Talk:The Dæmons

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	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.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of Doctor Who villains#Azal|Azal]] The anchor (#Azal) has been deleted.
[[List of Doctor Who villains#Bok|Bok]] The anchor (#Bok) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Olive Hawthorn[edit]

Dunno why, could have sworn it was Frances de la Tour playing Olive Hawthorn, and not Damaris Hayman as per the BBC website must be the years that have intervened... Sjc 09:47, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pertwee's favourite[edit]

I put the KTEH citation in because Sean Black had asked whether anyone could confirm that this was Pertwee's favourite story, not in response to Angmering's joke about whether it still was. Just a clarification. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archeology or archaeology?[edit]

I ask about this because "archeology" looks American and therefore wrong for this page to me, but a nearby dictionary lists both spellings, "ae" form as the primary, but otherwise makes no distinction. Dsalt 02:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paganism[edit]

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that what we saw in the episode was a very clichée and falsified version of paganism, in many parts. Might it be interesting to include an analysis of misconceptions about witchcraft that this episode contains? It gives an interesting idea of how they may have thought about it in the 70s. --Mithcoriel (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be very redundant in that, following this line of reasoning, all movies and shows featuring such things should also have something similar written about it (most notably the Hammer horror films). It would be better if such things were mentioned in the respective paganism and witchcraft articles (probably in a "In popular culture" section). DonQuixote (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis[edit]

This section appears to largely consist of original research - fannish ret-conning actually - that seems inappropriate to an encyclopaedia. This section should be reduced to the facts (the three mentions of the destruction of Atlantis.)- Quark66too (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't OR and certainly retconning is completely inappropriate: Nothing in the serials is contradicted or changed, but described to show that perceived—and widely discussed in fan circles—contradictions do not exist. The episodes' content is citable to themselves. The Mexico City Olympics souvenir and the North Atlantic geographic placement are cited (if not made as clear as it could have been) to the Cornell-Day-Topping book (since the episodes with these do not survive to be examined on video, and I don't know if the released audio track includes the former) already cited for the interpretation of Underwater Menace 's setting evidence. As for the belief that these are contradictory, I'll admit that Discontinuity Guide falls short of saying that they are refuting this, but if some one has a copy of Chris Howarth and Steve Lyon's Doctor Who: The Complete(ly Useless) Encyclopedia to get the page number, they flatly assert that there are too many versions of the destruction of Atlantis in Who. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quark66too may not have been using the term "retconning" appropriately, but he is correct regarding the tone of this section. It certainly does sound like con-suite discussion at a Doctor Who fan event. Regardless of the amount of energy fans have exerted around the topic, it is of little or no academic merit. At most, a reference to the fact that Azal's assertion contradicts other stories is warranted. I will edit if no comments emerge in the coming days to indicate otherwise. Sterlingjones (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]