Talk:Davros

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posthumanist Supremacist Hero[edit]

davros was originally created as a nazi metaphor (racial supremamicists enclosed in supremacist-designed-machines) Hypothesis....

Terry Nation was so far thinking as to suppose Davros as a metaphor for FUTURE evolution.

to conclude - i think DAVROS was right - the supremacy of MAN and MACHINE[[] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.132.31 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection[edit]

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)

Final apperence?[edit]

Have we got a valid source that this IS his last apperence in "Jorneys End", 100% last apperence ever? Because every "villan" does find a way to come back in some way so should that be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.5.35 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until a source says he'll be a regular, that will be his last appearence. — Edokter • Talk • 18:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Daleks were supposedly defeated in "Parting of the Ways" and destroyed forever, (and before that in "Dalek") but they indeed returned, so shouldn't it be same be for Davros? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.250.97 (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC) He returned in the first two episodes of Series 9 64.30.121.179 (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Star Trek-inspired?[edit]

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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
I guess the voice wasn't inspired by Maggie Thatcher. ;) Type 40 (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Dalek's design was only inspired by the fact that the person who was in charge of the design needed them to be seated and moveable at the same time. They used a kiddie's trike to achieve this, and the design was built around this. The BBC canteen room pepper pot story was put around when the designer was trying to explain the Dalek design to a reporter who took it as a great story and so myth happens. Also, the comment about the "ballroom" gowns is wrong - the Dalek design was inspired by the Whirling Dervishes - a middle Eastern tribal dance troupe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.91.254 (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, wrong and wrong.
The need for the operator to be seated wasn't part of the design brief. The Dalek design was inspired by
a) Doctor Who creator Sydney Newman wanting to avoid traditional sci-fi "bug-eyed monsters".
b) Terry Nation, the creator of the Dalek concept, stating in his script for the first Dalek serial that they should have no legs so they didn't look like a "man in a suit".
The only time an arrangement similar to a child's tricycle was used for seating the operators was in the second Dalek serial The Dalek Invasion of Earth.
The Dalek design wasn't inspired by Whirling Dervishes. In interviews Dalek creator Terry Nation said he was inspired by a performance by the Georgian National Ballet, in which dancers in long skirts appeared to glide across the stage.
All of this is stated in the Wikipedia Dalek article and referenced. It's ill-informed comments like those from 122.151.91.254 which, as much as anything, cause myths to happen. 88.105.100.182 (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

The final condition of Davros in the show[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As good as it can be?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Category:Supervillains? :) ~ZytheTalk to me! 01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Davros and the Sun[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters introduced in 1975[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Davros DVD Boxset[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Julian Bleach[edit]

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)[reply]

No, it says that the Sun says he was - that's OK! —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 13:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The Sun was proved right on this instance. Digifiend (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...in this instance." How lucky for them. --Rodhullandemu 10:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Elliot[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Coming back[edit]

The following discussion is closed. 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Fair enough. Can I take out that bogus, unsourced bit about Stefan Elliot, then? Speednik (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, we all know. And no, it's not a reliable source. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coming Back 2, but with proof[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm sorry, but http://inlinethumb42.webshots.com/43625/2128586740102948996S500x500Q85.jpg I just don't see the possibility that that's fan-made. It's too authentic. LuGiADude (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got into a bit of a stink about the preview trailer up there, and while I was clearly in favour of including the "creature" in the video in relation to the Newsround story, even I wouldn't suggest the RichardWho image as a valid source fo the return of Davros (even though I genuinely believe it will turn out to be authentic).Speednik (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://inlinethumb42.webshots.com/43625/2128586740102948996S500x500Q85.jpg I cannot see how this can possibly be fan made. If you claim that a fan could make this, please tell me how, I'd absolutely love to know. LuGiADude (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[New Davros Promotional Picture in Hi-Res] Now it's been released in Hi-Res, look at the detail. TreasuryTag, you claim evidence is always best, but you claimed that "anyone could have faked the pictures" from the original RichardWho website (The image66 image is a completely new hi-res picture of Davros facing forward with everything revealed)... You claim it could've been faked. Prove it could have been faked. I know, make a fake picture yourself so you can prove it's "easy to fake". (Please remember to zoom in to see all the detail) 74.208.16.159 (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rush to get the idea that Davros returns in series 4 up on the page? Wait two or three weeks and you'll have all the verifiable evidence you want when the programme goes out! Waiting a couple of weeks won't make any difference to the long-term shape of the article. Marwood (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Sorry about being impatient =) LuGiADude (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this proof, or isn't Digital Spy reliable? And yes, I'm aware I chose my screen name based on Davros, so please don't feel the need to point that out! Dave-ros (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems we now have a reliable source for the return, Reference 10 (Daily Telegraph). As I understand it, we don't consider DigitalSpy to be a reliable source. As for an image, we would have to wait until the BBC make one available one way or another, since it seems from above that they want to keep Davros' appearance under wraps for the moments. However, it's only a week away, hardly earth-shattering if we don't have one till then. --Rodhullandemu 16:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either way he is definitely coming back - See Journey's End synopsis. LuGiADude (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davros as the Dalek Emperor[edit]

Due to his new appearance returning to his appearance before Remembrance, being in a dalek like chair, notably with his top half still completely intact, I am now thinking that the idea of him being reduced to head in Remembrance seems to be more of an Original Research claim. Their is no citation, or quotation from Remebrance that supports that Davros ever was reduced to 'just a head'. Even in the confidential there is no mention of him being reduced to just a head, but they did explain that his hand is mechanic because it was shot off in Revelation and had to be replaced. Basically, I doubt Davros was ever supposed to be disguised as a Dalek just because he had no body, and I think the part about him being reduced to a head be removed because lack of evidence or continuity value. If anything he could of diguised himself as a unique Dalek in order to mark himself as the emperor. So if anyone has evidence that supports the quote "By this time, Davros was physically reduced to a head in a customised Dalek casing" please discuss, if not, I vote the qute be removed or replaced with the more suitable "Davros was disguised as the Dalek Emperor in a customised Dalek casing" orsomthing along those lines. The First Darklord (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He "seemed" to have been reduced to a head in Resurrection of the Daleks, but that was just a decoy. In Remembrance of the Daleks, he was in a unique Dalek casing, but you can clearly see his shoulders. And I don't think he was "disguised" as such since he was in full view of the Imperial Daleks when he was talking to the Doctor and the Renegade Daleks hated the Imperial Daleks anyways. DonQuixote (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know about the decoy Davros, but I am referring to Davros as he appeared in Remembrance, where it is written "Davros was physically reduced to a head in a customised Dalek casing", but with the return of Davros, with the top half of his body intact, a new robotic hand (to replace the one that was lost in Revelation), along with no proof that Davros was "Physically reduced to a head", the claim that he was Reduced to a head can now be considered Original Research, and therefore removed, unless someone can prove beyond a doubt that Davros was supposed to be reduced to a head in Remembrance, and was not just disguising himself as an emperor Dalek (and disguise is the only term I can think of using when it comes to Davros appearing like a Dalek). The First Darklord (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about "physically transplanted into a customised Dalek casing"? I think the "reduced to a head" might have been someone's interpretation of the Doctor's line about how Davros had discarded the last vestiges of his humanity. DonQuixote (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That, or something that would make him appearing as a Dalek more relevent to the article. Something like 'The Dalek Emperor's casing opens to reveal that the Emperor is none other than Davros' instead of just randomly throwing out their that he put himself into a Dalek casing without any known reason besides a disguise against enemies. But yeah, your suggestion is a good one. The First Darklord (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's related to the plot, and it's probably already mentioned in the respective Remembrance article. DonQuixote (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

We used to have images of each of the four actors who played Davros on this page, but most of them were deleted in a recent IfD. The argument made at the time was that four fair use images were too many for the article. Somehow, what we were left with after the deletion is an image of Julian Bleach as Davros and an image of David Gooderson as Davros. It's a fairly widespread opinion that Gooderson's version of the character is the least impressive; I'd argue that he's also the least encyclopedic. Better cases can be made for Wisher (who originated the role; I've recently added some more out-of-universe material about his interpretation), for Molloy (who played the role most often; the article should have more out-of-universe material about his version as well), and/or for Bleach (as the most recent actor; here, we have a good amount of out-of-universe content and critical commentary to support the image).

I've spoken to the admin who closed those deletions and the person who nominated them, and they've agreed that it would be OK if we removed the Gooderson image and replaced it with one of Wisher or Molloy. My personal leaning is towards a Wisher pic. I've captured three screen shots from the photo section of the Genesis DVD, and put them up on Photobucket for your examination: see images 1, 2 and 3. Does anyone have a preference about which of these three would be best for the article? Or would anyone like to make a case for Molloy, or even for keeping the Gooderson picture?

After we choose an image, I can jump through the various hoops for the upload and make sure it's got the right fair use rationale, etc. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think that Wisher and Bleach should be included if only to illustrate commentary about the better technology available since Davros' first appearance. There is nothing about Gooderson's appearance that seems to me significantly different from the general model. If Molloy's version was notably different technically and can be so cited, I'd support an image being there. The problem is that readers may ask "There have been ten versions of The Doctor and four versions of Davros; why are we seeing only three?". But I suppose we'll just have to live with that. --Rodhullandemu 21:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Number 2 is best as it shows the Dalek-style casing, and it's clearer than the current Gooderson shot. What would also help in encyclopedic terms is the Davros we see in Remembrance of the Daleks, where he's reduced to a head. I can screengrab that if you want. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to add that, I think we should first add more out-of-universe material about Molloy's portrayal of the character (the mask he used, etc.). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2's best Ryan4314 (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added that image as Image:WisherDavros.png. I hope that the fair use rationale and such are all correct. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just dipping my toes into fair use images myself, and I think your rationale is a strong as one of mine which has survived for a week now; you should be safe there. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davros at the Proms[edit]

Davros was indeed at the Proms, as you can hear by listening to the concert on iPlayer, and also confirmed in The Times (among other sources). I assume that it was Julian Bleach under the mask, but I haven't found any confirmation of that (I probably shouldn't have added that to Julian Bleach, actually). Anyone got a source for Bleach at the Proms? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind — I found a source. (Digital Spy: not the best, but it'll do. Unless classicalsource.com is better?). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Davros died at the end of the last series? -- Kingkong77 (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Proms is a public event and not an episode. DonQuixote (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

One single link in an apparently joke website in a non-english website is pretty dubious.Imasleepviking ( talk ) 03:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed...just sillyness -- That Guy, From That Show! 05:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBC sued over Davros design[edit]

Given that the BBC is being sued over the design of Davros (that it was actually created by Stewart Clark, who was a schoolboy at the time), where does this leave this article? Do we say that 'the consensus is that it was designed by Terry Nation' for the time being? Or do we just leave things as they are at the top, but just add a new section? 92.25.161.76 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting story, but the only source I found is the Daily Mial. It hasn't been pickup up by any other sources (except a lot of forums). — Edokter (talk) — 17:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it should be mentioned near the end of the article as it is a real court case and not just idle gossip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.24.67.34 (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The court case is ongoing according to the 'Doctor Who News' site. It should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.112.24.9 (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Davros seen in "Fear Her"[edit]

In the "Revived series" section, it states "Davros is then shown in "Fear Her," in a drawing on Chloe's wall. I haven't the episode for some time now, but I do not recall this happening. Is this Vandalisim (which I'm pretty sure it is) or actually true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babelcolour5 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked, and can't say that I see it. Even if it's there, it's probably non-notable without a source. DonQuixote (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean you can't see it in the episode, or can't see it in the article? Babelcolour5 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant that I couldn't see it in the episode. DonQuixote (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

alternative explanation for appearance[edit]

After watching "Genesis of the Daleks" just now, I have noticed 2 things about Davros that might explain his condition: he will experiment obsessively on anything, especially his own race, and he wants to live forever (from the way he shouts that he will live forever). He also appears incredibly ancient. I propose that he is his own best experimental subject, that he has performed experiments on himself to prolong his life, and that his appearance is caused by this and the shutting down, one by one, of his organs. There was no accident, just old age. This is why he had to fight for his science. His methods have always been unethical, and yeah his people are pretty Nazi in their methods, but the other Kaleds seem to draw the line far sooner than he. Thetrellan (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. But Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Davros. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reception to Davros 2023 Redesign[edit]

I notice someone has added information on the "mixed" reception to RTD's comments on changing Davros' design for 'Destination: Skaro'. I think we start discussing reception to an individual creative choice at our peril. Reception to individual episodes or pieces of media is different as this can be more easily aggregated. But things like "fan reaction" is nebulous and hard to gauge. Moreover, it opens a can of worms historically, since we should (by this logic) always be recording fan reactions to every change for every character. Perhaps comments on fan reaction to Davros is better left to the Reception section of the minisode (or the 60th anniversary specials page) rather than the character page. AtticusFink6 (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't have to discuss fan reaction but I do think it's odd that RTD's recent vandalism of the character isn't even mentioned in the body of the article. Davros's new look isn't even acknowledged except in the list of pictures of him at the top of the page. --2A00:23C4:AA1D:4A01:81CD:7FF8:50D9:7E4D (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment is unhelpful. Davros’ change in appearance has been referred to in the article body for some time, and a direct quote from Russell T Davies regarding the rationale for the change has been included since 19 November 2023. If wishing to contribute to any discussion about the article, I would suggest reading it in full first. Sprite96 (talk)
We wouldn't need to cover fan reaction to every redesign given that most redesigns of Who enemies don't really get attention. Davros was unique in that this change actually garnered a reaction from a variety of sources. I'd say it's worthwhile to include, at least in passing, given it is highly related to the character himself. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a significant amount of fan debate if what we saw was even a redesign.
Or we just saw Davros pre-accident.
Personally I think what he was talking about was a redesign but I feel there should be a bit more done in backing that up before going into the reception of it.
If not then maybe we could just add what we saw in Destination: Skaro, the quote from RTD in the Unleashed, then maybe a bit on how it was interpreted.
I'm not sure how controversy is covered on Wikipedia.
I had a look at the Dalek Paradigm entry for reference and it mainly just has quotes from the creator themselves.
That seems a little one sided though especially as quite a few disabled creators came out against RTDs comments Thebobbrom (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Davros&oldid=1210142793"