Talk:An Unearthly Child (TV story)

Could the Old Mother count as a bad guy as she wanted to kill them?--GingerM 17:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure that she would count as a bad guy she did was the one who set them free after all--Amxitsa 15:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should this really be a cultural reference or should they just refer to the real world references. Would it be better in continuity or should it be removed from this page and put in the appropriate enties i am about to write? "Susan is listening to John Smith and the Common Men when Ian and Barbara walk in, John Smith being the stage name of 'the honourable Aubrey Waites, also known as Chris Waites according to Ian"--Amxitsa 15:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Since the performers are entirely fictional, and in light of the lead singer's name, I'd put it under continuity, with a note that "John Smith" was the pseudonym the Doctor later adopted during his time with UNIT.

--Freethinker1of1 20:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was going to remove the individual episode links from this and delete the pages written for them, but on the off chance that someone may actually enter "The Cave of Skulls" or "The Forest of Fear" in the search box, I thought that instead I would simply modify the links so they lead to the epsiodes in question in the "Plot" section. --Freethinker1of1 03:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There were several persons listed as having played the schoolchildren that I couldn't find listed in any of the sources listed under "External links." Since I couldn't find anything confirming that these people had actually been in the episode, I'e removed them for now. If anyone can find asource confirming that they did appear in this story, by all means put them back. --OncomingStorm 09:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Complete rejig of this page
Hello, all. I've come over from Wikipedia (on a different username), and I decided to set up an account. Why? Because I thought this free Doctor Who reference site looked slightly lacking and unprofessional. So, what I've done is I've completely cleaned up this page, and am using it as an example of what this project can do. I have not added much more information, I have just shifted stuff around and added proper headings, and it is looking so much better. Now, being a newbie here, I don't know this next question. Where is the sort of 'meeting point' for everyone (like WikiProjects on the original site) where we can have a discussion about this. --TheTimeMeddler 20:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You seemed to have dropped a lot of information though, particularly in the Myths (Which seems to be completely gone now) --Colleyd 23:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Woof.


 * The rejig is interesting, but it's not quite as easy to read.
 * Just some things to note:
 * There are separate pages for all the Novelisations (Target Novelisations), which negates it all being contained on one page, there are also proposals in the works (though nothing confirmed yet) for separate DVD/video pages.
 * It seems this in your 'rejig' has become a more generic wikiepdia page, rather than a page specified to the Doctor Who universe. The References section was deliberately split up to give the references meaning and links to the categories from whence they came. (Though some of the detail is appreciated).
 * The location filming and myths sections have both been removed.
 * Also Continuity and Continuity errors are two completely different things, Continuity refers to the interealatedness between stories be it TV/Novel/Novella/CD etc. While Discontinuity, errors etc is about actually plot problems, things which don't make sense and things like boom mics in shot.


 * Also just on the format of the Story pages, it is generally formatted thusly: Synopsis, Plot, Cast, Crew, References, Story Notes etc, Continuity. Mainly because References relate to the story and therefore are exterior to the Story notes (they are also the in-universe section of the article). Continuity follows the Story Notes as it links the interconnectedness of the stories into a wider continuity.


 * Also there are just simple formatting issues such as the bullet points on the External Links which make for a easier to read and follow list.
 * Then there are just things (I personally) don't think look good which are the tables in the article of the DVDs/VHS which just seem a little too imposed within the article. --Tangerineduel 06:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll try and get round to everything you've said...


 * About the Myths section - I thought that it was unclear. You've reinstated the Myths, Tangerineduel, but I still think each bullet point under myths should start with 'It is a myth that...' or something similar, and then actually relate the truth of the matter afterwards. Otherwise, it is unclear about whether it is true or false, from a reader's point of view.
 * Novelisations/DVD/VHS sections: I have not added anything that wasn't there before. Any unnessecary detail included in these sections was there before I edited, I just enlarged the pictures and turned those lists into thumbnails. (To tell the truth, I find the DVD/video section to be extremely ugly and hard to read. Perhaps we could at least reinstate the headers that I put in?
 * Personally, I find the References section on the original page (and on the page that's a cross between yours and mine, thanks to Tangerineduel) cumbersome, ineffective and asking for trouble.
 * Can I just clarify, do we all know what 'Location filming' means? I always take it to mean when they go out of the studio and film somewhere that's not a studio. Also, my opinion is that any headed section with only one entry should be merged with another one.
 * Also, one or two things that I've spotted are:
 * In Tangerineduel's new version of the page, there's my written paragraph about the ratings, and then the ratings immediately afterwards. Do we need both? Personally, when there's a choice, I'd go for prose every time as it looks better and is easier to insert information into than a large bulleted list.
 * The 'Goofs' section appears like something on a forum. I say we clean it up.


 * Well, that's what I think. Later, I might make another version of this page, merging what I've just said into the current revision. --TheTimeMeddler 06:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Location Filming is a bit of a misnomer, really it's 'Filming Locations' (or 'Where is is filmed?') or something like that.
 * If it's in the Myth's section every sentance does not need to start with 'It is a myth' (I've read entries on other sites like that and after the second one you just skip the sentence entirely.
 * As for my new version, I adapted (/grabbed a few salient points from the reverted version), I intended to go back later and look at it (or someone else) and edit it down further.
 * The references section is all about separating in-universe from out-of-universe, when there comes more complicated in-referencing the separation is sometimes vital for making a clear picture.
 * As for the ratings the bullet points make for a much easier to read piece of information, but I have edited down the current version making it less wordy. Also the data is much easier to read when separated out into episodes in bullet point, rather than in prose form.
 * As for merging with sections, we are trying to keep some continuity between the pages, so a reader reading from one section to another (perhaps looking for a certain piece of information) will see it within the page in the same area on each subsequent page. If sections move around/are merged with between pages, then it starts to look cluttered and unreadable. --Tangerineduel 09:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On about the Myths section here: I don't tend to read headers, and if I saw that information (specifically when it says "The first episode was delayed by 10 minutes because of an assination. It was delayed 80 seconds."), I would be a bit confused. So we need something to say that it's a myth. --TheTimeMeddler 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, my 'draft' version of this page is located at User:TheTimeMeddler/AUCSandbox. This is a combination of the page as it was before I edited, and what I think looks more professional. Feel free to discuss it here. --TheTimeMeddler 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)