Talk:Skaro

Non-ambiguous terms

I've linked non-ambiguous Doctor Who terms as Doctor Who: xxx. Let me know if there is a better way of doing this. Chrishorrocks 18:38 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

My understanding is that in the case of non-ambiguous terms, one is supposed to leave the title alone. It's not as if there's any non-Doctor Who Daleks, for instance.

--Paul A 03:54 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Retcon (Davros et al)

Someone with more time than me (and more knowledge of pre-Genesis Dalek history) should write up an explanation of how the Dalek origin story and the history of Skaro changed over time. And one should not forget that Daleks were originally stated to run on static electricity (quite a feat of electrical engineering).Gwimpey 07:13, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think a mention that the continuity has changed is enough, and what you added in the main Doctor Who entry explains it in a less anal retentive way than any minute recounting of continuity errors would. It's a slippery slope towards anorak-dom, as far as I'm concerned - where do you draw the line? An essay on how the Daleks have mucked up their timeline so much it's collapsed on itself? Better to simply point to an external article of one exists, if at all. --khaosworks 14:44, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You say that like there's something wrong with anoraks. :) I think it's quite reasonable, and indeed probably the NPOV thing to do, to discuss things about the Daleks that were true in old episodes but which have been retconned away. Trying to come up with speculative "in-show" reasons for these changes edges on original research, though, unless we're reporting "theories that are widespread among the fan community." Bryan 15:28, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Puts on his anorak) :-) ... Okay, I wrote up some details tracing the development of the Dalek backstory over the course of all the serials in the main Dalek entry. Check it out and tell me what you think. --khaosworks 18:02, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Great work. I consider myself a Whovian, but my knowledge of the early era of Doctor Who (first two Doctors) is tragically sparse. This fills in nicely. :) Bryan 15:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Time War.JPG

The image Image:Time War.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

War of the Daleks

From what I gather, the general reaction to War of the Daleks was very mixed, with much of the negative critcism focusing on the revelation that Skaro was not destroyed. The website http://www.whoniverse.org/ proposed a theory that the Dalek Prime, who revealed the plot to save Skaro in War of the Daleks, was lying. Should we include a note in the article that, in addition to War's questionable canonicity, it is also uncertain as to whether the Dalek Prime was telling the truth? I realise this may count as original research (is the Whoniverse website a reliable source for speculation? (is there such a thing?)), but seeing as War of the Daleks seems to be so controversial, it would let people who like to count the novels as canon know that in the novel, the reader has to take the Dalek Prime's word for it. Granted, there is the issue that a part of the novel is set on Skaro, and a group of Thals who think that Skaro has survived also appear. I'm just making a suggestion, but it may be too crufty. Thoughts?--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Editors knowledgeable in this subject may want to check this edit, which was done by an IP address from which all other edits in the last 12 months were just vandalism. — Sebastian 23:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Potential edit war?

Is there something grammatically wrong with this use of commas I'm missing even though they're hardly the only part of the page which has this sentence pattern? An anon user has changed these sections:

In The Daleks, two sentient, humanoid species are described as having existed on Skaro; the Dals, teachers and philosophers, and the Thals, a race of warriors.

For Genesis of the Daleks, exterior scenes supposedly taking place on Skaro were shot at Betchworth Quarry, Surrey

to these twice now in the last 24 hours. TardisTybort (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

In The Daleks two sentient, humanoid species are described as having existed on Skaro; the Dals, teachers and philosophers, and the Thals, a race of warriors.

For Genesis of the Daleks exterior scenes supposedly taking place on Skaro were shot at Betchworth Quarry, Surrey

These commas appear to be redundant. What rules of grammar and punctuation are you attempting to meet by inserting them at these points in the text? If the placement is only a stylistic preference, then adopting WP:RETAIN should be considered. A little more care with the use of citations might also be beneficial. Changing a citation name, breaking subsequent short-form references to it in the article and then correcting this by removing the short-form and replacing it with a ' citation needed ' tag as you did is perverse and hardly constitutes an improvement. It just makes work fixing something which wasn't broken in the first place. Oh, and if you could avoid the drama-queen approach to framing your queries it would be appreciated. 'Potential edit war'; seriously? Over two commas? So you really see this as an issue worth going to the mat over. Strewth, anybody would think you had never been reverted before. 86.160.234.6 (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Except doing this has raised inconsistencies in the article, regardless of how I'm not sure if I've even heard of the version without a comma because of how badly it seems to make sentences flow. If the entire article had the pattern "In/for [such and such] this happens", rather than "In/for such and such, this happens", I'd get what you mean. However, numerous points on this page uses the first style, including the lead and the geography, flora and fictional history sections. TardisTybort (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not misinterpreting the "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article" bit on WP:RETAIN, then the usage of English with the comma seems to be settling into use as early as 2004. TardisTybort (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Because there are currently other versions of comma usage in the article doesn't mean that they are necessarily correct, of course, and the period they have remained unaltered shouldn't prevent change if it's required. You make a good point about consistency, however. Maybe the examples to which you refer require revision/removal as well? I will take look when I get a minute. I would still return to the key question; even if, in your opinion, comma absence seems to adversely affect sentence flow, what rules of grammar and punctuation are you attempting to meet by inserting them at these points in the text? 86.160.234.6 (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Skaro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/news/bulletin_100408_01/adventure_games

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Bowdenford (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)