Talk:UNIT dating controversy

message: Just a note, in "The Invasion" some 'advanced' technology can be seen, suggesting it's the near future. For instance the villain has a videophone in his office, videophones being something "we'll all have in a few years time" for about 50 years now. Also his company has made loads of money developing tiny hand-held pocket radios (can get 'em in Tesco for a pound now, but if Life On Mars is anything to go by not actually around in the 70's), but then he is also in league with the Cybermen so may have been using thier advanced technology. The photographer woman (can't remember her name) wears a dress which to me suggests "70's", but then i wasnt around in the 60's or 70's so i can't say for sure. That and the 60's writers couldn't have possibly predicted 70's fashions anyway. Also the UNIT agents drive Jaguar mk2's, in the 60's these would have been expensive and luxorious, but by the 70's they where old bangers used for getaway cars, which actually makes the secret agents seem "more sinister" to anybody watching the serial now who has seen The Sweeney XD 82.153.230.138 15:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Futuristic" technology in The Invasion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sorry my copy is many miles from me! Timrollpickering 07:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A tax disc?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: UNIT website

message: :"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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.)
And Jackie IS the kind of girl who would say she was 21 if she thought she could get away with it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.9.50 (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: (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)
thread_title: Merger

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Wrong book?

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. -- Beardo 00:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article title ("Controversy")

message: I'm wondering if the notes on how Ambassadors and Mawdryn began would be better off in the production section. Also whilst Ambassadors may have began with a different setting, when it was made (1969) weren't NASA predicting to have a man on Mars by 1980? This doesn't make the technology seem so advanced considering what Sherwin and Pertwee were saying in the media. Timrollpickering 02:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "[In 1969] weren't NASA predicting to have a man on Mars by 1980?" Not in the memory of this American who grew up not far from Houston, TX, where NASA was HQ'ed by that time, and who watched all the "space shots" on TV most interestedly. Ted Watson 21:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stories that began without UNIT links 

message: The fact that BBC 3 was not launched until 2003 is not a contradictory clue imho. Stuff in our world doesn't count, else you could say Harriet Jones being PM in 2006 was a continuity error. No. We live in  a parallel universe!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoviangeekdude (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but using that as an excuse to justify anything one wants takes the fun out of it. Cornell, Day & Topping's Discontinuity Guide took great pains to avoid that—and then the latter two wrote a "Past Doctor" novel, Devil Goblins from Neptune, in which they arbitrarily and with no impact whatsoever on their plot described a different history for the Beatles than we know and a few other such variations on real-world events. Makes me wonder just how much imput into the former book those two actually had. After all, "Season 6B" is often attributed solely to Cornell. Ted Watson (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can imagine that Doctor Who is a parallel universe to ours and therefore what year BBC Three was set up in, does not matter. Perhaps in the Doctor Who universe it was set up in the year of the episodes broadcast. I just hope they remember in the new series that BBC Three has been broadcasting for over 30 years, although it hasn't.--°wɧoɳɪvɛʀsɜ 00:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Three. 

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) 14:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Category renaming

message: The original off air recordings of episode 1 of The Invasion (the only surviving archive material of that episode) begin with the announcer stating the doctor travels to the year 1975.  I can quote this word for word if necessary and or post an audio clip, but I'd need to dig it out. I believe this was also printed in the Radio Times.  While it's an on air quote just before the theme music I'm not sure if it counts as a primary source, as it's not repeated on screen by any of the cast.  
What is interesting is it is only one of two dates explicitly stated by the BBC, bookend the Classic Unit era, this quote and Sarah Jane saying "I'm from 1980" in the Pyramids of Mars that takes place just after the last Unit story Terror of the Zygons. 
Gives a nice 5 year period for the bulk of the UNIT stories to occur in.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frrostie (talk • contribs) 21:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity announcement Invasion Episode 1 

message: I don't have the time to add/cite this source now (new baby!) but there's a 9-minute documentary on the UNIT dating controversy on the Day of the Daleks DVD, which could be used to source many of the statements in this article (and perhaps remove the OR tag). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD documentary 

message: I personally still think this is deletion worthy. But I'll abide by the consensus to merge. I'd lean to merging as little as possible. That's not just because of the lack of encyclopedic content here, but also because the section at United_Nations_Intelligence_Taskforce#UNIT_dating is far better written and sourced than anything else in here. I'll work with anyone who in good faith wants to respect the consensus from the AFD, and enhance the main UNIT article without violating other policies and guidelines. I'll wait around for a bit for input, and then we'll go ahead and carry out the merge as per the consensus. (And, of course, there's nothing to stop someone from revisiting the edit history here and merging further content to the UNIT article afterwards.) Shooterwalker (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  details of merge