Talk:An Unearthly Child/archive 2

Where in London?

Okay, I have just worked my way through the nice "The Beginning" DVD set and all of its well done extras and production notes and one question from "The Unearthly Child" episode remains - as we see the Tardis leave London there is a still picture of a set of buildings. Does anyone know what part of the city this picture was taken. It is one of those pieces of trivia that I have never found an answer to - in the books or on the net. I was hoping it would be in the production note option on the DVD but it wasn't. If any wiki-Dr Who member knows perhaps you could put it in the Notes section of this article as it would be an interesting addition. My thanks in advance to anyone who is able to answer this question.User:MarnetteD | Talk 23:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It looked more like an artist's rendering than a drawing to me. Perhaps it wasn't meant to indicate any particular part of London? 23skidoo 18:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that this article indicates that Coal Hill School is in Shoreditch, so presumably that's where the junkyard is too. I vaguely recall this also being mentioned in Remembrance of the Daleks, which takes place not long after the departure of Ian and Barbara. 23skidoo 21:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's only the novelisation of Remembrance that specifies Shoreditch, I don't believe the location gets a mention on-screen. Angmering 10:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The photo/drawing always reminds me of BBC Television Centre... —Whouk (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to the original script of The Keys of Marinus, he had been there only recently to see about getting a part to repair the monitor! I kid you not! Angmering 14:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

According to this page and this page, it's a view of Watling Street taken from Saint Paul's Cathedral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.203.244 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much 109. I am glad that, in the 9 years since I asked this, that somebody (somebodies) have tracked the info down. I am not surprised that the location has changed to the point that one wouldn't be able to find it today. OTOH I am pleasantly surprised to find that it is Watling Street. Named for Jack and Deborah no doubt :-) Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 18:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

In England, most local streets bearing the name "Watling Street" get their name from the original Watling Street, since they are often a short part of that road. The Edgware Road in London forms part of it; the south-eastern end of Edgware Road is at Marble Arch and it's difficult to trace the route further to the south-east because of all the development in London over the last 2000 years: not all the roads on this map correspond with present-day roads. But I bet that the Watling Street near St Paul's was once part of the original Watling Street. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this info Redrose64. MarnetteD|Talk 19:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Decimalisation

Just to comment on the edit summary debate re:decimalisation. I talked to my dad who lived through it and in 1963, report or no report, decimalisation was far from a done deal. There was plenty of opposition. So I personally think Susan's comments do count as a "prediction" by the show of sorts because in 1963, presumably only weeks or a few months after this report was tabled and still 3 years away from the government finally agreeing to adopt it, it was certainly not a guarantee. Tradition was (and still is) very strong in Britain and I personally can imagine changing the monetary system was a very hard sell, indeed. 23skidoo 18:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, AUC was under the impression that Decimalisation meant that there would be ten shillings to the pound :) - SoM 00:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that necessarily follows — Barbara says that Susan "doesn't know how many shillings there are in a pound." That doesn't mean she thought there were ten — she could simply have not known what they were, and then when it was explained said that she had thought they were on the decimal system. Angmering 19:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall similar concerns when Canada went to Metric in 76/77. When the speed limit suddenly went from 60 mph to 100 km-h everyone freaked that we'd all be driving faster (actually 100 km-h is a little faster than 60 mph, but you get my meaning). 23skidoo 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is different. As (in Ontario at least), the speed limit had been dropped from 70 mph to 60 mph for cars only 3 or 4 years before ... so no one felt that 62.5 mph was going to be particularly fast, as most people seemed to think that 60 mph was slow. Nfitz 00:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Link ups

Minor suggestion - linking the yard that appears in The Idiot's Lantern with the one in which the Tardis is first seen (even though there is an 11 year gap) Jackiespeel

Why? Nfitz 00:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Decimalisation

As we know, the number of shillings / pound stayed the same, since the shilling was changed in value from 12 pence to 5 pence, for just this reason (right!?).

Also, weren't old shillings and 2-shilling pieces were re-used as 5p and 10p coins? I missed out on Decimal Day thru temporal misalignment of my date of birth, but I remember in the 80s, many 5p coins had "1 shilling" on them.

My second point is a bit irrelevant, but I think my first one might be added to the article as a single sentence, just to make it more easily understandable to people who've always had decimal currencies.

My best guess is that faced with having to mint a lot of new money anyway for decimalisation (the new 1ps & 2ps and wasn't the 50p introduced around this time?) the government wasn't going to get rid of an existing coin worth 1/10 of a £. And similarly why throw out 1/20 when that coin could also serve a function until a natural point of replacement? In the late 1980s and early 1990s I often regularly had 1 & 2 shilling coins dating back to Georhe VI's reign. Timrollpickering 07:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

I've removed the spoiler warning, which in this case was particularly redundant because it followed a section heading clearly labelled "Plot". People read encyclopedia articles because they want to know about subjects. There's no need to put an extra warning into the articles to say, in effect "sorry, but you might actually find something in this article that you didn't know." We don't need to bow and apologise for providing information. This is an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 12:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of universe

I've rewritten the plot summary according to the principles on using out-of-universe perspective set out in the guideline on writing about fiction. I have added a link template to the TARDIS wiki, which maintains an excellent in-universe plot summary. --Tony Sidaway 16:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you realise that every single other DW serial article does its plot summaries in-universe? -- SamSim 14:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this, but the plot outline is rather short and lacking in information - especially on what happens after the first episode. This site:

http://www.drwhoguide.com/who_a.htm

Has some excellent, in-depth plot outlines. I think at the very least this article should mention the names of the four different episodes, and it doesn't even do that. Building off the current plot outline - and I think I'll look back to see what the current one replaced - I plan to expand it and write in further depth, while still staying within the out-of-universe guidelines. Also, I'm taking a fair bit of information from here:

http://www.shannonsullivan.com/drwho/

Black-Velvet 06:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: I agree with Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) this in-universe plot summary is difficult to understand for a reader not versed in Doctor Who mythology/lore.

2. Factually accurate?: Lots of sections are missing sources, some are completely unsourced altogether. Continuity section is WP:OR and completely unsourced. Last paragraph of Production section is WP:OR and unsourced. Entire section Pilot episode is unsourced. Alternative titles section is unsourced. Last two paragraphs of Broadcast and release are unsourced.

3. Broad in coverage?: There is no Reception section. Was An Unearthly Child criticized? Praised? Used in popular culture? Was there any new critique upon the various re-releases?

4. Neutral point of view?: NPOV problems follow along with WP:OR/Unsourced issues. Difficult to tell what is opinion and what is fact, without references to secondary sources.

5. Article stability? Article appears stable, though there is some history of conflict in the edit history, and some comments from the talk page appear unresolved.

6. Images?: 3 images with fair use rationale provided. However, the last image about the novel version of An Unearthly Child, would stand a better case for fair-use in a separate article about the book itself, and not as an addendum here.

In general I am a science-fiction fan, and I have enjoyed some of the newer episodes of Doctor Who. However the in-universe language was a stumbling block for me as I read the article, and will be for other readers as well. And there is a clear need for extensive sourcing throughout the article.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Great new resources

Some wonderfully insightful material on the genesis of the show has been posted by the BBC in time for the 45th anniversary: [1] Should prove an excellent, and definitive, source for background details. Radagast (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)