with each other, it might be a good idea to start a discussion at project level. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 11:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Characters introduced in 1975

Anyone mind re. the category "Characters introduced in 1975"? 86.17.62.211 22:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's accurate for the character. I personally don't have a problem with it being added. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 22:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Davros DVD Boxset

In the recently released Davros boxset there is an extra story from Big Finish entitled The Davros Mission by Nicolas Briggs. Now interestingly this story contradicts the contnuity of BF's previous audio The Juggernauts in that it covers the period of Davros' journey from Necros to Skaro, his subsequent trial and ascendence to role of Emperor. Although I prefer Nick Briggs story I can't help but wonder what headaches this is going to cause for all those people who want to try and reconcile every story in every media into one consistent timeline!android (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Big Finish have already contradicted the DWM comic strips and some of the books so it's going to be down to people who like convoluted retcons. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Bleach

The article states that Julian Bleach, who doesnt even have a wikipedia article, is to be the new Davros! However, there is no source. This seems to me to be pure speculation. I think it should be removed because wikipedia is not a crystal ball! TheProf | 2007 13:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it says that the Sun says he was - that's OK! —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 13:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we need a more relieable source than that. Infact, there is no source in the article stating Julian has been cast as Davros. TheProf | 2007 13:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed we do. The Sun is not a reliable source (remember "Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster"?); neither is the Daily Mail. All other sources I have seen are blogs or rumour-mills. It will be officially announced by the BBC at some point, and that will be a reliable source. Until then... --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
On this basis I've also taken out a load of unreliably sourced and unencyclopedic fancruft. Just the facts, please, Ma'am. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stefan Elliot

Does anyone have a citation for Wisher basing his performance as Davros on Stefan Elliot? Not least because I can cite interviews with Wisher where he says he based his performance on Bertrand Russell. 80.93.170.99 (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is Stefan Elliot? Type 40 (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coming back

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Are there any good sources on Davros coming back this year? Type 40 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

See [1]. Is that Davros' travelling machine? Type 40 (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Character Options toy mentioned in the article shouldn't have been revealed yet, I think it might have answered the question of series 4 episode 12's unknown title! They aren't supposed to leak the plot! Digifiend (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did put in a bit about the figure which is half Dalek and half human-looking (reported by Newsround) appearing in the "rest of series" trailer, but it got reverted with the comment "No, sorry" - so what the hell do I know? Wikipedia is the source that YOU can edit, only to have someone revert it immediately. I'd put it back on, but it'd get reverted again so, frankly, I can't be bothered. Basically, if it's NOT Davros then its such an amazing Davros rip-off that the production would wish they'd just gone for it. I didn't say it WAS Davros! Speednik (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source to suggest any link with Davros (other than your own interpretation), then that's fine. Otherwise, it's not allowed here. Sorry if you don't like the rules. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Can I take out that bogus, unsourced bit about Stefan Elliot, then? Speednik (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was watching BBC One today, and there was a trailer that came up with an appearance of the Daleks (more than one, so it's not just a one dalek story IE Dalek Caan) near the end, there is a group of Daleks moving across a room, and the camera pans behind them to an unknown entity that has the bottom half of a Dalek and the tradiional blue eye, which is noticeably smaller then the new Daleks eye stalks. The top half of the Dalek (apart from the blue glow of it's eye), is shrouded in darkness. I think that is a clue that Davros is the series 4 villain (or at least a villain of the fourth series). The advert is also on Youtube [2] ,near the end is the mysterious Dalek at the same time you can hear Rose say 'it's coming, Donna. It's coming from across the Stars and nothing can stop it'. The First Darklord (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we all know. And no, it's not a reliable source. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Would the BBC's Doctor Who site be a reliable source, if not YouTube? (here) Come on, let's be fair, it's bloody obvious who it is in the trailer, we just have to acknowledge the connection between the Newround item and the trailer, we don't have to say it is Davros. Wikipedia's so pathetically beaureaucratic sometimes the mind boggles. ----  L. T. Dangerous  (Talk to me!)  19:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
If we're not saying it is Davros then it shouldn't go on Davros' article. The article is only for material relevant to Davros; if you have a reliable source to suggest that the figure in the trailer (which deliberately had a black block placed over the upper-half to prevent identification) is relevant to Davros, either through being Davros or through some other means, then feel free to bring it out. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
We did the same thing with the master last year. It wasn't directly stated that the Master was definitely the series 3 villain, but we still posted the rumours and treated them as possibility of truth. In fact, the whole thing about Mister Saxon, being an anagram for Master no six, was purely coincidental according to Russel T Davies, yet we still took note of it in the Masters article, so why not do the same thing for Davros. Furthermore, there are things put into the article that are not directly stated to be Davros (such as the Doctor refering to 'the creator of the Daleks'), but are clues that he is refering to him. If trivia such as that is allowed, then the Trailer and the information alluding to Davros' return, should be allowed as well. Finally, I have seen articles on wikipedia about things that have not yet been released (such as [[Sonic unleashed), and also things that never were made/proven official (such as Sonic Crackers, which was never proven to be the beta form of Knuckles Chaotix or even an official creation by Sega), and if such information is considered relevent (a whole article being made for those things), then information alluding to Davros' return is relevent to Davros' article, especially when the information supporting that conclusion is strongly valid (toy being made of him, the description, and the mysterious Dalek-like entity in an OFFICIAL trailer). Rumour and validity are still knowledge relevent to the subject in question, unless substantially proven wrong. The First Darklord (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect to what we did last year, see WP:OSE. With respect to our policy on original research, see WP:NOR. You cannot state or imply that Davros is back without a reliable source saying that he's back. That is very clearly our policy. If you disagree with the policy, there are venues where you can do that. If you think we should make an exception in this case, then sadly you're goin' to be disappointed. But our policy itself is crystal clear. NO INFORMATION WITHOUT SOURCES. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem there is that those who have created the Davros toy figure are reliable sources, because there would have to be a basic reason why you would claim to be making a 'series 4 davros figure', the trailer, an official creation by the creators of Doctor Who shows support for the idea of his return by That CBBC website. They all together, support substantial evidence of his appearance in Series 4, unless BBC are deliberately alluding us with false knowledge, but since they are a reliable source, we would have to go with what they supply us, otherwise, we are contradicting ourselves, by saying all official sources are unreliable, which just cannot be true. And the problem with original research, is the obvious paradox that someone would have to start an article when they find out about that sort of thing, which is in fact, a type of original research in itself, if original research is not allowed, then Wikipedia would have no content what so ever, because it all eventually leads back to original research. and finally about that other stuff exists thing, if it was not supposed to be like that, then why did everyone keep it? The allusion to Saxon being the master remained without much editing all the way up to the point when it was proven correct, in that sense, the allusion to davros is in the same context as that, and should therefore be kept, unless another, more valid reason behind every allusion to Davros is found, which would be almost impossible.The First Darklord (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Anyone who wants to write an article needs to cite reliable sources so that a reader can verify what has been written. What you're trying to do here is to take several pieces of evidence and connect them to draw a specific conclusion. This is not acceptable. Original research applies to people writing things they've invented themselves or "know" in their own minds, and is equally invalid, because it cannot be verified. And that's the bottom line. Is it so desperate that we cannot wait until there IS a reliable source? Wikipedia is not a news service. --Rodhullandemu 22:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The trailer counts as a reliable source, which is more reliable then claiming that any reference of davros are merely coincidental, especially when BBC ussually deny information that is untrue, but they haven't denied Davros' appearence, if such denial is found, then it stands to reason that he doesn't. And Trailers wouldn't really count as 'original research' because I haven't made it up, and is not unverified by the BBC (if they don't deny it, that always means that it is true and therefore verified), and again I point you to other articles which have been (according to your rule) completely original research and/or unverified as certain. The First Darklord (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The trailer counts as a reliable source only insofar as to what it is certain about. The lack of a denial is irrelevant. Other stuff exists is a piss-poor argument at the best of times; the deficiency of other articles should not influence the quality of this one. In accordance with long-standing precedent, and consensus, on Doctor Who and related articles, I propose we wait for a reliable source, preferably the BBC. --Rodhullandemu 01:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you, First Darklord? The trailer IS a reliable source for WHAT IT SHOWS. It shows Rose is back, it shows the Daleks are back. It does NOT SHOW DAVROS IS BACK. The BBC intentionally prevented people from telling whether or not Davros was back. So how can it possibly be a source that he is?! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it is the first impression the trailer gives, and from experience on wikipedia, first impressions are treated as valid knowledge, whether true or not. Validity and Truth are not the same thing, truth is something that is certain, valid is something that has the possibility of being true, but isn't necessarily true, validity is still a source of knowledge and, if I am not mistaken, acceptable on Wikipedia. In fact, mention of Davros returning is already mentioned in the article, the video, and possibly a picture of the mysterious entity giving the first impression of being Davros, should be mentioned in the article, because it supports evidence of him returning, even if it is unconfirmable knowledge. All you're really arguing about is preventing us from mentioning the newest trailer for the series, which does give valid knowledge of Davros returning, if it is proven wrong and that the character is not Davros, mentioning that the mysterious entity gave the first impression of being Davros but eventually revealed to be an entirely new character is still valid, which was done with the references to him beforehand and of the Dalek Emperor in Series one (it is mentioned in the article about the Dalek emperor, even though the article isn't about it, but it was still valid because Davros was supposedly the Dalek Emperor beforehand, having taken that title before, even though the Emperor is revealed to not be Davros but a new Dalek). The problem here, is that wikipedia does not use the true meaning of validity, saying that things not proven are invalid, but that is simply not true, because as I said before, validity and truth are separate things, the information may not be certain, but they are still valid. Therefore, the Trailer is a valid source of evidence of Davros returning, regardless if it is true or not. If anything, you don't get it yourself Treasurytag, unless you can find evidence that makes any allusion to his return invalid(ie that the trailer does not show a single appearance by anything even remotely alluding to Davros), then the article does not need to have any of it noted, but for now, the information we have is still valid, still knowledge, and should be taken note of. The First Darklord (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, we don't do impressions here. We require verifiable information. It is only hinted in the trailer that it is Davros, and it's not clear enough to rely on as far as an encyclopedia is concerned. You're free to discuss it at length on some blog, but it's against both policy and consensus to rely on it here. End of. --Rodhullandemu 16:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Fine whatever, I am just pointing it out, because the trailer shows valid information and should be taken note of, especially when there is such wide spread information concerning him now. The First Darklord (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The policy is clear. We've explained it abundantly. "First impressions are treated as valid knowledge, whether true or not" - I've never heard such nonsense in all my life. Get over it. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, someones moody. Maybe you should learn the true meaning of validity to understand that quote. And what am I to get over exactly? Your insulting beheviour, or something that I don't have a problem with at all and your making blind assumptions about me? The First Darklord (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am now closing this discussion. You are simply being disruptive by refusing to understand this simple issue. If you can't understand the reasoning behind it, tough. You are being told in no uncertain terms that nothing about his appearance or not in Series 4 is permissible.

I do understand the true meaning of validity, and your argument is not valid. You say: "it is valid to suggest that a figure in the trailer, which has been deliberately blacked out so as to avoid people identifying it as Davros or anyone else, is Davros". Nope. So please do not continue or the administrators will be informed of your trolling. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 06:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Coming Back 2, but with proof

http://bp2.blogger.com/_GT0-g5YtYTw/SE5w1JhCbII/AAAAAAAACDw/4TNK7pJfMt4/s400/a2j_NewDavros1.jpg was leaked last night. Should this be mentioned in the article? Maybe saying "This can indicate a possible return of Davros" LuGiADude (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No. That is not proof; anyone could fake that photo, for example, at a fan convention. To assume it is genuine is original research. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 10:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem I have with it being disregarded is the fact that the BBC are acknowledging it and taking action. See: [this page]. IMAGE REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF THE BBC. If that was honestly a fake, then why would BBC be taking action? A fake wouldn't harm them in anyway. And although it's not confirmed, them acknowledging it is highly suspicious. See [Common Sense]. Although it's not confirmed, it's bloody obvious LuGiADude (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that the BBC are taking action, personally. Certainly, if you have a reliable source (not a self-published one, of course!) to prove that the Beeb are dealing with the issue, then that can go in the article. However, the Beeb's activities do not prove that Davros is back. I understand all about common sense, but you must understand that that is only an essay, while no original research and cite your sources are policies, and have higher status.
You must cite a source for the information or it will be deleted. End of. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)