Talk:TARDIS/Archive 1

Trademark
If its a registered trademark of the BBC are we even allowed to use the word 'TARDIS'? -Adrian


 * It would be illegal to use TARDIS in fan fiction or other non-approved creative use, but for the purpose of reference and description, it is fine to use a trademarked term (such as one would in a critical review.)BarkingDoc

But what determines whether we are using it for reference or for creative use? Just a thought-Adrian


 * In the final analysis, a lawsuit, I presume. But I feel safe enough on this one that I'll let BBC make the first move. :) Bryan

There is definetly not an issue with using a trademarked term for any critical use, provided the term isn't used as part of promotion. And encyclopedias are considered a critical product. Every creature and ship in "Star Wars" is also a registered trademark, but you can write about them descriptively all you want. You just can't use the characters or their images in a creative or commercial work. BarkingDoc

Time rotor
I may be misremembering, but isn't the time rotor absent from the secondary console room? The only serial I have on hand that features it is my copy of The Robots of Death, and in that one there is no rising column even when the TARDIS is in flight. --khaosworks 08:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I have confirmed this. Editing accordingly. --khaosworks 10:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * yup...theres a shaving mirror instead...the plan was to have a glass dome in an iris, but no money for prop.....and one of the six sides is a writing desk Jaime9526 06:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)jaime9526

Finite Volume
Just a note - you can subtract 25% of an infinite quantity. The fact that there is still an infinite quantity (and that an infinite quantity is lost) is not a contradiction. The Castrovalva series' ejection of 25% of the TARDIS volume was meant as a plot device to keep the Doctor from healing in the ship's (now ejected) medical area, and forcing the landing on Castrovalva. If the writers later want to assert the volume of a TARDIS is infinite, they can do so with mathematical impunity. --Buz (a mathematician)


 * This reminds me of the renormalisation course... ettlz 14:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC) (a theorist)


 * If the TARDIS is infinite - and you throw away 25% of it and the medical suite is gone - shouldn't there still be an infinite number of other medical suites to choose from? SteveBaker 07:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you take the set of all integers larger than zero and throw away every second number, are there any even numbers left? (not that I think it's reasonable to say that the TARDIS' interior is infinite, mind you :) Bryan 07:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It wasnt the medical suite........it was romanas room and the zero room.......a sort of meditationy place that helps with regeneration crises. And it just had its mass coverted to energy....TARDIS@ :::::::are as big as you want them to be, look at the SIDRATS they were stripped down TARDIS's and were adjustable. :) Jaime9526 06:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)jaime9526

Spinoffs
I went ahead and added a little more information about the TARDIS from the Virgin New Adventures (all clearly labelled as such, of course), but was wondering if it might make more sense to add a new section entirely discussing information about the ship gleaned from the comics, novels, audios, et al. There's a lot of info there, and its certainly relevant to the page, but it may be misleading to try to shoehorn it into the Overview section, since that raises the ugly question of canonicity. By having a seperate subsection, we can put up the standard boilerplate this-may-not-be-considered-canon warning once and be done with it. – Seancdaug 22:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. Go ahead and let's see how it looks. --khaosworks 22:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please update
"With the 2005 series revival, a TARDIS-shaped DVD/CD cabinet, standing 22 inches tall with adjustable shelves, is to be released at the end of May." Was it released? Please update.

Someone should really check this article for references that are no longer strictly true (Doctor Who 2005) has implemented some changes. -- Ec5618 12:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * What kind of changes (i.e. what is no longer strictly true) are you talking about? --khaosworks 12:28, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * For one, the section TARDIS refers to many design characteristics that are no longer true in the new model interior.
 * "Once through the doors of the police box, the TARDIS interior has a vast number of rooms and corridors." -- Ec5618 12:50, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * But it still does - we just haven't seen them on screen, yet. In The Unquiet Dead the Doctor gives Rose some very complicated directions to get to the TARDIS wardrobes. If you could list some of your concerns specifically then perhaps we can address them. --khaosworks 12:54, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * You know what, you're right. Perhaps the text should be clarified though, by having it stated literally that these facts still refer to the new TARDIS design. -- Ec5618 13:01, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - I've added a sentence that does just that. --khaosworks 13:07, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

TARDIS Alive
Does anyone else think that Rose's use of the phrase "My Doctor" in The Parting of the Ways might have been at least paritally due to the fact she'd absorbed the time vortex, which is like the heart of the TARDIS?

I think that it may be as if TARDIS get attached to their Timelord and companions then perhaps this TARDIS has become very attached to the Doctor and knows he refers to himself simply as the Doctor so while some of it's consciousness was in Rose via the Time Vortex it prompts Rose to call him "My Doctor" and announce she/it/they want him safe

Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.182.65.206 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 17 August 2005


 * I don't get the impression that the heart of the TARDIS and the time vortex are supposed to be the same thing at all -- in fact, I distinctly got the impression that Rose was trying to access one and got the other. From such accidents do deities arise. (At least in SF. ;-) ) --Jay (Histrion) 18:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The Master was sucked into the TARDIS' own Eye of Harmony during the 1996 movie and has been shown in The Gallifrey Chronicles to be alive and controlling near-deific levels of power inside the Eye. The way the power of the TARDIS seeps into Rose and appears to take over her suggests, to me at least, that 'the Heart of the TARDIS' is actually what's left of The Master, who is quite capable of possessing human bodies.
 * Hence the power displayed by Rose in The Parting of the Ways and the "My Doctor" statement, which sounded a little condescending to me, like she was looking down on the Doctor as the Master often does.
 * Zoe.r 22:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that the TARDIS let Rose look into the Time Vortex so she could destroy the Daleks and the TARDIS knows that the Docter will Know what to do afterwards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.34.138 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 29 January 2006

Number of Type 40 TARDISes
Is the number (305) of Type 40 TARDISes established in one the serials? It is mentioned in the trailers for the Big Finish audios currently broadcasting on BBC7, but I wasn't sure if that was established continuity or not. Tim! (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's in either The Deadly Assassin or The Invasion of Time. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The Doctor's TARDIS is established in The Deadly Assassin as the only Type 40 still in use (out of a total of 305). --Stationwagontodd 18:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

TARDIS vs. Tardis
I'm not sure as to whether the note about British press styles really belongs in the header of an article which is supposed to be about the TARDIS. It seems out of place. --khaosworks (talk • contribs)


 * I've moved it down to a footnote, and trimmed off the speculative bits re: World War Three. Just the facts, ma'am. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Who you callin' ma'am? ;) --Jay (Histrion) 18:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the capitalization topic belongs in the header anyway. ;) How would you feel about moving the entire topic to one footnote? --Jay (Histrion) 17:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Season 14 console room
...secondary console room used during Season 14, which has wood panelling and a more antique feel to it. - screenshot?--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

inside the TARDIS
I think you should show the diffrent rooms of the TARDIS (or at least the rooms mentioned) and tell us there purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.34.138 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 29 January 2006

TARDIS Alive
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.34.138 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 29 January 2006

Tardis shareware
Tardis is also the name of a shareware program for Windows that is used to synchronize the computer's time-of-day clock to different types of time reference (http://www.kaska.demon.co.uk/tardis.htm). Should this information be captured here? ppblais 03:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it all that notable or popular enough? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless that program's name is in some way related to this article's subject, I don't think it should be mentioned in this article. If the program is notable, then there should be a disambiguation page. --A bit iffy 04:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd guess that the name "Tardis" was chosen because it's a time synchronization program, so it's probably meant to connect to the TARDIS... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On top of that, the program's page uses TARDIS icons, so it's a more obvious reference to Doctor Who. The question is, is this program notable enough to be included?Rebochan 06:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Backronym?
I have a feeling I read somewhere that the name TARDIS is a backronym or apronym - the name came first, and what it stood for came later. Am I right? If so, surely that should be reflected in the article. (However, I've done a quick search on Google and can't find anything that indicates this, I might be wrong.) --A bit iffy 03:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The full name was given in the first serial and Susan said the word "TARDIS" was her nickname for it. This was later retconned, but it does demonstrate that TARDIS was an acronym from the beginning.Rebochan 06:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Tardis Tennis on bbc.com
A popular and solid online tennis game involves time traveling Britons via the TARDIS. I think it may be worth mentioning, perhaps in light of pop culture references or something. It can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/tardis_tennis/default.stm

TARDIS class?

 * In the series, the Doctor pilots a Type 40 TARDIS. Although TARDIS is the name of a class of vessel, rather than a specific craft

Is it?, as stated elsewhere the class is "Type 40 TT capsule" and Susan is said to have invented the name TARDIS. Hence the only TARDIS would be The Doctor's, other, more aloof Time Lords would be unlikely to be so sentimental to name their ship. Could someone better at this re-write the opening section so as to remove these inconsistancies and make it actually correct. OrangeDog 13:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Master is quite happy to refer to "my TARDIS" in various stories. &mdash;Whouk (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The word TARDIS is applied to Time Lord time travel machines throughout the series as well. That is an inconsistency that is mentioned in the footnotes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Article too long?
Just wondering if, as part of Countering WP's systemic bias, this article should be shortened. Surely a spaceship in a TV science fiction programme, aimed at children, shouldn't have this much coverage? It can't be good for wikipedia's reputation... Mattmm 16:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Very few spaceships in science fiction programmes have been around accumulating mythology for 43 years. In any case — and I am in no way trying to mock the idea of countering systemic bias — perhaps the efforts could be spent towards trying to write more articles in other fields to counter such bias rather than cutting specialised subjects down (which in fact, as I read the Wikiproject page, the project is actually asking people to do rather than cutting articles down). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unsurprisingly, I agree with Khaosworks — the best way to fight systemic bias is to add to neglected topics, rather than subtract from developed ones. Mattmm's comment also smacks a bit of a prejudice against pop-culture topics, which may be defensible but which I, for one, don't share.  Indeed, Wikipedia's coverage of pop culture is one area in which it unarguably surpasses conventional encyclopedias, and this has been frequently mentioned in press coverage.  I don't think we need to be ashamed of our thorough coverage of pop culture, including television.


 * That said, I wonder if there is any particular section which you think could be usefully pruned, or spun off into its own section, per Summary style? Just because I'm a proud geek doesn't mean I don't have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and I'm keen to improve the article.  I just don't want information to be lost. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Genuine question, just out of curiosity &mdash; is something aimed at children less worthy of coverage than something aimed purely at adults? Angmering 19:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments guys - and I genuinely hope I haven't offended anyone. For me - and this is just a personal opinion - what the TARDIS is, what it looks like, the fact that the term has entered British slang, are all very interesting *real world* facts; whereas going down to very minor details of particular technical aspect of its (fictional) construction seems to be information more suitable for a hard-core Dr Who fansite, rather than an encyclopedia.

But I do take the point that that WP is trying to offer information that wouldn't be offered by a more "mainstream" reference source, and that we (as wikipedians) should always be trying to make articles longer than shorter. I'm afraid my personal tastes are towards more real-world, adult-oriented topics, and perhaps I'm just trying to impose these tastes upon the article, which is wrong of me - apologies. Mattmm 13:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm actually with you on that &mdash; I myself believe our coverage of television programmes should focus more on their real-world background rather than the tiniest details of the fictional context, which can as you say be found elsewhere. Angmering 18:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And I don't disagree, but I feel there is a place for both, although the real world should be granted "best article" status. That's why I would never nominate, say, Doctor (Doctor Who) for FA since it's almost completely devoid of any real world context. I think articles like Dalek, however, strike a good balance. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Mass or Weight?
I have changed the reference to the TARDIS' "weight" to mass, as it cites kilograms. If someone would like to clarify or rewrite to make the phrase a little more clear, that would be a good thing. --163.1.136.95 03:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * While you are correct in saying that kilograms (and pounds) are, in scientific usage, units of mass, not weight, in non-scientific usage, weight is still measured in either pounds or kilograms. In the context of Romana's statement, she specifically said that the weight of the TARDIS was 5 &times; 106 kilos in Alzerius's gravity; which makes no sense if she's talking about mass, because weight is the mass of an object multiplied by the force it exerts, which varies according to the magnitude of the gravity it is experiencing. If she was simply talking about mass, the mention of Alzarius's gravity was not necessary, therefore one can infer that she meant what she said, which is weight. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Lower-case acronyms
"As an acronym, TARDIS is properly written in upper case, but many examples of the form Tardis are found in media and licensed publications".

This assumes a law governing Acronyms which in fact does not exist. It is standard practice under Hart's Rules for all acronyms that are pronouncable (and hallowed by common usage) to be written in first capital/lower case. Thus: Unesco, Uefa, Fifa, Aids, Nato - just as they are spoken - but UNHCR, HIV, WAC etc. This is certainly a style rule followed by all national British and North American newspapers, although house style produces slight variations.

However. since the usage of 'Tardis' is invariably to pronounce it as a word, (reinforced by the fact that a. most people who use the term are unaware of the acronym and b. as stated here, it has taken on the meaning of anything that appears larger on the inside than out) it should more properly be written throughout the article in first cap/lower case.

"The entrance to the pavilion has more than a touch of the Tardis about it, with diamond-glazed automatic sliding doors set into the narrow pillar at the bottom." Times Architecture section, November 3, 2005

The word is also used generally to mean a time machine, and also to indicate a richness, excess or cornucopia as here: "The Oxford Book of Exploration ... is a Tardis which whirls the reader back to the ages when travelling was an act of heroism." Times Weekend Review, July 2, 2005.

-Mull1
 * Unfortunately, decades of use in the novelisations and other licensed publications (and fan use) disagree with this, almost invariably writing TARDIS in all capitals. The note about correct usage could be rephrased, though. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny how in Wikipedia the basic articles UNESCO, UEFA, FIFA, AIDS, and NATO are all fully-capitalised, and I would tend to use all-capitals, too. -- Arwel (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it has to do with the current British press style, which would, for instance, present "NATO" as "Nato." All else being equal, as this is an article about a British subject, it should be spelled "Tardis." However, since the word has been spelled "TARDIS" in official BBC merchandise for decades, I don't think it's a good idea to second guess that. – Seancdaug 19:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually many of the very earliest British press mentions have it as Tardis, with the italics, presumably as they assumed it was named the same way you'd name a boat. I.e. "This week the crew of Tardis find themselves washed up on the soap lakes of the planet Zoffra..." Angmering 21:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the rule which Hart cites is much more common in UK usage than in US. It's certainly not true that all national US newspapers use this: the vast majority still use all capitals for NATO, AIDS, etc. An example from the New York Times is linked from Wikipedia's Acronym and initialism article.

I think the current wording of the article (including the footnote) covers the topic of "TARDIS vs. Tardis" adequately, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How strange. I've just taken a look at the websites of the Guardian, Independent, Times, Telegraph, and the BBC and just seen that you're right, though FIFA and UEFA themselves use all-capitals. I've never noticed this before, and it must be a relatively recent affectation since it certainly wasn't true when I was learning my grammatical habits 30-40 years ago. -- Arwel (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

TARDIS inside itself?
Hi, just wondering if I could get some clarification on when the TARDIS materialized around itself. If I remember correctly (which I probably don't) it was around the time that Tegan joined the Doctor. I do remember that each time the Doctor entered the TARDIS, the console room appeared smaller and the light seemed redder. Anyone know which episode this was from? --SheeEttin 00:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Full marks for your memory - it was indeed the same story that Tegan joined the Doctor, in Logopolis. However, the TARDIS did not materialise around itself, but around the Master's TARDIS which had disguised itself as a police box to trap the Doctor. This caused a recursive loop (mentioned in the article). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah... Okay. Logopolis. Thanks. Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go watch that again. --SheeEttin 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

1984-88, or 1984-89 seasons?
While I agree that, technically (in real life), the console "room" that was used throughout the 1984-1988 season wasn't the exact same one that was seen in Battlefield, they did indeed use the SAME console (and the console is arguably the most immediately noticable feature of the console room, and the main thing featured in that photo).

Furthermore, in addition to using the same console in Battlefield, Ace didn't say " Professor, why did you change the room's style?" (as in Masque of Mandragora, the Invisible Enemy, and the Five Doctors, where a new console room, or an existing console room's new style were actually discussed), she just said "Why is it dark in here?". This seemed to imply within the Battlefield story that the console room was indeed the SAME styled room as the 84-88 room, but just with the lights dimmed. (Then again, Jo had never commented onscreen when the console room's style had changed several times throughout her stay with the 3rd Doctor.)

Lastly, while they indeed wanted the TARDIS to be more mysterious, etc, the production team didn't intend on redesigning the actual room for Battlefield, they just slapped together a make-shift room (since I believe that the 84-88 console room's walls had been junked), and then lowered the lights in order to hide this fact. Notice the word "HIDE", implying that they didn't want the audience to notice.

Therefore, since it wasn't an official, hugely noticable change in design, perhaps we should just say " The console room from 1983's The Five Doctors to the 1989 season", or "The console room from the 1984-1989 season".

Mind you, I don't mind saying "1984-1988 season", it just depends on how literal we want to be, and I guess the question is: Just what is considered an offical change in the room's style, and what is considered just a barely noticable change in real life that may not be considered a change within the actual show? And at what point is something worth mentioning? Aquanostra9 18:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't think it should say "-1989". The caption doesn't specify that it's only talking about the fiction, and Wikipedia should be more concerned with the fact - i.e., whether it was the same room "in real life". The console room's only appearance is in Battelfield and it isn't that set, so the caption shouldn't imply that it is. &mdash;Wh o  uk (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

--- Fair enough. :-) Aquanostra9 06:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Light up sign
I don't recall the origional TARDIS ever having a light up sign on top, but for some reason they decided to backlight the police public call box sign for no real reason, I can't really imagine why. I have to assume even the 1960s BBC could afford electric lights, so it isn't an FX related update, so why change it at all?--64.12.116.138 02:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain, but wasn't the "Police Public Call Box" sign lit occasionally in the classic series? I'm thinking of the beginning of The Ark in Space for some reason.  It was certainly lit in the TV movie.  The current series probably did it just because it looks cool.  They made some other minor changes to the police box as well (they compared it to the new Mini Cooper, using the lines of the original but a new design) — and you should have seen the arguments on Outpost Gallifrey's forums!  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Shalka Doctor's TARDIS
Even though he's not official, shouldn't there be some mention or brief description concerning the Shalka Doctor's TARDIS? Perhaps with an image, although the one connected to the BBC site is not at all very well lighted. DrWho42 01:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

the TARDIS...
is it just me or does dr. number 10 seem to give up on his TARDIS a bit to easily? I mean this is like the 3rd time this season he's done his "this is the last TARDIS in the universe and it's dead.." speech, I mean Tom Baker's TARDIS occasionally wound up flying back to earth all by itself, and he didn't get all panicy--70.107.115.168 19:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

revisions
well, there were some revisions up....good ones...nice ones...accurate ones.

all were removed sadly.

after about ten minutes of existence.

i bothered registering to ask why.

but as to why i bothered in the first palce?

im asking why again now. Perhaps because I know a little here and there about Doctor Who....

Jaime9526 04:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)jaime9526


 * Actually, I did that last revert accidentally - I hit the rollback on the wrong article, and I deeply apologise. I do note, however, that the additions you made were, no offense intended, grammatically and stylistically deficient, with bad punctuation, etc. You may want to re-add some of them, but with proper formatting. Also, you may expect them to rephrased or shuffled around, especially those dealing with non-television series information. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for the apology....I presume you are goimg to reinstate my changes then? with the possibly fair exception of old Josiahs little adjustment...grammatically....perhaps, due to the fact its 6 in :the :morning here...and my mind works about a zillion times faster than my fingers, and they aint particularly slow i can telll you...so apologies, and stylistically....well, thats all a personal thing isnt :it? Even punctuation, technically. And it still all gelled together rather nicely.......as far as me re-posting them, well, I'm unlikely to do that since you have popped em in the toaster, and I really dont :fancy doing it all again...primarily because I will become annoying with my constant fixes. And according to your wiki who :project thing, the books are canon.....oh, and they've been referenced in :the new series a few times now....in fact, i've got a feeling that its only a few of the Big Finish audios and the BBC books that doesnt tie in neatly....oh and death comes to time of course, but i didnt :go that with a bargepole in my edits...that really would have confused the world....


 * So, you reinstate my little bits, and at some point i'll set about fixing the grammar....just a little.....just for you...and of course if no one else just does it for me. I mean you cant not mention the Time :Vector Generatoror the moody old gravis when talking about the old girl can you? hmm? jaime9526


 * I've restored some of the edits, but not all of them - the ones I've excluded are mainly because they are either speculative or do not require that level of detail (the Nelson's Column in No Future, for instance - it's sufficient to say that the circuit was also repaired in tha NAs but it eventually reverted). I've also rephrased and copyedited them for clarity and style and placed some into more appropriate contexts. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, where was it said that the pattern on the back of the ankh-shaped TARDIS key was the constellation of Kasterborus? Was that from the series, or one of the novels, or just advertising copy accompanying the replicas?  (I used to have one I got from Spirit of Light back in the '80s, but lost it ages ago.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not in the television series, that was for sure. A little trace memory wants me to say it came from Uncle Terrance's The Making of Doctor Who, but I can't be sure. Need to research a bit more. But it definitely wasn't mentioned in the television series. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for putting bits back khaos, and yup josiah, it was uncle terrance and barry letts in the making of doctor who...which is where we get isomorphic keys from....and khaosworks old chap, you had better take out thos references to pipe ::::organs in attack of the cybermen if you dont like nelsons column...and incidentally it didnt 'revert', The Doctor just set it to always look like a Police box, battered and blue (of course I mean the ::::seventh....) And kasterborous itself was mentioned a few times, if not the design on the key itself. The best bit of course, is that a star trek novel in the 80's mentions an extinct time travelling race ::::in the constellation of kasterborous.........does that make trek loosely canon? Time to really worry....................
 * Seriously though, downsizing the NA's role in this entry is not right.....it has as much right to be there as anything else, especially these days. All the writers of the new series are pretty much NA ::::writers............or is perhaps everything post 1989 non canon? I know there are some who would have everything post Leisure Hive struck off....and some everything post wargames. Incidentally do you two have copies of the 1973 radio times special?Jaime9526 06:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)jaime9526


 * I think that it's appropriate to keep the emphasis on the television series, not necessarily because the other media aren't canon but because the television series is much more culturally significant than the novels, audios or comics, simply because so many millions more have experienced it. If this were a fansite for Doctor Who exclusively, it might be appropriate to put all the forms of Doctor Who on an equal footing, but since Wikipedia is a general-audience encyclopedia it's best to keep things accessible to a general audience.  That means that we shouldn't weigh the article down unnecessarily with details from media which only a few hundred thousand people are actually familiar with.  (I should say that, like Khaosworks, my own personal interpretation is that it's all canon — but a) we shouldn't impose that interpretation on the article, and b) canonicity shouldn't even be the sole concern about what is emphasized in the article.  I hope that makes sense.


 * I don't have a copy of the 1973 Radio Times special, but I do have a very dogeared copy of the 1983 one in storage somewhere. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * possibly fair enough, but its most likely going to be fans of some description who are going to look up Tardis (for some reason i feel the plural should be Tardisi....sounds nice doesnt it?) and theres so much book stuuf already worked in. For example the Jade Pagoda. I have problems with some of the bbc books and big finish audios, because they take contradiction to an even greater level than anything else. The same applies to ground-zero in the DWM comics.....Ace must exist in as many forms as the doctor now, giving how much her personal timeline has been messed with. The other thing about the books is that they are now available as e-books on the bbc webpage (not all of em sadly) which gives them greater canonicity than previously enjoyed, simply because they now fall under transmitted by the bbc . As was slipback, which possibly contradicted Terminus. Sigh. I feel that you me and Khaosworks, and whoever else you can think of should have a massive discussion on this Tardis thing at some point, cos theres a few bit still need working out (Frontios and Wheel in Space events for example.) I know my typing is erratci, but since i'm usually on downtime or in a rush when doing it, i can only apologise, whilst pointing out my facts are usually right, even if my prose at that point isnt. Seriously though, I know I''m new, but I am a realtively valuable resource for Who ephemra, since its such a huge part of my life since i was a kid. So MIRC or MSN drop me an e-mail and we can have a good old chinwag. The 1983 radio times special is great by the way...those stories are awesome, though its not as well known as the 1973 version. They reprinted the 73 3 years ago, so you can get copies that way.....I asked because I felt like showing off my lineage...its my father and his friends who are in it, building that dalek and making those plans. LOL. given as how every dalek builder since, iclusding that 'artist' who installed a bunch of daleks in an art gallery, have worked from or revised them, I feel like DW is a family tradition. Anyhoo...seriously drop me a line, and we'll seriously whip this puppy (and other DW stuff) into shape, and probably have fun doing it. Jaime9526 19:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)jaime9526

Sentient objects
The Tardis is one of a group of objects not being computers/robots that can be seen as alive - others would include Sauron's Ring, the monolith in 2001: A Space Oddessey and Michael Moorcock's Runestaff and Stormbringer. Any more - and can they be developed into an article list? (There is no obvious connection between them - mixed science fiction and fantasy) Jackiespeel 21:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)