User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 4

Category:Genera of mice but Category:Rat genera

Uh, I think they were both supposed to go the same way. I asked questions, as I'm still new enough not to know these things, but I think they both should be Genera of .... Or check with WP:TOL naming conventions, maybe. But not one one way and the other another. KP Botany 01:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

When I closed the rat discussion, the mice one was still open; however the category had already been renamed, per another discussion. The two were nominated separately and produced separate outcomes. It would probably be best to renominate one to match with others - I'll see which matches the pattern. Timrollpickering 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Checking further the discussion that moved the mice category was nominated with a rat one that never mentioned genera. Additional mouse genus and rat genus nominations came two days later, but again separate nominations and by the time I reached the mouse one it had already been moved. Timrollpickering 02:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 12#Category:Rat genera. Timrollpickering 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe there are naming conventions for this established by WP:TOL people already, and they should be consulted, shouldn't they? AfD seems like random acts of deletion, frankly. Why did you add the colons in front of the Category in the title, what does that do? KP Botany 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding the colons to the start makes it a link to the category, rather than entering the article or talk page into it. Categories for discussion is the place where all category changes should go, especially one that has come up before. Feel free to put a message on WP:TOL to note the discussion is taking place. Timrollpickering 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I did post on TOL. So, by adding the : you're admiting you're not a member of either rodent family? I kinda realized that was probably the case right after I asked--the use of the colon, not your specific identity (so shoot me, it's cyberspace). Thanks. KP Botany 03:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Missionaries_in_Africa

The cfd per WP:CFD of 5 January 2007 (closed by yourself) has become confusing. The merge should be Missionaries_in_Africa to Christian missionaries_in_Africa but the wording has been corrupted. roundhouse 19:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Typo fixed. Timrollpickering 19:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

reply

Thank you for the purple barnstar Tim. :) semper fi — Moe 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Peloponnesian War as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Peloponnesian War was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

You helped choose Wall Street Crash of 1929 as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Wall Street Crash of 1929 was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

Admin. Antics @ "Category:Jewish-American businesspeople"

Hello -- you may recall that in mid-December 2006 you and many others voted to undeleted "Category:Jewish-American businesspeople" which had been unjustly and swiftly deleted by a rogue administrator in early December 2006; proper debate/voting was not done and huge amounts of data was lost when this category was deleted, many of the people in that category losing their Jewish identity entirely because of this. This particular unjust category deletion happened in early December 2006, see: .

This unjust category deletion was later rectified when you along with others overwhelmingly voted to overturn the deletion and relist the category, see: . However, at this time neither admins. nor others bothered to begin re-adding the names that had been lost/merged when the category was originally deleted.

However, the category was not immediately recreated -- it wasn't relisted until many-many days after it had been voted back in to existence, and I had to bug User:RobertG in order to get it relisted, see: . Also, since that category's former data had already been entirely merged in to "Category:American businesspeople" it effectively meant that in order to rebuild the unjustly deleted category the people that had built it up over many months had to start from scratch since a list of the former names in the category were never provided so that users could re-add them. The category nor a list of the names that were formerly in it is no longer available, or this info is only accessible by admins.

Finally, even though the category deletion was properly overturned by you and others, it was renominated for deletion AGAIN on the 10 of January 2007 (only days after it had been recreated) -- it was then deleted 17 January 2007, with NONE of the people that had formerly voted to relist the category voting this time around; see: .

I am wondering if there is anything that can be done about this? Are you able to obtain a list of the names that were formerly in the category, or are only admins. able to do that? Can you or someone else try to have the category relisted? Is there a way to undelete the category again, given that it was deleted BOTH TIMES under rather dubious circumstances, with those that voted to undelete it the first time not even knowing to vote the second time or even that it had been renominated for deletion?

Thanks for any info/help that you can provide. --172.161.68.238 15:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your closure of the CfD on Category:Administrators open to recall

I notice that you closed this CfD with the statement "... but there are more keeps than deletes so keep." This suggests you are interpreting it as a vote, but I suspect you already know the XfDs are discussions not votes. Therefore the appropriate closing would probably be "no consensus" (default keep). The reason I bring this up is that judging from Category talk:Administrators open to recall, the CfD messages made it look like a consensus to keep was forming, when in fact it is as controversial as ever. —Dgies^t c 03:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Indian pastors

Category:Indian pastors, deleted by yourself acc to this cfd, has been re-created by the incorrigible Pastor Wayne. roundhouse 14:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Rwandan Genocide as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Rwandan Genocide was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

You helped choose Black hole as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Black hole was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 03:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

You helped choose Atmosphere as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Atmosphere was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

Doctor Who/U.N.I.T. dating

It is with great relief that I have traced the article UNIT Dating Controversy to you, as I have one very big question about it--or perhaps it is two very closely related ones. You say that in The Green Death there are on view two calendars, one showing a leap year February with the 1st and 29th falling on Sundays and therefore 1976, while another shows an April (expressly labeled as such, or is that the only 30-day month in '76 that matches this calendar?). The February is seen at a Global Chemicals guard station in the location film, of course, but the 1st and 29th are in the third column of dates from the left. For this to be Sundays, the far left column must be Fridays. This American has never seen such a calendar, and British writers/fans Paul Cornell, Martin Day, and Keith Topping state in their book, Dr. Who: The Discontinuity Guide with no ifs ands or buts that it shows the key dates on Tuesdays (which is how I read it), and is therefore 1972. Other sources have referred to this as a 1972 calendar, so I'd like to know how you get Sundays/1976 (justifying Sundays is all that is necessary, of course), just to have all the evidence at hand. I'm also unaware of any other calendar in this story, and, again, no other source mentions one, so I ask you to specify the location of the April one. Please respond as soon as it is convenient for you, as I would find an alternative interpretation to the conventional one fascinating. And failing that, the article would need to be revised, which should not be put off. Thank you. Ted Watson 20:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I recall writing 1972 but can't remember much more - or where the April calendar is (although everyone has said the year is unspecified). I'm not sure where people have got the 1976 date from - and it also seems strange that the BBC would go and specifically manufacture one (whereas a 1972 one is much more likely to be an existing one from a prop cupboard). It's possible I misremembered the day (too many of the guides in circulation just say "February 1972" and don't specify the day that determines this).

If the 29th is in the third column then it could be either a Tuesday or a Wednesday - most calendars I'm familiar with put Sunday at the end, though there are exceptions. A screenshot showing this calendar would be hand to see if the days are actually specified to settled this for sure. Timrollpickering 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, according to postings on the general U.N.I.T. article's discussion page, YOU wrote "1976," YOU wrote of the April calendar, and YOU wrote "Sundays," while no other discussion of this serial that I have encountered mentions so much as one of these things, yet here you seem to be laying these statements off onto other people. Secondly, while I have seen SOME calendars that put Sunday at the end, THEY are the very rare exceptions in my experience, and obviously Cornell, Day & Topping felt the same way if not stronger, as they made absolutely no allowances for the alternate layout being possible (perhaps they determined that there was no such leap year February within the requisite time frame and failed to say so; I myself do not know if there is or is not one). They--quite correctly--indicated that the calendar can't be read (you can't even make out the date numbers; there is shading to differentiate between actual days and empty slots), that the only reason it is definitely a leap year February is the fact that it has 29 days, no more and no less (and there is no question that the 1st and 29th are in the third column from the left, incidentally). It does not appear to be a BBC prop, however, as the scene was filmed at an actual factory's guard station and the thing is simply on the wall in the background (hence, the difficulty in reading its print). I have encountered incompatible accounts of the reality of this location, some saying that it was a just-constructed facility that was yet to begin operations, others that the company had moved out and it had been lying empty and unused for a year or two. Given the latter, a calendar that is about one year out of date (production was in early 1973, of course) makes perfect sense. While it could be argued that it IS a BBC prop to pay lip service to the concept of the U.N.I.T. era being in the "near future," it is far too subtle-in-effect yet troublesome-to-execute--as opposed to "BBC 3" in The Daemons, "Prime Minister Jeremy" elsewhere here, the inflations of both the population of London and the Olympic high-jump record in Invasion of the Dinosaurs, and the female P.M. in Terror of the Zygons--for that theory to be plausible. Besides, even you have now implicitly conceded that the "Sunday" (and thereby 1976) reading doesn't work, given the actual layout of the calendar, which you have not conceded to, I acknowledge. But at least I now know that the 1976 reference in and of itself needs to go; I won't do that at this point, as I feel that the entire rewrite, whatever we eventually decide it comes to, should be done all at one time. Ted Watson 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Having gone back and checked I definitely wrote "1972" when adding that section - see and also the very first version of separated dating page . Yes I made a mistake regarding "Sunday" - this was either misrecollection or the sources I was using (I remember once doing the calculations myself and working out that 1972 was the only year so was clearly mistaken in typing that). Mea culpa. As you'll see above, I'm deely sceptical that such a prop would be bothered to manufactured - the series production team doesn't seem to have cared as much about this as fans (and Doctor Who book writers, some of whom seem to take pleasure in throwing contradictory clues into their texts) and the calendar is either a stock prop or already part of the location.

The statements about the April calendar and the 1972 dating both come from Lance Parkin's A History of the Universe which has an appendix devoted to UNIT dating and is, IMHO, a much better source for continuity matters than the Discontinuity Guide as it gives good footnotes to each of its dates. Timrollpickering 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I have read the above, including the note/link. My time is quite limited today, and I need to pull some sources to confirm things before I compose a full response. Later.... Ted Watson 23:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I still say that your original draft that you posted on the discussion page of the general U.N.I.T. article said "1976" when I looked. It doesn't NOW, and the History listings indicate no activity on that page since last October, but that means that "somebody" is a great hacker. That aside, here is the relevant passage from Andrew Pixley's "Archive" feature on this story from Doctor Who Magazine #320, 21, Aug. 2002:

"On Friday 16 [February 1973], shooting took place at the former RCA International factory at Bryn-Mawr in Breconshire; the magnetic tape plant was chosen as the Global Chemicals Research Centre because it had been empty for 16 months. The BBC set up the security office at the gate, which contained a February 1972 calendar."

Admittedly, he doesn't quite say that the calendar was already there, but he does come extremely close (although I do allow the implausibility of a place that has been closed for 16 months having a calendar that is only 12 months out of date left on a wall; the most likely explanation of this is that nearly 30 years on, the estimate of how long the place had been empty--not really important for Pixley's purposes--was four months out). Furthermore, Andrew flatly states that it is for Feb. '72, and he makes no mention of any other calendar in the serial (surely you don't expect me to reproduce the entire article to prove this?). Between this and the fact that nobody else that I am aware of--which is extensive--has mentioned the alleged April calendar, I call the reliability of Parkin's book into question (if indeed you have accurately quoted it; I don't have access to a copy myself) and maintain that the reference to April be deleted from the article, and Sundays/1976 be changed to Tuesdays/1972. Sorry, but this is how I see the situation. Ted Watson 18:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that if we eliminate the reference to the apparently non-existent April calendar, we would also have to relocate this passage from "Contradictory clues" to "Established dates," as there would no longer be any contradiction here. Ted Watson 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If I hear nothing from you in the next week, I will eliminate the reference to the April calendar, change "1976/Sundays" to "1972/Tuesdays" and relocate it to "Established dates" myself. Ted Watson 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not write 1976 as I have shown (and find your claims about hacking to be absurd) so have no issue on this. But the April calendar has been sourced by the author of one of the best guides to continuity on this so I wouldn't dismiss it - I'll see if anyone on Outpost Gallifrey can focus the source.

As for moving it to established dates, I think that would be dodgey. A calendar showing a clear year is a different thing from the dialogue clearly stating a date. (Also there's still a contradiction because the story also shows "Jeremy" as Prime Minister - which was not a ridiculous prediction of the near future in 1972/73 but certainly not contemporary.) Timrollpickering 19:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, we're agreed that "1976" needs to go (as for hacking, "Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."--Sir Arthur Conan Doyle). I don't understand your distinction with a shown calendar versus a date in dialogue. One's as clear as the other, even if you have to research the calendar to determine its date--it is what it is. Furthermore, I've always subscribed to the theory that "Jeremy" here, "BBC3" in "Daemons," the inflations of the Olympic record and London's population (this one doesn't even make any sense, as the various threats to the city depicted in the UNIT stories should--if anything--drive people AWAY from it, resulting in a less-than-reality population of London in the Whoniverse) in "Invasion of the Dinosaurs," and the female PM in "Terror of the Zygons," are throw-away bits paying lip-service to the concept of UNIT being in the future and should be ignored rather than considered "true" evidence, as its quite clear that this is what they actually were, with the creative team making no serious effort to avoid contemporary trappings ("Ambassadors of Death" with its British space program was initially developed as a Second Doctor/Jamie/Zoe story without UNIT and set much farther in the future, and there was no further mention of these UK endeavors until the era's producer Barry Letts and script editor Terrance Dicks had departed the programme). But that's just one theory, I freely admit. One last thing--the April calendar has been CLAIMED "by the author of one of the best guides to continuity." Anybody who mentions the '72 calendar, and that's quite a few, states its location; when somebody--one somebody--alleges there's a contradictory one elsewhere in the story but gives no hint just where it is, that's not "sourced," or doing a good job of writing a guide. If you can come up with some specifics, fine, but until then, I have to doubt it exists. (Just why you were so ready to throw Cornell, Day & Topping's work out the window earlier yet now stand by Parkin's when he's all alone on this point is beyond me.) Ted Watson 20:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Having just briefly searched (my enquiry on Outpost Gallifrey has so far just yielded hypocritical "why bother with this thread?" responses), this cronology mentions the April calendar, specifically that it's in the pithead office. As for the various chronologies, A History of the Universe provides clear footnotes both explaining Parkin's own reasoning and also citing dates given in other major chronologies, the first chronology to do so, as well as clearly distinguishing between information from television, the books and the author's own speculation, whereas the Discontinuity Guide isn't decently sourced to the point of clarity between this and tends to just focus (as its own guidance for potential book authors states) on what fits and ignoring what doesn't.

As for the distinction between prop and dialogue, the calendars are background props and don't come across as a serious attempt to even vaguely date the story- it's not like the calendar in The Dalek Invasion of Earth which is the deliberate focus of a scene on so that "at least we know the century". It certainly isn't in the same league as the script editor signing off pages with a reference in them, let alone the entire plot revolving around definite dates. Everyone seems to take a different interpretation of future hints, such as the changing PMs, and I think it would be rather POV for a Wikipedia article to arbitarily declare that one source for the dating is "established" as the story being just in the past when the same story contains a hint that it may be in the future.

Finally for London's population not shrinking, why would it? In real life Londoners are traditionally resiliant - I can't think of anyone who decided to move out of London because of the July 7th bombings, and the lives of the majority of my friends and colleagues here revolve around the very places that were bombed. My recollection is that there was a similar response to the IRA's mainland bombing campaign. (And just which population stats are you referring to?) Timrollpickering 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long in responding here.

You and the linked-in chronology say that the April calendar is "in the pithead office." I have only one idea what that phrase might mean (an office at the mine), and it doesn't work here. I remember no scene in a office connected to the mine, and the mine was said to have been closed down for quite some time, so a calendar there would be anything but current, and therefore not contradicting the one at Global's security station anyway. Either "pithead office" means something I'm unable to conceive without a video available for screening, or this chronologist doesn't know what he's talking about. As he:

1) is completely unaware that a year must pass between Terror of the Autons and Mind of Evil;

2) deals with the dates of Who Killed Kennedy as if they've been carefully considered, when that novel's author admits quite the contrary in his introduction;

and

3) fails to realize that the identity of the true villains in the novel Face of the Enemy is not reasonably reconcilable with the events of Inferno (the Doctor just MIGHT be wrong [not likely, however] about that entire Earth being destroyed by Stalmann's England-located project's penetration of the crust, but so wrong that even much of Great Britain and its inhabitants survive? No way!) and that novel should be thrown out as not canon;

I must lean to the latter.

As for the population of London, my contention was not that it must have shrunk in the Whoniverse (just an "if anything" aside to that effect), but that the much larger-than-real-life (at the time) figure cited in Invasion of the Dinosaurs ("eight million") wasn't workable, i.e., given the events in the UNIT stories and a few others (War Machines and Remembrance of the Daleks, to name two off the top of my head), significantly large numbers of people wouldn't have moved in to increase the population.

When you have a "script editor signing off on pages" things that don't get on the air, that might have been deliberate decisions by the producer(s), and must be treated with caution. I know of an old-time radio site where the man running it has categorically said he prefers titles he has found on script copies to which he has access, titles he quite rightly admitted to me "sometimes don't even make much sense," to those read on the air by the announcer/narrator, which is stupid as the latter must have been on the script that the SOB was holding in his hands during the transmission/recording! (I put this much more politely and diplomatically to him.) It's not so definitely and irrefutably the case here as there, but the same principle is certainly a possibility that needs to be allowed for, or, as I put it above, such notations should be treated with caution. Ted Watson 19:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The office is seen in the story - look at the scene early in the second episode where the Brigadier phones Global Chemicals about cutting equipment. (Take a look at the transcript online: ) The office is quite active even though the pit itself has been closed.

Of your other assertions: 1) is not taken as gospel by numerous chronologists (quite a few wonder if the Master has been on Earth for a while pre Terror of the Autons and indeed quite a bit of fan fiction does so as well); 2) if we're going to nitpick at the level you are the real author's piece is an endword not an introduction and WKK whilst not the definitive piece is one of the better "big picture" books that tries to handle the UNIT dating matter (as opposed to many of the novels which are either only focused on one point or which deliberately spray confusion); and 3) throwing out stories as "non-canonical" is frankly beyond the last resort; so to claim someone "doesn't know what they're talking about" because they're not agreeing with you (someone who claims there's no pithead office in The Green Death) seems absurd.

I was unaware of the population figures but it suggests another hint towards the series being set sometime in the future. I presume the population stats are for Greater London which is quite large - why would people be put off living is say Bromley, Bexley, Croydon, Sutton, Kingston-upon-Thames, Richmond and so forth just because of events in Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, the City of London and Tower Hamlets? (It is also quite a conceit in the series that the public at large don't notice or remember alien encounters. And Remembrance does directly address this matter when the Doctor highlights the way Ace is unaware of some events that should be as famous as Bloody Sunday or the Poll Tax riots in the real world.) Timrollpickering 21:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In the actual episode, it is not at all clear where the Brigadier found the phone he is using, this transcript calling it the "pithead office" notwithstanding.

1) The Master installed the device named for Emil Keller (himself, of course) at Stangmoor nearly a year prior to the opening of The Mind of Evil. In both this story and the preceding one, Terror of the Autons, he is quite ready to throw his plans, which are proceeding quite well for him, out the window in exchange for the return of his dematerialization circuit which the Doctor stole in Autons ep. 2. The circuit is very important to the Master, so he must not have another. Therefore, he could not have travelled back in time between these stories, as some have claimed. This arose out of the realization that the Master's psychology does not allow for working in depth on such a complex, unrelated, alternative scheme the better part of a year before his "current" one goes into effect. Therefore, all the backstory to MOE must take place after Autons. There is no other reasonable and rational interpretation of the evidence. 2) Whether it precedes or follows the main text, a note from the author of Who Killed Kennedy concedes that he has made no effort to "handle the UNIT dating matter" [emphasis mine], as I said before. A sensible, chronologically ordered history of the organization, yes, but he threw up his hands and went with approximations of original transmission dates for "dating." 3) You're going to have to put forward an argument for me to give any consideration to your claim that throwing out novels with crucial plot elements that are quite problematical at best to the original programme is "beyond the last resort." I see that attitude as simply anal retentive, sad-fan-boy rubbish. In the example given previously, the villains of Face of the Enemy turn out to be residents of the Britain of the alternate Earth seen on TV's Inferno, an Earth the Doctor was absolutely certain was totally destroyed by the Stallmann Project's penetration of the planet's crust, which was accomplished in England! For the Doctor to have been wrong enough that some part of the planet and its population survived is no worse than quite a stretch, but for Great Britain and its people to have done so is patently absurd. This is, however, absolutely crucial to the novel's storyline, and despite the fact that there is much of the book's early portions that I like (appearances by Ian & Barbara post-TARDIS travels, Harry pre--), I see no way to salvage it. For you to suggest that I'm claiming that someone doesn't know what they are talking about on the mere grounds that they don't agree with me is absurd, because that's not what I did. I made a very good case.

I conceded that a "hint towards...the future" was the point of the inflated population figure and the few other things I listed, but also said that they were merely "throw-away bits paying lip-service to the concept" rather than real evidence toward it, given all the consistent indications to the contrary. I said it, so deal with it. As for the "conceit in the series that the public at large don't notice or remember alien encounters," this is something brought up in the later years to explain why the Whoniverse's contemporary Britain doesn't seem noticably different from the real one despite those numerous "encounters." That's all it is, and it's not very plausible, given the specifics of many of those incidents, as you implicitly concede in your discussion of the Doctor and Ace in Remembrance. Ted Watson 21:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have scanned the DVD and it is clearly an office. As for the others 1) is your interpretation but as I've said it is an interpretation a lot of others have not followed. The Master's plans in Mind of Evil are quite convoluted and I don't find it too much of a stretch that he may have started setting things up before Terror of the Autons. It's not entirely clear what his original plan for the parasite was, but he may have been seeking a way to routinely access prisons and recruit thugs for his own ends. That's one interpretation (and one that was considered in DWM several years ago). But to seize on the literal interpretation that the two stories have a year's gap between them (and the Master does sweet FA to get his dematerialisation circuit back in the meantime) and declare any chronology that doesn't conform this to be flawed is frankly a bad POV approach. 2) Bishop does concede that there is simply no "magic bullet theory" to explain UNIT dating and opted to go for the contemporary setting. This does tie in some stuff with real world events (particularly Harold Wilson's obsession with the white heat of technology) and ignore some others but frankly all chronologies have to do this when it comes to UNIT. Some chronologists go for vague "1970s" (e.g. Parkin), others go for specific dates (e.g Jean Marc L'Officer). Both approachs are valid. 3) As for Face of the Enemy it's been a very long time since I've read that one and I forget how the author handles this, but I'd be very surprised if the book is totally irreconcilable with the television series (give or take some of the other stuff - didn't another book retcon Planet of the Spiders out?). It's not absurd to seek to incorporate stories into a timeline rather than just jettison them outright.

I'm not sure we're going to agree - and asserting there is only one line of interpretation in areas that are heavily contested is dodgey. Timrollpickering 23:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

At least you implicitly concede that the transcript's I.D. of the scene as taking place in the "pithead office" is unjustified ("AN office," your words, my emphasis; this is from the perspective of the document being a transcript of the final work as aired, not anything else, e.g., pre-production script drafts). Indeed, the more I've thought about this, my memory is that the scene was at the garage where they had first asked for the cutting tools, and given my experience with US counterparts a well out-of-date calendar on a wall would not be unusual. But, I admit, the transcript doesn't suggest this. "Bishop does concede that there is simply no 'magic bullet theory' to explain UNIT dating and opted to go for the contemporary setting." Exactly MY point, that through his book he does not "try to handle the UNIT dating matter" as you claimed earlier, and therefore that online chronology is open to criticism for dealing with Bishop's dates as if they were carefully considered. You can say your last sentence as many times as you want, and as many people as may can stick their heads in the sand and not deal with the truth, but, adding in the fact that early in "Autons," a Time Lord informs the Doctor that the Master has just arrived on Earth, the evidence about the amount of time that passes between that story and "MOE" IS NOT REASONABLY OPEN TO ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION, PERIOD. ("The Master does sweet FA...." I don't mean to imply or insinuate anything beyond this next statement: I have absolutely no idea what that means despite being quite familiar with the events under discussion, and therefore no idea what the intent of your parenthetical aside here is. Clarification is requested.) As for Face of the Enemy, David McIntee (and I concede that I'm not sure if I spelled his last name correctly, as I don't have anything with his name on or in it currently accessible) does not "handle" this at all, he simply presents a situation in his novel that is grossly inconsistent (putting it mildly) with the TV story to which his is a sequel, without acknowledging it at all, let alone offering some kind of explanation of how the Doctor could be so wrong. He had an idea for a story, and didn't give a tinker's damn that it didn't jibe at all with the inspiration. He just ignored the parts of "Inferno" that didn't fit with his conception. I have no respect for someone who has enough interest in something to write a sequel to it, but not enough respect for the original to be reasonably compatible with it. The fact that there appears to have been no criticism of this novel on those grounds is further evidence that the fans of today are interested in the original novels & audio adventures, and now the new TV series, and hold the original programme in disdain. I agree that "It's not absurd to seek to incorporate stories into a timeline rather than just jettison them outright." I never said otherwise, only that there are SOME for which it just can't be done without throwing common sense (if not more) to the wind. Get that? I made no generalization! Ted Watson 23:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sweet FA" means "absolutely nothing". It makes little sense that the Master does nothing to get his circuit back (and the fact the Doctor can request it's brought down from UNIT HQ suggests that it would not be beyond the talents of the Master to infiltrate and recover it, given the ease with which he moves around in other stories such as Claws of Axs). As for the whole one year thing, I'm sorry but I've not seen others entrench a year gap between the two stories because of it (or been crucified for not doing so) so no matter how many times you shout you will not convince me it is an irrefutable fact and evereyone who does not conform to it is automatically suspect on the lot. And as for Face of the Enemy are there any reviews in the Doctor Who Ratings Guide - the specific page is here - which even mention this? The book's been around nine years and the idea that fans don't care about the original show is absurd - look at the sheer volume of reviews of the TV stories there. And as for taking the Who Killed Kennedy dates and constructing that part of the timeline around them, why is such an approach invalid? *Some* thought went into those dates, which is more than can be said for many of the other dates in the series that pose numerous problems for chronologists (for example Revenge of the Cybermen has dates and a backstory that suggest it's after Earthshock, yet the latter has a flashback to it). And why are you doubting research methodology by holding up disagreements on analysis? If you want to cast doubt on someone's research, hold up an example of something they've missed, not where they haven't conformed to your interpretation. Timrollpickering 00:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I deleted part of your signing there; just as I started to delete my original first paragraph for rewriting, somebody walked in, distracted me, and I hit the wrong key. Again, very sorry.

"'Sweet FA' means 'absolutely nothing.'" On the face of it, this certainly seems to be a good point. In the course of an entire year, the Master does not try to get his circuit back from the Doctor. However, for all we know he has tried several times and failed. Read on for the evidence requiring the year (again).

"If you want to cast doubt on someone's research, hold up an example of something they've missed, not where they haven't conformed to your interpretation." I HAVE, and I can't see how you can honestly think I haven't. I have repeatedly pointed out the statements in the two stories named above that, when added together, require a year to have passed between the them. Let me further point out here and for the first time in this discussion that the prison governor's statement in the opening scene of MOE that it has been "nearly a year" since Emil Keller (aka the Master) installed his machine (and the "device"'s nature and other statements in the story completely eliminate the idea that the evil Time Lord replaced a real Keller some time after that event--not open to interpretation) would obligate any serious Who chronologist or UNIT dating researcher to consider the passage of that much time in the interim (Did they forget about the remark by the time Keller's true identity was revealed? The concept of rescreening the story knowing full well that fact, and the small things they have pointed out in their reasonings, such as the "two" background calendars with which we started this discussion, leave that defense invalid). Subsequent to that, the other evidence cited in my previous postings here would confirm the hypothesis. Hence, anybody claiming to be making a serious effort at Who and/or UNIT dating but failing to reach this conclusion is wide open to criticism. The fact that you know of no published chronologist who has picked up on this, and of no published commentator who has criticized them for the failure does not in any way shape or form constitute even a start toward a refutation of the position. (BTW, I do concede that the Master probably has killed and is impersonating a real Keller here, as in most instances when he creates a false identity out of whole cloth, the word "master" is usually concealed in it one way or another; some examples are in Autons, The Daemons, The Time Monster and The King's Demons.) Hence, anybody claiming to be making a serious effort at Who and/or UNIT dating but failing to reach this conclusion is wide open to criticism.

"As for taking the Who Killed Kennedy dates and constructing that part of the timeline around them, why is such an approach invalid? *Some* thought went into those dates...." I don't want to have to say this again: The author himself admits that very little thought went into them, but the Discontinuity Guide authors clearly did put a lot of thought into theirs. There seems to be a general dismissal of that book among organized fandom, but I have never encountered a good reason for that, just a couple of lame ones (yours and Howarth & Lyons' Complete(ly Useless) Encyclopedia).

"The idea that fans don't care about the original show is absurd...." In 2001 there was an online discussion "list" via Yahoo Groups--it was new then and has now either moved to a new host or been disbanded--called "The Dr. Who Continuity Discussion Group." Despite the fact that one of the ground rules was "Assume everything is canon" (a position I have previously indicated I find less than 100% workable, that is, there are exceptions), the prevailing attitude was to deal primarily with the new novels, audio adventures, and more seriously conceived comic stories. I requested help in determining which two TV stories the "Past Doctor" novel Rags should be placed between. One straight response to my query had someone pointing out that Mike Yates' first appearance after Green Death (somebody in the group rec.arts.drwho having claimed to have encountered an official statement placing the novel between that and The Time Warrior and not gotten challenged about it, despite the fact that the book's depiction of the Doctor's dematerialization circuit not working [in passing] and, less subtly, Jo Grant as a fully active member of UNIT, rendered that absurd) was Planet of the Spiders. Somebody else then pointed out to him that Yates had appeared briefly in a novel that took place in terms of objective dating shortly after Green Death but featured the fifth Doctor. Another subsequent posting pointed out their joint ignorance of Invasion of the Dinosaurs, in which Yates is not just another man in a UNIT uniform but plays a crucial part in the plot. When I, in passing in a posting of my own, agreed with that, I (but, oddly, not the guy who pointed out the ...Dinosaurs gaffe in the first place) was attacked brutally and unfairly, anything I said in my defense being twisted beyond recognition or completely ignored. I had made up my mind to post a farewell message and quit the group, but was bounced by the moderator for ignoring a warning he had posted, which in fact I did not do. I subscribed to the Daily Digests, and my last actual posting, which came out in the same digest as his warning, was logged very shortly after it, so I suspect his ignorance of or disdain for the digest option is why the group shortly afterward disappeared from Yahoo.

Now you deal with these specifics, or I'll have to report you to the moderators (there is a limit to how far one can "assume good faith"). Ted Watson 19:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mind of Evil's "nearly a year" line. This is acknowledged in the sidenotes for Lance Parkin's A History of the Universe and he comes to the conclusion that it doesn't automatically require the two stories to take place that long apart (and also comments, like you, that it seems to be a hangover from before the Master was added to the story in place of the real Keller). The lack of other chronologists and critics does frankly put you in a very small minority on this if you're claiming your version if the truth.

Yes limited thought may have been put into the dates picked for WKK, but subsequent to that they are very period anchored. And as I've said before, many television stories give dates where even less thought was put into them, yet they often cause problems for chronologists. (e.g. The Invisible Enemy is set in 5000 but the dialogue suggests this is the time mankind finally left the Solar System, which is in contradiction to nearly every other future set story. Does one either redate the story - c2100 would be consistent with many - or construct a scenario that mankind got reconfined to Earth which is convoluted in itself or quietly ignore this?)

On how much fans care, look at Outpost Gallifrey where the classic series section of the forum is thriving. Mailing lists are strange beasts and tend to attract specific types. Timrollpickering 08:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Does one...quietly ignore this?" I have never intended to argue against this. Some things of this sort can and should be done to make some stories work in the overall scheme of things, but some are beyond this form of salvage. The true identities of Face of the Enemy's central villains, as accurately described earlier, puts that novel into this category.

Mind of Evil's 'nearly a year' line....Parkin...comments, like you, that it seems to be a hangover from before the Master was added to the story in place of the real Keller." I can't take this any way but as a claim that the storyline didn't involve the Master initially, but had Emil Keller himself as the villain. In no way shape or form did I say that. My suggestion was that in the unelaborated-upon backstory of this plot, the Master murdered and took the identity of an "actual" Earth scientist named Emil Keller. Furthermore, Doctor Who Magazine Special Edition #2, The Complete Third Doctor gives no hint of Parkin's claim having been the case. The fact that Parkin "comes to the conclusion that it [the line] doesn't automatically require the two stories to take place that long apart," does not tell me how he reached it. I also deny having ever said that the line in and of itself does so, only that it raises the idea and that careful, intelligent and objective examination of the two stories uncovers additional evidence that does require it. Repeatedly telling me that I am in a "very small minority" on this point does not, as I have said before, even begin to refute the evidence; it does not even address it. With all due respect to the regulation, "Assume good faith," this repeated refusal to deal with the actual evidence at all suggests that you have a hidden agenda/ulterior motive for not accepting such a gap. You don't like the idea, but you can't poke holes in the evidence, so you refuse to deal with it. That, as I also said before, was your last chance. You are to be reported. (To show you that I'm fair, I concede that your last paragraph may well have a good point about that discussion group I described earlier.) Ted Watson 21:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is significant that on the issues you are asserting as being absolute fact virtually no other chronologers/reviewers have followed this (and some have in their explanation dismissed the very points). As for the villain in Mind of Evil, my recollection of the DWM Archive (from somewhere in the winter 1993/1994) is that originally the story was conceived with a mad scientist called Keller, then when it was decided to have a running villain throughout the season the Master basically took Keller's role. I don't recall whether this was at storyline or script stage. The Master is often shown to be almost absurdly over complicated in his planning and having several ideas juggling at once (e.g. Castrovalva where he arranges a back-up trap) and in his very first scene in Terror of the Autons he knows the true identity of the circus owner, at a time when there weren't police databases that could be accessed anywhere. So he does seem to have been something on Earth before that horsebox materialises in the circus ground - and there are also a number of pieces of fan fiction, including one in the 1995 DWM Yearbook (yet another "Liz Shaw's final story"), which feature the Master already on Earth so there are others who've come to this conclusion. In such circumstances I don't think it unreasonable to note that your assertion of what is fact is not very widely shared. And I still don't see how this affects whether or not someone can or can't tell that the office sen is very clearly at the pithead. Timrollpickering 08:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for finally addressing the evidence for the one-year gap. I freely admit that some--but only some--of your points are well taken, the Master's detailed knowledge of the actual background of the circus owner being particularly solid. I should have also admitted before that I had not seen the original "Archive" feature on this story (though I would love to have a complete set for the UNIT stories). Concerning the lack of the Master in the initial development of MOE, this would not be the only time that one of Andrew Pixley's updates for a Complete...Doctor special contradicted the original archive (presumably because in the interim further research refuted the earlier statement), so the proverbial jury is still out on that one. "The Master is often shown to be...having several ideas juggling at once...." Yes, including your example, but these are invariably multiple alternatives within one overall scheme. Here, the lack of a full year between these two stories asks us to believe that many months before his alliance with the Autons/Nestenes is to have its intended effect, the Master is working on a completely unrelated scheme-of-conquest in the event of the other failing, which goes against his arrogance, etc. Or does it? Come to think of it, when the Mind Parasite "attacks" him and demonstrates his fear, the Master is taunted by images of the Doctor! Maybe he isn't really all that sure of himself! So, I now concede that the evidence is less than conclusive and irrefutable, but this timing remains highly probable, and I still maintain that there must be a pre-existing resistance to the idea for anybody doing serious dating work to give it very little or no consideration as has been the widespread case. Surely this is not just inertia from the two being originally transmitted successively in the same season? "I don't see how this affects whether or not someone can or can't tell that the office sen [sic] is very clearly at the pithead." It doesn't, not directly. It goes to the credibility of both Parkin (who was at first your only and specifics-less source for the existence of the April calendar) and the compiler of the linked-in chronology, who remains your only source to pinpoint the alleged location of "April." As for my reporting you to the moderators, today I received a message that it had been taken down because, according to that message, I had put it up at the wrong place and incorrectly formatted it (I followed the existing instructions as much to the letter as possible given their less than stellar clarity, especially re: format). Given this newest exchange, I won't follow the link given me to try again. We have a definite improvement here, and I repeat my opening sentiment, thank you for actually addressing the evidence. I do have one question, which I freely admit doesn't really have anything to do with our issues--and I do not intend this as criticism of you for making the mention--but your comment "yet another 'Liz Shaw's final story'" intrigues me, in an academic way. There is more than one way to take this. Do you mean that various fans have written her a story depicting her good-bye to the Doctor and UNIT, i.e., a formal, "on-stage" end of her run as his official companion, between Inferno and ...Autons, such as one in the Virgin/Missing Adventure novel The Scales of Injustice? She has made chronologically subsequent "guest appearances," starting with the BBC Books Past Doctor novel, Devil Goblins from Neptune, which still precedes Season 8, and another, whose title I forget but I think it was another V/MA, in which she joins #3 and Jo in a TARDIS trip to another planet (to say nothing about a much older Liz's adventures with P.R.O.B.E.). Again, this is strictly academic curiosity. Ted Watson 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is something of an entire sub-genre of Doctor Who fan fiction detailing Liz's departure from the Doctor and UNIT - as well as the The Scales of Injustice and the DWM Yearbook story there appear to have been umpteen pieces in fanzines and the like. Timrollpickering 10:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Thank you. Also, my apologies for not telling you that as I made the unsuccessful attempt to report you--now abandoned, I repeat--I also made the Tuesday/1972 shift in the article, but noticed on my way here that you have been there since, anyway. Good point about the Android Invasion calendars, too. Ted Watson 19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I owe you another apology. As it happens, I just pulled out my copy of the "Complete Third Doctor" special, and there is a reference to the Master being inserted into "The Mind of Evil" after some development had been done, in contradiction to my statement on 22 April. This is in Pixley's "In Production" essay for Season Eight (of course; where else would it be?), but the previous line about the initial creation of the storyline makes no mention of the villain at all (just the prison setting and what themes went with that), while the story's specific "Archive" updates, describing in detail what that text gives all indications as being the original outline, repeatedly refers to the villain as "the Master." It may well be that this last is an unintended if very strong implication on Pixley's part, or the other may be an oversight in a rewrite when Andrew discovered late in the proverbial day that the story had always featured the evil Time Lord. But in any event, I was wrong in saying this publication made no such statement, and for that I do certainly apologize. Ted Watson 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of past discussion on my talk page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on my current talk page or the talk page for the article in question. No further edits should be made to this section.