Talk:Creation of the Daleks: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Line 29: Line 29:


::::::this topic doesn't deserve its own topic ''now'', however, with all the information form the audio plays and comics, it will, really. as well as optional attempts to explain away all the contradictions. --[[User:***Stardizzy***|***Stardizzy***]] 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::this topic doesn't deserve its own topic ''now'', however, with all the information form the audio plays and comics, it will, really. as well as optional attempts to explain away all the contradictions. --[[User:***Stardizzy***|***Stardizzy***]] 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Alright. But yes, it really needs some work. What first? {{:User:Ghelæ/sig}} 16:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:13, 22 February 2007

material to add

this topic definitely merits its own article, for sure, especially given all the information on the subject.

accounts that contradict "Genesis of the Daleks"

  • the variant account from "The Daleks" with the Dals
  • the origin story from the '60's Daleks comics which fits in relatively well with the above, except that it uses the name Daleks (as in humanoid Daleks) rather than Dals
  • the variant account given in a Terry Nation short story "We are the Daleks!" (it involved Halldons transporting Humans from Earth to Skaro where they eventually evolved into Daleks... or something, well don't quote me on that that) (I really don't much about this story. RTD referenced it in the 2006 Annual.)

additional information

  • everything revealed in the I, Davros audio miniseries

Apocryphal Information

  • a quick summary (under Apocacryphal Information) of some of the information about the creation of the Daleks from a book by John Peel (new information given in "nonfiction" form, versus novel form) that adds new information about Davros and attempts to reconicle the two creation stories form "The Daleks" with that in "Genesis of the Daleks". I don't think anyone really thinks of this as canonical, though, and the book pretty got overlooked by everyone.

--***Stardizzy*** 17:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But it's still part of the history of the Daleks. I don't see why you want to split it up, it's not like it won't fit or something. Azes13 22:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear enough there. I just put all those headers up as a means to organize the subjects. I definitely didn't mean to suggest separate articles, which would get too confusing. --***Stardizzy*** 22:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I actually meant this whole article. Azes13 00:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, I had made it from a link that had been put ojn a few pages by a user (I can'tr remember which), and all of the links to this page apart from HotD and my user page were placed by him/her/it (I think - and yes I know that that's only two links) so I decided to create it. But yes, I agree that sometime it should be merged, but on a semi-unrelated point, the HotD page also needs to be cleaned up. ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 15:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
this topic doesn't deserve its own topic now, however, with all the information form the audio plays and comics, it will, really. as well as optional attempts to explain away all the contradictions. --***Stardizzy*** 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright. But yes, it really needs some work. What first? ~ Ghelæ -talk-contribs 16:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)