Template talk:UNIT stories

message: Removing UNIT Dating link, as it has nothing to do with the template, which concerns itself with listing UNIT stories.  It may be more appropriate for a seperate UNIT template, but not here.
:Reverting - that's why it's qualified with a "See also". UNIT dating is a highly contentious issue and an integral part of putting the episodes in context. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe for putting it into context; but again, the template is a list, nothing more.  I think this would make great sense for a UNIT template, but not a UNIT stories template. Theprosperonight 07:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you can say "the template is a list, nothing more" when one can certainly extend the use of that template by adding that link. There's nothing to say it can't be extended to include an article that certainly is relevant to the stories as listed. And indeed, it does put it into context, since it's also about UNIT stories. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating

message: Shouldn't Aliens of London and World War Three be mentioned here, as well? - NP Chilla 08:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't usually count cameos. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh right. Just as we don't count The Five Doctors as a Dalek story, yes? Thanks, now I see. - NP Chilla 16:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ninth Doctor episodes 

message: :::JUST A MINUTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've just noticed we have The Web of Fear in brackets, even though UNIT does not appear in the story!! WHAT'S GOING ON??? - NP Chilla 18:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd consider that an exception, since it's a proto-UNIT story, with Lethbridge-Stewart front and centre, even if UNIT doesn't actually appear. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if it's before UNIT, then it's not UNIT. It's like saying the Somme happened in World War 2. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I've just put it in the "see also" section of the template. U-Mos (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Web of Fear

message: Shouldn't The Sound of Drums be listed under minor appearances? Tehr 03:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the sky-carrier is a UNIT ship I think the episode counts as a major appearance. --Brian Olsen 14:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Sound of Drums'' 

message: Should the Torchwood episode The end of Days be mentioned as a minor appearance, as UNIT is referred to? Or is that too small a reference for it to be included? StephenBuxton 11:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be some kind of appearance, as opposed to just a mention. The Fifth Doctor references UNIT in Time-Flight, for example, but we don't have it listed. --Brian Olsen 23:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The End of Days (Torchwood)''

message: Why is Logopolis listed here?  UNIT neither makes an appearance or is referenced in any way.  If there's no real response within a week, I'll remove. preceding unsigned comment was left by 66.190.212.209 (talk) at 16:16, November 17, 2007 (UTC)
:I think this may be due to the flashbacks at the end - one of which shows the Brigadier. StuartDD contributions 11:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logopolis 

message: As Martha is drafted in from UNIT are these mentionable? I think "Reset" is at least, as Martha shows her UNIT ID, Jack explains who UNIT is to Gwen, Martha mentions UNIT has been investigating the same phenomenon as the Institute and she pools UNIT data with Torchwood to help. I dunno if this would count as a minor or major appearance though because it is only features one UNIT member (Martha). --GracieLizzie (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torchwood - "Reset", "Dead Man Walking", and "Day in the Death" 

message: Should Mawdryn Undead be put on this template?  It does feature the Brigadier. 86.131.234.234 (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But not UNIT, and no actual military presence.  It's an appearance from the character, not the organization.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.150.24 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mawdryn Undead? 

message: Is there any reason why some story names are in "quotation marks" whilst others are italicised? Type 40 (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed back the italics; DW convention has old-style serials italicized, new-style episodes in quotes. Radagast (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Further explanation: it's not just a DW convention, it's a Wikipedia convention.  Multi-episode serials are considered long-form works, and so go in italics; single episodes are short-form works, and so go in quotation marks.  See WP:MOSTITLE. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: UNIT's been mentioned a few times in The Sarah Jane Adventures.  In "Revenge of the Slitheen", Sarah Jane calls them to help clean up after the Slitheen incursion, and in The Lost Boy Sarah's UNIT connections get her out of a sticky situation with the police.  Those were just passing mentions, but in The Mark of the Berserker Alan Jackson hacks into the UNIT database to find out the alien's backstory (apparently UNIT still hasn't improved their computer security since Mickey hacked them in "World War Three").  Should any of these go into the template? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not - "appearance" by definition means that it has to appear, so mentions do not qualify as actually appearing.  The third is only the UNIT site, not UNIT itself. 86.131.237.120 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: SJA stories?

message: As something of an afterthought to my recent post to an old thread, about whether or not The Web of Fear should be in this template, something occurred to me. I submit that this template should not be "UNIT stories" but "UNIT". There should, for one thing, be a section listing direct UNIT personnel with their own articles (there aren't that many of them, just six I believe); perhaps its title could be the link, List of UNIT personnel. It does already appear in a "See also" section at the bottom that encompasses a number of UNIT-oriented articles that are not about specific stories (as well as a few direct-to-video UNIT-based dramas that are), but there are also many "UNIT stories" with their own articles that are not here. These are several novels and audio adventures, which qualify just as much as those video productions. A separate section sure, maybe a subdivided one covering both, and perhaps move those few video stories to it as well. This is obviously too big a change for me to just do on my own initiative, so I ask: What do you folks think? --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong title? 

message: I would query The Seeds of Doom being in the "Minor appearances" section rather than listed with the other Fourth Doctor UNIT stories. UNIT are actually quite an important presence in the story in the last two episodes. My suspicion is that the issue is the UNIT characters are not ones seen before or since. This is largely due to the fact that the character of Major Beresford was supposed to be the Brigadier, but Nicholas Courtney was not available so the new character was created to command UNIT in this episode. I have a feeling if the Brigadier had been in this story as planned then there would be no doubt in classing it as a UNIT story. I would certainly argue that UNIT are at least as important to this story as they are to Last of the Time Lords which is not treated as a minor appearance (and also does not feature any UNIT personnel seen before or since). Equally the Torchwood episode Fragments is not treated as minor appearance, but UNIT only appear briefly in one section of that episode.  Dunarc (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Seeds of Doom and Minor appearance section