Talk:UNIT

message: This is left here for historic note as the notes I used before writing the section on the page itself. Timrollpickering 03:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: UNIT Dating

message: I would like to add a section describing the Doctor's rather rocky relationship with UNIT. Thoughts? Uncle Mikey 19:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Doctor's relations with UNIT 

message: Currently we have the older, round logo as the main, 'featured' symbol at the top of the article. Having seen that the Battlefield winged logo is the current one, as of The Christmas Invasion, might that be a better one to move to the top spot?
Thoughts? Radagast 06:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know... I kind of like the retro look of the old insignia being up there. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I much prefer the old insignia myself. --Doctortoc 20:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo to feature? 

message: Let me explain why I reverted these edits. In turn:
1) The Intrusion Counter Measures Group and Rachel Jensen belonging to the British Rocket Group were not mentioned in the television episodes, but is information taken from the David Bishop book "Who Killed Kennedy". This is, like all non-television sources, of unclear canonicity, and of even more dubious canonicity because of the nature of Bishop's book, which is from an outsider's perspective trying to delve into UNIT's history - even the protagonist isn't certain how reliable his information is.
2) The Downtime information is not related to UNIT, but to the Brigadier, and is already covered in the Downtime (Doctor Who) entry as well as Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart.
3) The ICIS was controlled by a fascist leadership, but it in itself was not created as a fascist group, so that characterisation is not entirely accurate.
Please discuss if you disagree, but do not replace that information again until a consensus is reached. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Who Killed Kennedy stuff ought to be included somewhere, I should think. There are good resources at  and , if anyone is so inclined.--Sean|Black 05:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Both the Intrusion Counter Measures Group and Rachel Jensen's association with the British Rocket Group are first referred to in Ben Aaronovitch's novelisation of "Remembrance of the Daleks", and have been referred to in a number of later books (though "Devil Goblins from Neptune" suggests that "Bernard" is Bernard Traynor, not Bernard Quatermass). Good point on both Downtime and ICIS. Put those down to inexperience with the way wiki works. I'll be more thorough in future :-) --Doctortoc 20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: UNIT is a fictional creation. The article should stop trying so hard to construct a coherent and logical history of the organisation from disparate sources, but rather detail what different stories said about the organisation. Bondegezou 11:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts of 5 January 2006

message: The disclaimer in the appendix states:
:"The fictional nature of the UNIT Files section of the site means that I can't really point you to where the information I'm relating comes to and, in a lot of cases I've made up details like the cover stories for events and suggestions about "what really happened". However, for your enjoyment I've stepped out of the fiction for this one page, to tell you where in the vast universe of Doctor Who fiction it all comes from. Incidentally, for almost all of the TV stories up until the end of 1972, I have taken details (particularly regarding cover-ups) from Who Killed Kennedy." (my emphasis)
Then he goes on to cite what sources he has, including "Who Killed Kennedy". So it's a combination of him taking the television sources, adding his own stuff to fill in the blanks from that. That's speculation. No place in an encylopedic article, but he can do it on his own website. "Made up" isn't wrong, but it sounds juvenile compared to speculation, which means the exact same thing. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UNIT files

message: *The page on UNIT dating was originally part of this article but moved to its own as it was growing to the point where it was taking up most of this article. This article is better focused on the organisation itself, not problems of chronology. Timrollpickering 11:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging the dating back in 

message: Because life is not confusing enough, someone (see recent edit history) is disputing our use of "UNIT" rather than "U.N.I.T.".  I have tried explaining about the tendency to keep consistency within articles. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 22:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the objective accuracy of this has been compellingly called into question. See posting from Czechout under "Requested move" within its subsection "Survey" near the bottom of it—at least as of this writing. Ted Watson (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The latest on-screen version of the logo shows U.N.I.T so that is what they call themselves.  Logically, the logo should read UN.I.T, which suggests that the organisation has changed its name recently.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNIT or U.N.I.T. 

message: Would it be at all sensible to move this to UNIT (Doctor Who) given the request of the United Nations to be disassociated with this?  Morwen - Talk 16:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They haven't requested it of us, have they? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it ocurred to me to suggest considering it anyway: UNIT is actually what I meant as that's a redirect to here already.  If other people think that there's no need, fair enough.  Morwen - Talk 16:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't really know exactly what the UN objected to, apart from what Davies told us in DWM.  Even if they don't want the BBC to use the name "United Nations Intelligence Taskforce" in future, that was the name of the fictional organization from 1968 to 2005.  Changing the name of the article seems a bit like revisionist history to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Nah, if the name's been officially changed to Unified... then that should be the title of the article. And all links to it (eg Spearhead from Space) whould be changed too, IMO. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Zythe is right, we should use common names.  It doesn't matter if it's been "officially" changed - Jean Grey's name was officially changed to Jean Grey-Summers when she got married back in the 90s but her article title remains the more commonly used "Jean Grey".  That said, I think UNIT would be a better title, because not only would that negate the  argument over what the "UN" stands for, but "UNIT" is more commonly used in the show than the full title.  We don't call the TARDIS article "Time and Relative Dimension(s) in Space".    Paul  730 16:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I support naming it UNIT as well. It's the more common name in that it's more frequently referred to as "UNIT" rather than the expanded name. DonQuixote (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: No , it wasn't referenced in Torchwood .It was just said that Martha worked for UNIT and  that was it.No explanation of what UNIT actually meant. Garda40 (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then I call balderdash on the whole thing, if it's never been Unified Intelligence Taskforce in the show, then it's not a true statement of fact that within the show it is called that, only the context of the fiction can be taken here. If, as the article in SFX might suggest, in the coming series they use that phrase and make reference to it, then there will be a factual basis for the claim and the aricle should reflect it when it happens, but as it is the article is now in error. It should either remain United Nations Intelligence Taskforce, or more preferable be changed to UNIT, which considering that it's obviously a backronym, is what both expanded forms are based on rather than the reverse. There should however be something about the RTDs comments in SFX, which would seem to indicate an intention.Number36 (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Is the name change retroactive? Type 40 (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The name change isn't anything, since there hasn't been one yet. For any answers we'd have to wait until it eventuates to discern the context but there'd have to be fairly specific dialogue for it to be a retroactive change, or ret-con, so I highly doubt that it would be the case. But for all we know RTD meant that in the new series when they say UNIT, they'll mean that it's short for Unified Intelligence Taskforce, but never actually say it. In which case it could've just been a joke, -Oh okay the United Nations don't want us to use their name? Fine we'll just say UNIT and pretend that it stands for something else -what are they gonna do about it? The changes to the article, have been premature and should be reversed as soon as possible.Number36 (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: :Any additional comments:
The discussion above regarding the official name for the unit misses the point completely. And perhaps it's just as well. If it were just a matter of a humourless and bureaucratic UN objecting to Dr Who's usage of their name, I'd be very tempted to vote for retaining their name here on those grounds alone! But there's no need to disrupt Wikipedia as it turns out. Andrewa (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then just what is the point? And if it isn't "just a matter..." (which is certainly what it looks like to me, and as an American, I definitely don't much care how the UN feels, either), then what is it? And I do see it as a legitimate question and not a violation of "disruption" policies (I did check that link). Indeed, your posting, so utterly failing to make a point, seems to me to be flirting with it. Ted Watson (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: There has been a series of edits by IP: 91.125.216.106 and reversions by various editors, on the last instance applying the word "vandalism," which I am certain is inappropriate. For "Foundation" he/she has said "1968," which is the first year UNIT appeared in the program, i.e., from a production perspective when it was founded. I have no doubt that these edits, whatever they lack in true validity, have been made in good faith. Ted Watson (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by IP: 91.125.216.106 

message: Well, unless they edit the episode between now and Saturday, The Sontaran Stratagem will be the first use of Unified Intelligence Taskforce on air. This comes from the preview clip on the website, but I suppose it might be a little presumptive to add it. --Kiarboz (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And they said in the episode that they are funded heavily by the United Nations .Little dig back at being made to change name maybe Garda40 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Air 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose - we have a consensus for UNIT. Sceptre (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey 2

message: This article needs more out-of-universe material on the creation, development and use of the UNIT concept in the television series and other media.  There's some useful info in the Howe-Stammers-Walker books, and this Radio Times article has some info about the creation of UNIT and its recent revival.  I'm busy with other stuff, so if anyone wants to add this here it would be great. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of how much OOU stuff is in the article, it's one of the cases for inherent notability, by way of the dating controversy. Sceptre (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Indeed, I tried to find something yesterday but having watched very few classic serials and due to overly-detailed Wiki aricles about them I had a hard time figuring out which writer "invented" UNIT and which key writers developed the concept etc.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out-of-universe material needed 

message: Sorry, but where is it explicity stated that Mace is the Commander of the UK branch of UNIT? I think it seems unlikely given that the position has traditionally been filled by a Brigadier (Not just Lethbridge-Stuart, but also his replacement in The Five Doctors and Bambera in Battlefield) As far as I could make out Mace is definitely the commander of a battalion (as makes sense given his rank) but I can't recall a single reference as to him acting as any kind of divisional commander. I could be wrong though, but I think a reference is in order.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.205.147 (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart's replacement in "The Five Doctors" was a colonel: Colonel Crichton. 2.31.162.55 (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Colonel Mace the Commander?

message: Please go to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_27#Category:United_Nations_Intelligence_Taskforce where there is a debate and vote on renaming :Category:United Nations Intelligence Taskforce. Type 40 (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Category renaming

message: First of all, let me say, I was never happy with the name change. It was uneccessary because Ecclestone already called it 'United Nations Intelligence Taskforce' once on screen. They never had to use its full name again, really, so they were OK. Now around the time of the change to 'Unified' (RTD's sole decision), I put forth the theory on the digitalspy.co.uk forums that although they had verbally referred to it as 'Unified' (to keep them out of trouble), that within the confines of the Doctor Who universe, the name had not actually changed. This based on the fact that the acronym was still U.N.I.T and not UN.I.T (plus my stubborn refusal to accept the name change.) 
I have just watched part 1 of the latest 'Sarah Jane Adventures' episode, 'Enemy of the Bane' (I should point out that the events of this episode take place AFTER those in 'The Sontaran Stratagem'). It features the return of the Brigadier, and at one point there is a U.N.I.T facility. Stencilled on one set of glass doors is the U.N.I.T logo, complete with the full name underneath. The picture quality on iPlayer is not sufficient to read the words, but there are four seperate words. This would indicate that 'United Nations Intelligence Taskforce' is still the official name of the organisation (within the Who universe). If this can be confirmed (I have requested screengrabs), I would like to request that the 'Unified' name change be REMOVED from the opening paragraph, and instead mentioned only in the appropriate place in the main article as a 'brief attempt at change' (or something to that effect).
With Russell T Davies FINALLY leaving and Stephen Moffat taking over, there have already been efforts  to give Moffat a 'clean slate' as it were; it is possible that the 'Unified' name change is something Moffat was not comfortable with and wanted changed back.The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The name change has happened.  It's been stated on screen a few times now - I think in three different episodes by three different characters.  You can't really demand that something be removed because you don't like it.  And at least RTD hasn't done something really stupid like displacing the UNIT era by nearly a decade. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: It's still 'United Nations'...

message: User:DeadlyAssassin has added a tag to the article suggesting that the article UNIT British contingent be merged into this one, on the grounds that the other is "mostly in-universe cruft." I have examined that article and don't see that as valid, but nevertheless support the suggestion itself as that article is essentially redundant given this one. In fact, I did not even know it existed until now. Given that the programme almost by definition focuses on the British branch when it does deal with UNIT, this article predictably emphasises that. Again, I vote in favor of the suggested merge on the grounds of redundancy. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah hah! You merely duplicated the tag that's there on this article. I had misinterpreted the "...not sure who..." in your edit summary to mean the idea had been brought up on the other's discussion page. I clicked on the "Discuss" link on the tag on this article and it brought me here. Didn't think to check that talk page. All's understood now. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, someone added the mergefrom but hadn't added the corresponding mergeto here or started the discussion. :)   Sorry for the confusion. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

text: merge - most of the times we see UNIT it is in britain - not mnuch point in having two articles. 129.215.149.97 (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: oops - that IP was me not logged in - Eleventh Doctor (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss [[UNIT British contingent]] merge suggestion 

message: Where's the update for Children of Earth? --68.45.218.70 (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children of Earth 

message: I'm going to have a go at tackling the in-universe content in this article.  Firstly I'm going to create a separate History of UNIT article populated with the history content from this article.  This will let me abbreviate the history section and make this real world - an approach that's worked well for the Dalek article.  I'm then going to work through the rest of the article, and any substantial content I remove I'll place on this page. --Deadly∀ssassin 06:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think describing what the acronym stands for as (UNified Intelligence Taskforce, formerly United Nations Intelligence Taskforce) reflects an in-universe perspective in the use of the word 'formerly'. It does (present tense) stand for that in existing stories. Referring to an in-story change in the past tense would be like describing Sherlock Holmes as a retired man living on a Bee Farm, who was formerly a detective, in the article on that character. There is no real organization that changed its name, only stories, which co-exist, where it is one or the other. I will change the 'formally' to 'or' to reflect this, and the article goes on to explain the context of the different usages.Number36 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-Universe Content 

message: I have removed the call signs table - this strikes me as unencyclopedic and inherrently in-universe.
Call Sign   	Rank + Name
Eagle       	UNIT Helicopter
Greyhound 1 	Brigadier Lethbridge-Stuart
Greyhound 3 	Captain Mike Yates
Greyhound 6 	Doctor Martha Jones
Greyhound 15	Private Harris
Greyhound 16	Private Steve Gray
Greyhound 40	Private Ross Jenkins
Hawk Major  	Unit Carrier Ship Valiant
Trap One    	Centre of operations
Trap Two    	Soldiers in the field
Windmill 123	UNIT Helicopter
Windmill 347	UNIT Helicopter
::I think describing what the acronym stands for as (UNified Intelligence Taskforce, formerly United Nations Intelligence Taskforce) reflects an in-universe perspective in the use of the word 'formerly'. It does (present tense) stand for that in existing stories. Referring to an in-story change in the past tense would be like describing Sherlock Holmes as a retired man living on a Bee Farm, who was formerly a detective, in the article on that character. There is no real organization that changed its name, only stories, which co-exist, where it is one or the other. I will change the 'formally' to 'or' to reflect this, and the article goes on to explain the context of the different usages.Number36 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Call Signs

message: I don't agree with the reasons for removing this section. It could be better referenced and could benefit from expanding, but the issue of when the Pertwee UNIT episodes occurred is one that is widely discussed by fans (I recall reading an article on this in Dr Who magazine significantly more than a decade ago) and the ambiguity has latterly been referenced in the series itself. It is a crucial question, as, for example, Terror of the Zygons cannot have been set the year it was broadcast as the Brigadeer speaks to a female PM (and Thatcher was still a few years off from being elected at the time, so it wasn't a reference to her).
In particular, given that certain other Dr Who related pages link to the old UNIT dating page, which then direct to the UNIT page, it's helpful to have some reference to this here. Others are free to disagree and even remove the dating section again... but if they do please clean up all the links from other pages to UNIT dating. 82.110.160.178 (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring UNIT Dating

message: In The Sarah Jane Adventures, 1st December 2008, Enemy of the Bane Pt 1, it was stated that UNIT was part of "Homeworld Security" or at least governed by some sort of Homeworld Security Mandate:
KILBURNE: I'm sorry, sir, but the Homeworld Security Mandate dictates 
BRIGADIER: Homeworld Security. That's the trouble with UNIT these days. Too many buzzwords, too many directives. At least in my day we maintained the benefits of common sense. 
Full transcript here: http://www.chakoteya.net/SJA/211.htm
This was never, as far as I know, mentioned again in the context of the Dr. Who universe - it was especially surprising because there's a Homeworld Security in Stargate.
This isn't mentioned anywhere on this page, I'm wondering if it should be, and if so where it should be placed? Marcus Rowland (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Homeworld Security

message: I think this line in the opening represents an incorrect use of past tense with an in-universe perspective; going by WP:FICTENSE and MOS:INUNIVERSE, its use in older stories is as relevant as the more recent; as all those stories still exist to be watched at any time. (And 'currently' is of questionable worth in a series about Time Travel from an in-universe perspective as well come to that). It would be more correct to simply note that it stands for both (i.e. X or Y, type thing) and let the article expand on that. -It's also questionable whether that almost decade-old superficial change needs to be expanded upon in the lede rather than body of the article.121.73.221.187 (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a good point. DonQuixote (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Formally United Nations Intelligence Taskforce' 

message: Taking a look through the list, I feel the best way to merge is to expand the "Prominent Members of UNIT" section this article has to include information on notable members. I propose completely axing mentions of all personnel in the merger except for Kate Stewart and Petronella Osgood, though Bambera, Jac, and Magambo might be worth a mention given the latter two's recurring status and Bambera's decent number of appearances in spinoff media. Grand Serpent is already listed here, so he isn't an issue. Both Stewart and Osgood's portions from the article can likely be merged, though Osgood will need a bit of trimming. If Bambera and Magambo are mentioned, their sections will also need trimming. Major characters with their own articles already are listed in a paragraph, so I'm not too concerned about them, but I feel as though Kate and Osgood in particular should be described in greater detail given that they aren't really described anywhere else and are key members of the organization. 
These are just baseline suggestions. As I'm not too familiar with the merger protocols, I felt it best to discuss here before I did anything. If anyone wants to suggest something different, then go right ahead.  Pokelego999 (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with "List of UNIT Personnel"