Talk:UNIT dating controversy: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Talk:UNIT dating controversy (edit)

Revision as of 15:20, 15 March 2023

6,502 bytes added , 15 March 2023

→‎Further Dating issues created by Survivors of the Flux

Jack

Trusted

45,580

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+==Another page to denote a similar controversy...?==
+Although it obviously wouldn't be as extensive or as long as this page, does anyone else think there should be a page called "Aliens of London dating controversy" about the "year ahead" problem caused by "Aliens of London"? The page would explain how due to the Doctor mistakenly bringing Rose to 2006 instead of 2005, each episode was subseuently said to be set a year ahead of its broadcast. It would also detail contradicting given dates (such as Donna mentioning "You [The Doctor] saved us all in 2008!"). The page would end with the section "Apparent resolution" which would detail how the problem was offset due to the lack of a full series in 2009, allowing the 2009 Doctor Who Specials, The Sarah Jane Adventures Series 2, The Sarah Jane Adventures Series 3, Doctor Who Series 4 and Torchwood: Children of Earth to all be set in 2009 in the Whoniverse and allowing Series 5 of Doctor Who to become contemporary with our universe once more. Does anyone agree that this article would be needed? [[User:Bttsstewart|Bttsstewart]] 08:08, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
+==Fuelling controversy==
 Although perhaps still fuelling the controversy, the website 'The Whoniverse' gives very good explanations for when it dates all [yes, all] onscreen stories, including those in the U.N.I.T. era.
 These [italicised explanations] could, maybe, be used if someone on The Doctor Who Wiki had the time and inclination to agree with the notes [User: Stripey].
 :just include a link under External Links. I know of two other very well-researched Whoniverse chronologies (''[[AHistory]]'' and ''Timelink'' by Jon Preddle, neither admittedly as up-to-date), so why give precedence to that one? (actually I think Wikipedia has a good one, too.) --[[User:Stardizzy2|Stardizzy2]] 22:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
-==Another page to denote a similar controversy...?==
-Although it obviously wouldn't be as extensive or as long as this page, does anyone else think there should be a page called "Aliens of London dating controversy" about the "year ahead" problem caused by "Aliens of London"? The page would explain how due to the Doctor mistakenly bringing Rose to 2006 instead of 2005, each episode was subseuently said to be set a year ahead of its broadcast. It would also detail contradicting given dates (such as Donna mentioning "You [The Doctor] saved us all in 2008!"). The page would end with the section "Apparent resolution" which would detail how the problem was offset due to the lack of a full series in 2009, allowing the 2009 Doctor Who Specials, The Sarah Jane Adventures Series 2, The Sarah Jane Adventures Series 3, Doctor Who Series 4 and Torchwood: Children of Earth to all be set in 2009 in the Whoniverse and allowing Series 5 of Doctor Who to become contemporary with our universe once more. Does anyone agree that this article would be needed? [[User:Bttsstewart|Bttsstewart]] 08:08, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
 ==Sarah Jane==
@@ Line 15: / Line 13: @@
 :I hear it said a lot (I haven't seen the story in a while), Sarah gives her age as 23 in Episode 1(?) of ''[[Invasion of the Dinosaurs]]''. --[[User:Stardizzy2|Stardizzy2]] 22:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
-== Okay, until someone actually makes it possible for ANYONE to edit(as the hollow claim er claims) this will be the longest "topic" ever. In "Carnival of Monsters"Jo says they have gone 40 years back in time to 1926. The obvious explanation is that The ==
+== Longest "topic" ever==
+Okay, until someone actually makes it possible for ANYONE to edit(as the hollow claim er claims) this will be the longest "topic" ever. In "Carnival of Monsters"Jo says they have gone 40 years back in time to 1926. The obvious explanation is that There was a (non-televised) adventure between "The Three Doctors" and "Carnival of Monsters" set in c1966. ==
-<p />
-== hmmmmm ==
-<p />
-== there was a (non-televised) adventure between "The Three Doctors" and "Carnival of Monsters" set in c1966. ==
-<p />
 == The controversy isn't the UNIT dating ==
@@ Line 96: / Line 85: @@
 (Please sign posts.)<br/>
 And another explanation: ask the Ninth Doctor about the Fourth Great and Bountiful Human Empire before "The Long Game", and then ask him about it afterwards. Details of varying significance can easily be changed by random interference in the time stream, whether intentional or not. The Brigadier may have chosen to retire in a different year because of one event or another that either did or didn't happen as a result of another event that either did or didn't happen because of yadda yadda yadda after a temporal anomaly from the Doctor defeating a time-traveling enemy or something. Time is in flux, the past can be changed out of order, and one can have memories of multiple timelines, even if only one if any are correct anymore (ask post-"Big Bang" Amy). —[[User:BioniclesaurKing4t2|BioniclesaurKing4t2]] - [[User talk:BioniclesaurKing4t2|"Hello, I'm the Doctor.]] [[Special:Contributions/BioniclesaurKing4t2|Basically, . . . ''run''."]] 03:48, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
+That has always been my theory, BioniclesaurKing4t2. It's a show about the Doctor, and others, traveling through time why is it so hard to believe that the dates things happen could change as he did other stuff in the past? [[User:GrimmShadows|GrimmShadows]] [[User talk:GrimmShadows|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:46, September 17, 2014 (UTC)
 == Battlefield ==
 Is ''[[Battlefield (TV story)|Battlefield]]'' and how much older Courtney looks in an already post-retirement story really relevant to dating what I assume is mainly the 1969-1975 era? -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 16:16, October 2, 2013 (UTC)
+== Has nobody considered this theory ==
+: Because it's flatly impossible to have the Brigadier retiring before he's even become the Brigadier
+Unless he had a very good friend with a magic blue box that can travel through time. {{unsigned|Teksura}}
+: When? When would he have travelled back in time with the Third or Fourth Doctors? And it's not like he travelled to the Victorian era or retired on another planet. The discrepancy is about 5-10 years, well within the Brigadier's original lifespan if he were originally from the late 1970s-early 1980s. And he's living in England as well. And how would he be retired when his birth certificate and service record wouldn't have changed? He still has the same name and history with UNIT, right, despite them ostensibly have happened while he was teaching maths? And did Benton take the same kind of trip when he became a used car salesman? -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 15:00, February 22, 2014 (UTC)
+== Sources section ==
+I'm not sure, seeing as this is a real-world page, but considering that the problem is related to ''narrative'' issues, I'm gathering that [[T:CITE DEF]] and the whole "a citation means that you know — because you've actually checked — that the fact appears in that story" applies here? Why are ''About Time'' and ''A History of the Universe'' linked to at the bottom of the page under a "sources" header? Nothing regarding information related to production notes, deleted scenes and lines in the original shooting scripts cite these resources, while ''A History of the Universe'' appears to be [[Lance Parkin]]'s speculative "history of the DWU", which really only belongs in the [[Theory:Index|theory index]]. -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 15:47, February 22, 2014 (UTC)
+== The Dating Protocol ==
+I have an idea that possibly solves some of the Dating problems! It came to me when Kate Stewart mentioned the old files of her father in THE DAY OF THE DOCTOR and where to find them with the "Dating protocol". It reminded me on Kurt Vonnegut's novel "Timequake" (1997), where a phenomenon with the same name happend, that turned the whole Universe back 10 years in the past. All its Residents where forced to repeat themselves, they had to do exactly as they did in the first place. Vonnegut also spoke about the problems of dating the events. For example: If the Timequake take place now (in 2015) and turns us back to 2005, and you repeat your life for another two years, would you count the year as 2007 again or as 2017?
+I don't want do emply it would be the same in the case of the UNIT dating controversy, but maybe it's something simular! Maybe it's possible that something happend that only the Doctor and some of the UNIT staff could remember!
+The other possibility for this protocol could be, that UNIT just mixed up their dates for reasons of secrecy or to prevent possible timetravellers on altering specific events!
+[[Special:Contributions/194.118.52.9|194.118.52.9]]<sup>[[User talk:194.118.52.9#top|talk to me]]</sup> 14:24, September 6, 2015 (UTC)
+== "The Enfolded Time" ==
+The opening story, "The Enfolded Time", in ''The HAVOC Files'' limited-edition anthology, gives an in-universe explanation (albeit a rather sketchy one) for the dating inconsistencies & for the need to have differing dating protocols.
+Because "The Enfolded Time" hasn't been published anywhere else & there are only 300 copies of ''The HAVOC Files'', the story may not be very accessible. Nevertheless, the story is worthy of an article of its own & ought to be referred to in this article. --[[Special:Contributions/89.241.219.216|89.241.219.216]]<sup>[[User talk:89.241.219.216#top|talk to me]]</sup> 21:46, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
+Corrected story title. --[[Special:Contributions/89.241.219.216|89.241.219.216]]<sup>[[User talk:89.241.219.216#top|talk to me]]</sup> 02:09, April 26, 2016 (UTC)
+: I don't think accessibility need play a role in deciding whether anything is worthy. This wiki references comic strips, newspaper-published short stories, and online stories that in some cases have been inaccessible to most people for decades. Just as long as they meet the DWU inclusion rules set out in the policies pretty much anything "official" (BBC-licensed or creator-licensed) is fair game even if only a few copies, for now, exist. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] [[User talk:23skidoo|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:45, November 14, 2016 (UTC)
+==Class==
+There should be some mention made of Class here (which does have connection to UNIT as UNIT's been referenced a few times in the spin-off). The Series 8 episode "In the Forest of the Night" states that that episode takes place in 2016 (which makes sense as there is dialogue in "The Caretaker" indicating that Clara and Danny have known each other for at least a full school year by that point, even though they meet for the first time in "Into the Dalek"). Working from there, "Last Christmas" could only have taken place in 2016 if not later, and then we have all the events of Series 9 before Clara's death, so she couldn't have died earlier than 2017. Yet the first season of Class has had several direct references to taking place in 2016, but after Clara's death. I think that's a legitimate enough conundrum to be included in the "Other" section. And since the show is making at least a peripheral connection to UNIT (I stopped watching the show after the first couple episodes but a character was trying to hack UNIT in one of them) I think it's worth noting. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] [[User talk:23skidoo|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:41, November 14, 2016 (UTC)
+== Further Dating issues created by Survivors of the Flux ==
+Survivors of the Flux shows UNIT forming in 1958 and features a voice cameo of the Brigadier as a corporal with UNIT in 1967 (which is pre Web of Fear whether you place it in the mid 70s or contemporary to when it aired). It is also worth noting that in the conventional military, corporal is a significantly lower rank than colonel, which he holds before joining UNIT {{Unsigned|81.102.243.127}}