Talk:TARDIS/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: I have confirmed this.  Editing accordingly. --khaosworks 10:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Time rotor

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Finite Volume 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spinoffs 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think it's in either The Deadly Assassin or The Invasion of Time. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Number of Type 40 TARDISes 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: TARDIS vs. Tardis

message: ...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)
thread_title:  Season 14 console room 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is it all that notable or popular enough? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tardis shareware 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Backronym? 

message: :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)
replies: text: The Master is quite happy to refer to "my TARDIS" in various stories. —Whouk (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: TARDIS class?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 × 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)
thread_title:  Mass or Weight? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Lower-case acronyms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  TARDIS inside itself? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. —Whouk (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1984-88, or 1984-89 seasons? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Light up sign 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Shalka Doctor's TARDIS 

message: 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)
thread_title: the TARDIS... 

message: 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)
thread_title: Sentient objects