Talk:Mission to the Unknown

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Planet of Giants[edit]

Is it correct that Mission to the Unknown was commissioned because Planet of Giants was shortened? That serial appeared a year earlier, at the start of the previous season. Why would it cause a carry-over into the next year? 68.145.238.33 15:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to note that the production blocks don't conform precisely to the Seasons. What happened was that when Giants was reduced by one episode in October 1964, the serial that was originally to be at the end of the second recording block was supposed to be extended to seven episodes instead of six. However, that story was replaced by The Chase, which came out at six episodes, so that "extra episode" never got made. Swing around now to 1965, and Sydney Newman extends the recording block from 26 episodes to 35. At this time, Doctor Who serials were always made in 4 episode or 6 episode stories - so to extend it by 9 episodes seems anomalous. The likely explanation is that the additional episode was the extra episode that was promised and budgeted for but never materialised... and since they had that extra episode to play with, that became Mission to the Unknown. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Planet of Giants was part of the FIRST production block and was simply held over for Season 2. Also, four episodes were produced, even though not broadcast, so the budget was used up.Don Bodo (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Donbodo: You do realise that you're replying to a thread that was last posted to almost eight years ago, right? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These threads are still up here for a reason. People read them. :) Don Bodo (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot[edit]

Just out of curiousity, if no video or film survives from this serial, how did we get the screenshot? --MessengerAtLWU 21:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a screenshot, it's a well known publicity photograph. Timrollpickering 23:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, thanks! --MessengerAtLWU 23:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Galaxy5.jpg[edit]

Image:Galaxy5.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

only standalone[edit]

what about five doctors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.130.8.135 (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I've altered it slightly. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production[edit]

The table in the Production section claims that "Only stills and/or fragments exist", yet the article says no fragments exist. Can this be fixed? Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It actually states "no footage is known to have survived" and "with no visual footage currently known to exist". This does not prevent stills from existing. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It now says "with no broadcast footage of any form currently known to exist." This, to me, includes stills, which is incorrect as there is a Loose Cannon reproduction. 101090ABC (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't somebody reasonable just fix this? Now it reads: - Length 1 episode: 25 minutes - and - Episode(s) missing: 1 episode, 25 minutes - It's on youtube, among other places online. So it's hardly missing. 0244 (CEST), 22 Jan 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.72.211.103 (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2015
If there is something on YouTube that is original (which I seriously doubt), it's a copyright violation. Non-original footage doesn't count for the purposes of describing what portions of the programme as broadcast remain in the BBC archives. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's reconstructed, like many other previously lost episodes, but it is on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIMGa3Js8N8 I wasn't born yet back then, but it seems to be as original and legit as can be in case of a reconstructed episode. To me anyway... Still doesn't count? (CEST 17:11, 22 Jan 2015) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.72.211.103 (talk)
All copies of the original recording are lost. Reconstructions aren't the same thing as the original recording, so it counts as being lost. DonQuixote (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not on Youtube anymore. It was taken down by the BBC due to copyright infringement. Vincinel (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mission to the Unknown. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have twice updated a dead link only to have it reverted. -- Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The dead link is already updated via archived link. And the link you provided is a clear copyright violation. DonQuixote (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Rhain (talk). Self-nominated at 00:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mission to the Unknown; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. QPQ is done. Hooks are interesting and sourced. I like the primary hook. Looks ready to go. Thriley (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1 is untrue, there were several episodes in the 1963-69 period where the Doctor is completely absent, normally because the actor was on holiday that week (examples include "The Screaming Jungle" and "The Snows of Terror"), but also when the actor was playing a different character (e.g. "The Sea Beggar"). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't claim that it's the only episode to do this though, so it's not untrue. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a serial[edit]

If this episode is a stand alone episode it cannot count as a serial. 85.255.237.194 (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but see Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Style advice#Terminology which says:
Serial
A group of episodes from the classic series which together form a single story
and "Mission to the Unknown" is a single story from the classic series, so it's a serial. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no other widely used word other than perhaps 'story'. We don't have to be pedantic if the meaning is clear. DonQuixote (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mission_to_the_Unknown&oldid=1203544404"