Template talk:UNIT stories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Doctor Who (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


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 (talkcontribs) 13:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 (talkcontribs) 08:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ninth Doctor episodes[edit]

Shouldn't Aliens of London and World War Three be mentioned here, as well? - NP Chilla 08:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't usually count cameos. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 09:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
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)

Web of Fear[edit]

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)
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 (talkcontribs) 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
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)

No, it's like saying John Brown's attack on Harpers Ferry is part of the American Civil War. It is directly connected, relevant, and should be here, just as that can be found there. Maybe there should be a parenthetical aside pointing out its being the seed for the UNIT concept, but it definitely should be on this template, just as it was equally covered in Doctor Who Magazine 's "UNIT Exposed" special (Winter 1991). --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Sea Devils should be here[edit]

I have long felt that the Season Nine serial The Sea Devils should be considered a U.N.I.T. story. It is set in "contemporary" Britain, as all such stories are, and The Doctor and Jo Grant are acting in their capacities as members of that organization. The various UK government officials with whom they interact frequently refer to them as "the people from U.N.I.T" or "the U.N.I.T. people," and our two heroes even produce their credentials at one point. So even though we see no U.N.I.T. personnel, bases, vehicles, or even uniforms (i.e., extras as anonymous soldiers) (and all arguments to exclude it can be based on only those absences), this story has always been in my mind a member of that group, and I strongly suggest that it be added to the list here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tbrittreid (talkcontribs) 19:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC). I just came back having realized that I forgot to sign, and see that some one did it for me. My apologies for my failure, and my thanks for the cover. I would also like to add the suggestion that this story might be added to the sub-list of "Minor appearances," rather than to the main one. Ted Watson 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Colony in Space's opening and closing moments take place in the Doctor's U.N.I.T. HQ lab, and the Brigadier himself is present, it could be added to the "Minor apperances" list as well. I would not unilaterally do either of these on my own, but open the idea of such changes to discussion. That was my original idea, but I sure failed to say so! Sorry. Ted Watson 21:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It has been more than two months since I posted the above, and with no dispute, I am very tempted to add these two stories to the list. If we reach June 9--three months--with no arguments to the contrary here, then I will. Ted Watson 17:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - personally I didn't respond because I had no objection, and nothing really to add. I'd say go ahead - two months is plenty of time to wait! If someone seriously objects, they'll speak up when you make the change. It's easy enough to change it back. --Brian Olsen 23:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You're quite right about it being easy to revert, but I didn't want to seem presumptuous--I've been in here since February only, and I'm trying to show proper respect for the project. Thanks. Ted Watson 19:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I just went to add these two stories and had a problem, which is that I have no idea how those dots between titles are put there. I had the same situation when I added Who Killed Kennedy to the box of Master novels (this was resolved when I created the new category "Virgin sidestep" instead of listing it as a "Missing Adventure"; the more I look at that, I feel it was the way to go there, anyway). There's no "code" in the edit field for the ones already in place, just the dot itself as if there's a button on the keyboard for that, which there isn't, not on this computer, at least. I also checked every button across the top of the field, but nothing seemed appropriate. "Editing help" was a washout on this point, too. Can somebody please help? Ted Watson 18:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how to type it directly, but you should be able to highlight and copy the dot, then paste it where you need it. --Brian Olsen 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give that a try. Ted Watson 21:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't do it myself, and thought I'd posted a note here to that effect yesterday. In any event, I see that somebody has done it. Thank whoever very much. Ted Watson 21:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I just found out that somebody took it back out and the reasoning given in his/her edit summary is already refuted here. I put it back in, but felt a fresh post here was a good idea along with the link to here in my edit summary. BTW, I found the dot in the Symbols box below the edit summary field. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Luckily I saw this here, because I was just about to remove this. No way is the sea devils a UNIT story! How is it? UNIT do not appear, at all. Doesn't matter that the Doctor and Jo come from UNIT and go back there after, it's not seen. And they do the same in curse of peladon, the only difference being travelling in the TARDIS. That it is a UNIT story in your mind is, with the greatest of respect, of no matter. U-Mos (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you even read the above rationale? Your "comparison" to Curse of Peladon is completely lacking in relevance, including your "come from UNIT and go back there after" as I said nothing of the kind anyway. Since you apparently did not read my earlier post, I'll restate the rationale here:
As with any UNIT story, this takes place in "contemporary" Britain (the basic invalidation of your Peladon "comparison"). Throughout, the Doctor and Jo are operating in their capacities as members of UNIT. They are repeatedly referred to as such by the various British government figures with which they interact here, and even show their UNIT credentials in one scene. That no other UNIT personnel, and none of its equipment or bases at all, are seen is why I go along with putting it in "Minor appearances." Still, that the organization UNIT is a definite element in this serial cannot be refuted. Furthermore, note that another editor went out of his way to agree with me, so you really need to say more than "no way" and put up an irrelevant "comparison." That it is not at all a UNIT story in your mind is baffling. Tbrittreid (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
My comparison to Peladon is not irrelevant, it is the same situation of the Doctor and Jo coming from UNIT but not being seen there. They do not act in their capacity as UNIT staff, they head to the island to visit the Master. The Doctor could show UNIT credentials any time he likes, he could do it in tomorrow's new episode if he feels like it, that wouldn't make it a UNIT story. The organisation of UNIT plays no part in the sea devils, neither a minor or major one. It is not a definite element in the serial, so I do refute that. U-Mos (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You "refute" nothing but merely deny. Your Peladon comparison is irrelevant because in that story they are on another planet in another star system some centuries in the future. The fact of the matter is that while the Doctor (and Jo) "could show UNIT credentials any time he likes", it is irrelevant to the issue at hand because it would be a pointless act if the documents had no meaning in the context, such as on Peladon in the future. It is not at all clear that his and Jo's visit to the Master is strictly personal, and in any case they use "their capacities as UNIT staff" to accomplish it, given the security arrangements supposedly in place there. If producing their credentials isn't good enough for you, I repeat that the UK officials with whom they deal repeatedly refer to them as "the people from UNIT" and "the UNIT people." Those statements, those glimpsed (by us) documents and everything that the combination imply do mean that "the organisation of UNIT plays a part in the sea devils [double sic]" more than in the brief scene in the Doctor's UNIT HQ lab in The Mutants, since that is simply where the Doctor receives the box that the Time Lords want him to deliver very elsewhere/when. The Doctor could have been anywhere. This is a "Minor appearance" of UNIT, yes, but not as minor as in The Mutants. --Tbrittreid (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

All of this is totally in-universe. The Doctor is the Doctor, Jo is the companion; their appearances alone do not make a UNIT story. Martha Jones is from UNIT in the Torchwood episodes as discussed on this talk page, yet they are quite correctly not in the templace. UNIT do not feature in or influence the story in the slightest, that's all there is to it. It can't be a minor appearance if there is no appearance. U-Mos (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There is more of UNIT in this story than just the Doctor and Jo, and that has been described here in no uncertain terms more than once. Given that, your "UNIT do not...influence the story in the slightest" is nothing less than a bald-faced lie. You demonstrate that you have a hidden agenda/ulterior motive for keeping this title off the template, and there is clearly no point in discussing the matter any further with you. --Tbrittreid (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
To any respondent to my Third Party Opinion request: Please understand that the idea is to place this serial in the "Minor appearances" list. Furthermore, recalling an earlier 3rdPO, if, as that 3rd party eventually admitted about that topic, you "know little and care less" about Who and UNIT, please leave this to someone who is knowledgeable about them and therefore qualified to form an opinion. Thank you. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
While I came across this talk section from its listing on the 3O board, I am just making a comment and not rendering a 3O opinion here. Frankly, I'd skip 3O here. I'd handle this either by informally soliciting opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who or by formally setting up a RfC. This seems to be regarding a finer point of Who fandom which would require a certain specialized degree of knowledge I'm honestly not sure is present among 3O volunteers, but is, I think, likely to be present among WikiProject Doctor Who volunteers. WCityMike 22:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The 3O page did indeed say something about relevant "Project" pages. Thanks for the link, but I'm out of time today. It'll have to wait. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
It is of course your perogative to take any of the above suggested steps if you wish, and I would be grateful if you'd provide a link to any step you may choose to take here in the interest of fairness, but I must say your sudden descent into bad faith assumptions is not at all welcome. To say UNIT has no influence on the story is an interpretation, and to my mind the most out-of-universe interpretation we can offer (hence my favouring of it). It is certainly not a "bald-faced lie", or even a bare-faced lie. And why on earth would I (or anyone, for that matter) have an ulterior motive for removing it from the template?! It's not a good thing, and I am going to put an official warning on your talk page for this. I would also be grateful if you could reiterate how there is more UNIT than just Doc/Jo in the serial, as I've read this section several times and I'm not seeing it. Thanks, U-Mos (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Our personal opinions on this matter don't count: they constitute WP:OR. What do the reliable sources state? Has DWM, or books written by Lofficier, Howe/Stammers/Walker, Haining (etc.) actually got it written anywhere that this is a UNIT story? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A very good point. I'll check my copies of the Doctor Who Magazine "UNIT Exposed" special, its The Complete Third Doctor special edition, Lofficier's Programme Guide and The Discontinuity Guide, and let you know the results tomorrow. Again, thank you for your very good point, Redrose64. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously if there is a reliable source calling the sea devils a UNIT story (which I doubt there would be), then it would have to be added. In the absence of any sources however, I remain sure that it should not be included. Tbrittreid, refusing to respond to my points isn't helping the discussion, and as far as your "conclusive" evidence of bad faith on my part... well, quite frankly I have no idea where that impression has come from. Childish adamance does not help a resolution to be reached. U-Mos (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Fairly simple I'd have thought - UNIT does not appear, therefore it is not a UNIT story - therefore it should not go on here. (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


Here we go:
  1. John Peel in "Doctor Who 9th Season Guide", Fantasy Empire #9, March 1984, p. 49, wrote in his synopsis for this serial, "Realising that Trenchard and his men cannot be trusted, the Doctor asks UNIT to replace the men." That is a UNIT influence in this story. If U-Mos wants to deny the accuracy of Peel's synopsis, I suggest he first look at the remaining sources.
  2. Doctor Who Magazine 's "UNIT Exposed" Winter 1991 special included The Sea Devils in its "The UNIT Chronology".
  3. And most importantly, Jean-Marc Lofficier's The Universal Databank, Virgin Publishing, 1992/1994, in the UNIT entry (on p. 422), includes the Sea Devils on the list of menaces "the Third Doctor helped UNIT defeat" and this serial ("LLL") on the list of 3rd-Doctor-&-UNIT vs. the Master stories.
I'd say that clinches it. As can be clearly seen above, it is U-Mos who refused to deal with my points, which is why I gave up discussing the matter with him. --Tbrittreid (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for finding some sources. The first one means nothing as it does not describe an appearance of UNIT, and the third is not conclusive, but the second one looks like it may be the irrefutable source that would be required to add this serial. Can you go into more detail on the context of its mention in the magazine feature please? U-Mos (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to point out that I don't agree with the sea devils being placed under "minor appearances" in any circumstances. If you can confirm the DWM source is good, then it should be in the Third Doctor section as a UNIT story rather than a "minor appearance", as there's no getting past the fact that there is no appearance to be considered minor. U-Mos (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately I lack the privelige of paper-based sources, but [1] stresses that UNIT are "totally unseen". Does anyone know of other reliable UNIT chronologies that will either include or exclude The Sea Devils? U-Mos (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the second of these two posts, that I was compromising in agreeing to go Minor. But: "...there's no getting past the fact that there is no appearance to be considered minor." Then why is there a section here called "Minor appearances"? You put yourself in direct opposition to consensus here with that one. As for the first of these, my first source describes an "influence" (your word) of UNIT on this story, so it does mean something, especially when added to the fact that through most of this serial the Doctor and Jo are acting in their capacities as members of UNIT. "The UNIT Chronology" I expected you to challenge on the grounds that it also lists stories important in UNIT's history (such as The Abominable Snowmen and, retroactively, Remembrance of the Daleks); it simply lists this one among the various incidents in the classic UNIT era, between Day of the Daleks and The Time Monster of course. Indeed, your attitude here appears to be a pretense, as I have no idea what "context of its mention", for which you ask, there can be in a chronology beyond the fact of the serial being listed in it. I maintain that Lofficier's Universal Databank is quite conclusive and that you give no basis for your assertion otherwise because you don't have one. See our WikiProject Doctor Who spokesperson's post again: that one falls directly into the sort of sources he asked for, citing Lofficier at the start of his list of relevant authors. Your "lack[ing] the privilege of paper-based sources" is simply your tough luck, and irrelevant to the actual discussion. You just won't admit you're wrong, will you? You are, so you should. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That website freely admits that its content is taken from two printed sources, and I can confirm that in
it states "Despite the story's near-contemporary Earth setting, UNIT is for once totally unseen ... the implication may perhaps be that UNIT is a purely land-based force". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Tbrittreid, I'm going to say once again: please, please can you assume good faith. It's bordering on personal attacks now, and it's not a nice thing to see when I'm trying to have a productive discussion on this to get the best (ie. most verifiable) result. That aside, I call the Universal Databank inconclusive because helping UNIT defeat the Sea Devils does not necessarily mean the Sea Devils is a UNIT story, and the Doc3+UNITvMaster identifier only places it within the Earth/Master stories of the era, nothing more. I am not refuting the existence of the minor section, but if we are including the Sea Devils here due to UNIT's influence that would make it a fully-fledged UNIT appearance. And if the UNIT chronology also lists The Abominable Snowmen and Remembrance, the Sea Devils' inclusion in it also holds no merit for including it here. U-Mos (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And I am going to say once again: It is irrational to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, and the page you linked in on my talk page, Wikipedia: Assume good faith, does not suggest otherwise. To the contrary, it acknowledges that bad faith behavior can happen and should be dealt with. I repeat that the Universal Database entry I cited was the one on UNIT, and it thereby expressly tied this story to UNIT. Quit misrepresenting my posts. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting anything, the categories the source placed the serial in do not, to my mind, conclusively define The Sea Devils as a UNIT story, as I explained above. U-Mos (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Sound of Drums[edit]

Shouldn't The Sound of Drums be listed under minor appearances? Tehr 03:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

The End of Days (Torchwood)[edit]

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)

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)


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 (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)

Torchwood - "Reset", "Dead Man Walking", and "Day in the Death"[edit]

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)

Mawdryn Undead?[edit]

Should Mawdryn Undead be put on this template? It does feature the Brigadier. (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But not UNIT, and no actual military presence. It's an appearance from the character, not the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


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)

I've changed it all over to italics. I've also separated out the Torchwood stories. Type 40 (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed back the italics; DW convention has old-style serials italicized, new-style episodes in quotes. Radagast (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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 (talkcontribs) 04:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

SJA stories?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 04:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC).

Wrong title?[edit]

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)