Talk:UNIT dating controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-03-03. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

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.

A tax disc seen on a vehicle has the expiry date of June 30, 1999.

Isn't this only in the novelisation? Timrollpickering 12:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. You know, now that you mention it, my memory of that is a bit hazy. I'll remove it until I can get confirmation one way or another. Unless you have Battlefield on hand to watch... -khaosworks 12:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry my copy is many miles from me! Timrollpickering 07:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 UNIT website 2 New who 3 Merger 4 Wrong book? 5 Article title ("Controversy") 6 Two calendars in The Green Death, plus "I'm from 1980"

[edit] UNIT website

I won't move this without checking, but is there any sign that this is anything more than publicity and thus really belongs in the (confusingly titled) "Production notes" along with similar stuff? Timrollpickering 23:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put it under Contradictory Clues for want of a better location - tell you what, I'll rename Production notes to Off-screen evidence and chuck it there. --khaosworks 23:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New who

"No television story actually featuring UNIT gives a clear date onscreen."

Apart from the new series, that is, which is pretty firmly dated in 2006 ;) Morwen - Talk 08:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm where does it explicitly say it is 2006? The references seem vague "You've been away a year" and the like. Timrollpickering 10:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

On-screen evidence: Rose was last seen, according to her missing persons poster, on March 6, 2005. She's been away twelve months, so that's circa March, 2006. Six months later is Boom Town, that brings us to about September 2006. Christmas Invasion still has Big Ben being rebuilt, so that is more plausibly December 2006. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As "thetoymaker" pointed out in the forum at Outpost Gallifrey:

Mickey was very ambiguous saying "THIS year" but I've done a little looking.

Jackie says her official biography states she's the same age as Cuba Gooding Jnr who was born in 1968. That would make her 39 in 2007.

(Obviously we are in a paralel universe so there is an argument for their Cuba to be born in a different year.)

All this does tie up with 'Rose' set in 2005, 'Aliens of London' in 2006, 'Christmas Invasion' at christmas 2006 and 'School Reunion' 2007.

I just copied his/her post because there's no way I could have explained it better. Ravenswood 22:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

If you look at the history of the two articles, you'll see that the UNIT dating controversy was originally part of the main UNIT article, but got spun off primarily because it became apparent the scope of it involved such a different subject matter from an article about UNIT - the organisation - itself. A discussion of the dating controversy seemed out of place, especially as it was in itself an evidence gathering exercise. Based on this, of course, I am naturally opposed to a merger. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

(I'm copying this over to Talk:United Nations Intelligence Taskforce — any further comments should be directed there.) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong book?

From the article:

In McIntee's Bullet Time, Sarah comments to the Seventh Doctor about her uncertainty as to when she travelled with him. The Doctor replies that some "time slippage" occurred and that it was his fault, but does not elaborate further.

I haven't read Bullet Time, but I have read that exchange and it was between SJS and the Eighth Doctor in Inty. Is Miles recapitulating McIntee's idea, or is it a misattribution? --Bth 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

PS I love that the pedia has an article on this.

Thanks for catching that. It's a misattribution, I think (unfortunately I can't confirm it entirely, because I don't have Bullet Time handy, but I do know it appears in Interference. If my memory didn't play me false and it did appear in BT, then McIntee was repeating Miles's idea, BT being released 2 years after Interference. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

what

[edit] Article title ("Controversy")

In regard to title of this article and of the Doctor Who story title controversy, I really think the word "controversy" is far too fraught with meaning for what is essently a dispute among a fandom. How about we rename it UNIT dating debate? -Jonathan D. Parshall 05:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -- Beardo 00:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends on whether or not you consider the incredibly charged nature of UNIT chronology conversations, limited as they may be in fandom, to be less deserving of the term "controversy" or not. Is it just a matter of scale? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two calendars in The Green Death, plus "I'm from 1980"

Under "Contradictory clues" we find a description of two calendars in the tenth season serial The Green Death, one showing "a leap year when February 29 falls on a Sunday (1976 is the only one in the 1960s-1990s) but another says April." Excuse me? The former can be as described only if the far left hand column is Fridays (the thing can't be seen clearly enough to be actually read), which would be a unique calendar in my 50+ years of life. British writers/Who fans Paul Cornell, Martin Day and Keith Topping, in their book Doctor Who: The Discontinuity Guide (Virgin Books, 1996), flatly state, no ifs ands or buts, that the day in question is a Tuesday, which is exactly how these American eyes see it, and they add the only such "relevant February" is 1972. They mention no other calendar in this story, and I have never noticed one--and mind you, once their book got me looking at the episodes from such a perspective, I found a number of things they missed. So I beg the person(s) responsible for this passage to please defend the Sunday reading of the one and to specify the location of the other. Thank you.

Relevant to the overall article here, Cornell, et. al.'s U.N.I.T. dating arguments, putting each story within a few months one way or the other of original transmission, are in general quite persuasive to an open mind, the main exception being their dealing with Sarah Jane's "I'm from 1980," (Pyramids of Mars) versus the Brigadier's 1976 retirement (Mawdryn Undead), which is in effect to throw up their arms and say, "Hell, we don't know!" This has, however, been explained on a Who site, called "Who's Dr. Who" if memory serves, the specifics of web address as well as the late creator's and current administrator's identities are not easily at hand at the moment (I'll retrieve and post that data here as soon as feasible). But here is the explanation. At the end of Terror of the Zygons, we see the fourth Doctor promise to return Sarah straight to London, but as the next story shows, he doesn't make it. What we don't see, according to this theory, is what happens after that story. He then does get her back, travels alone, then picks her up from 1980, her journalistic career having advanced somewhat in the interim. The next two U.N.I.T. stories, Android Invasion and Seeds of Doom, take place from Sarah's perspective in the recent past while a younger version of her is working in London and she knows it, hence she unhesitatingly enters the TARDIS with the Doctor at the finish of each, in clear opposition to her earlier attitude. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Ted Watson 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Here's the info on the "1980" explanation: the late Allen Robinson initiated the site and presumably concocted the theory, and Louise Lobinski maintains the pages. The name is indeed "Who's Dr. Who?" and here's a link directly to the specific bit under discussion: [1]. Ted W.

It's an interesting theory, and it sounds like it works pretty well. As fan speculation, though, we can't include it on the page. --Brian Olsen 05:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I got myself somewhat out of proper discussion there, initially from trying to justify the Discontinuity Guide as a valid information source to challenge the Green Death/calendars passage. My apologies. Now if someone could tell me if that should be rewritten. Please. Ted Watson 21:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not too clear on the whole Green Death calendar thing, in terms of what's being discussed. But I don't see why the Discontinuity Guide shouldn't be a perfectly valid reference, as long as it's properly cited. --Brian Olsen 21:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The last of that line of footnotes at the end of the article's first paragraph is indeed a link to an online posting of the U.N.I.T--dating sidebar/essay (or at least most of it) from the Discontinuity Guide. That note doesn't appear to be new either, judging from an admittedly quick check of the "History" listings, so I really didn't need to establish the book's credibility. On the other hand, concerning your original criticism, further thinking leads me to retract backing down from the "1980" explanation, as the topic of this particular article, indicated by its opening paragraph, is fan speculation. Besides, Cornell, Day, & Topping's book is as much fan speculation as Robinson's site, the only real differences being that one was released to the public as a completed book while the other as an incomplete web site (that is, covering the entire original series run vs. slightly more than half of it, and venues, which admittedly means that Cornell, Day, & Topping got paid while Robinson didn't). Can't understand why Robinson seemed completely unaware of the gross continuity problems with the depiction of the second Doctor's status in The Two Doctors, which does work against his credibility. That is an argument against accepting his conclusions that is fair. Ted Watson 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)