Talk:Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D.

London Underground category

This film should be added to Films set on the London Underground category. It has London Underground content that is significant enough for the BFI to note. 86.159.46.113 has reversed this for the reason that the film has "a few scenes involving" the London Underground and asserts the BFI is simply "wrong". It should be added to the category precisely because of the "few scenes" noted by the BFI, which the Wikipedia article itself underscores: "Louise and Susan are taken in by a group of rebels based in the London Underground". Adding the film to the category would be helpful for anyone wanting to see a list of films that have any part of their content set on the London Underground. Helical gear (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This film is no more 'set on the London Underground', than Armageddon is set on the Mir space station. A Night to Remember, on the other hand, is very definitely, 'set on The Titanic' and Lawrence of Arabia is, without doubt, 'set on the Arabian Peninsula'. The London Underground scenes form only a small part of the narrative, and the proliferation of such templates and attributions based upon slight cause creates an ever increasing morass of vaguely associated links of little value, rather than helping. The WP:BRD protocol, btw, means that you shouldn't bring this matter to the Talk Page for discussion, and then revert immediately afterwards before there has been an opportunity for discussion to take place. It's not like anybody here is stating an inarguable truth that renders debate pointless, me included. 86.159.46.113 (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That's why I backed up my view with reference to a third party source (the BFI) which explicitly refers to this as a film set on the London Underground. Whereas you simply give your own opinion.Helical gear (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Running time

Please note the anonymous user who keeps entering the incorrect running time for the film.

Cinema film runs at 24 frames per second (fps). Both the original BBFC cinema certification of "Daleks – Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D." from 1966 and the cinema re-release from 2013 have the running time at approximately 84 minutes. However, UK PAL video (on VHS or DVD) runs at 25 fps. With the frame rates of film and PAL being so close -- 24fps vs. 25fps -- when film is transferred to the PAL format, it is transferred around 4% faster (i.e. an extra frame is used per second), which results in "PAL speedup". Audio plays a little higher in pitch, and the footage runs slightly faster, resulting in the overall running time of the video/DVD being slightly shorter - even if the DVD is the same uncut cinema print. This is why a BBFC search for "Daleks – Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D." will show the entries marked Video as being about 80 minutes, whilst the Film entries will show 84 minutes. The BBFC note this anomaly elsewhere on their site. (The longer the film, the bigger the discrepancy. For example "Braveheart" runs 177 mins on film, whilst the PAL DVD runs at only 170 mins.)

However, film-sourced Blu-ray releases (i.e. all major cinema releases) are transferred to Blu-ray at 24fps, and are therefore identical in runtime to film. There are no PAL speedup issues. The UK Blu-ray of "Daleks – Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D." therefore runs at 84 mins exactly like the cinema release.

My citation and runtime of 84 mins is correct. All of this information regarding video formats is verifable if you look into video production and standards conversion. GavSalkeld (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

First off, I only reverted your edit 1 time so your little comment "the anonymous user who keeps entering the incorrect running time for the film" is a bit of an exaggeration, and second, you did not add a reference at the time of your first edit so it appeared to be an incorrect edit. Next time maybe you should add a reference when you edit and drop the attitude.67.170.169.30 (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

What possible attitude is there being used? I wasn't aware that starting a sentence "Please note" was considered rude! The running time was changed three times in the space of a week by (an) unregistered user(s), so I assumed it was all one person. There is no need to be snappy when I was simply writing an explanation. I fail to see what "attitude" was being used and I always add references. If there wasn't one used this time, it must be because I pressed Save too early. As you can see, I fixed it.GavSalkeld (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Daleks – Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071022205045/http://cuttingsarchive.org.uk:80/radiotim/cs-s04-06/season4/daleks181166.htm to http://www.cuttingsarchive.org.uk/radiotim/cs-s04-06/season4/daleks181166.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Title grammar

The actual on-screen title is Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. (with the apostrophe instead of the hyphen and colon); the article is currently using the variant from the movie poster. Should this be amended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.173.59 (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. The article is about the movie. It's difficult to see how you can possibly get more correct than using the title as it's styled in the actual film itself, no matter how it has been written in subsidiary media (at the time of the film's release or subsequently). The grammar isn't really the issue. Even if the title used in the film was grammatically incorrect, that's still what should be used as the WP article title; it's not WP's place to be revisionist for grammar, spelling, or anything else. Sprite96 (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, we don't correct the spelling of Inglourious Basterds. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

How to write the title

I know that many official media have "Daleks – Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D." like this (with that hard-to-find "–" sign), but many posters, the film's title card itself and well-known sites such as http://www.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/ and http://www.dalek6388.co.uk/ identify it as "Daleks' Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D.", written with an English possessive, so, maybe someone noticed I accidentally started an edit war because of this concept, but I want that this will be reported by Wikipedia, because typing differences are reported on articles about other media. If someone would like to support me, please comment.

--Aledownload (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You can cite the title card because it's from the primary source, but you can't cite those two sites because they are not considered reliable sources. As has been pointed out to you before, you have to cite reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

See the section 'Title grammar' above for a discussion about this. To recap, the actual on-screen title is Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. (with the apostrophe instead of the hyphen and colon). I would support renaming the WP article to conform with the on-screen title style, and the use of the on-screen style throughout the article except where websites or other media which use a different style are being referenced (in which case the used style should be quoted, not 'corrected' ). I would not support the inclusion in the article of mention of these title style differences, because I feel it's trivia and of little interest to most readers. Sprite96 (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Daleks – Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D. → Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. – The article is about the film, and the actual film shows "Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D." as the title. Other title forms have been used in subsidiary media (film posters, listings and reviews etc.), but are inaccurate renditions of the source. Sprite96 (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Though the particular arrangement of punctuation does vary a lot in normal usage (as noted), a quick search suggests that the proposed form is both somewhat more frequent in common use and is also consistent with how the title appears on official products (e.g.). ╠╣uw [talk] 13:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.