Talk:TARDIS/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3

Possible tweaks

I was just wondering if the following tweaks to the article would be usefull or welcome, or whether they would be judged unnecessary or irrelevant - I think sometimes its better to check in discussion before making the changes in the article itself. Any comments on the points below? If the response is generally positive, I'll try to introduce the points into the main article, harmoniously and not taking up to much space of course :-)

1. Other appearances, merchandising. The article states that 'Fan-built full-size models of the police box are also common'. Are they really that common? It might be better to say that 'a number of fans have built full-size models', but I don't think it is correct to say they are common. Also, is it worth adding that the BBC generally frowns on such fan reproductions and that the only officially licensed full-size replica of the TARDIS is made by ThisPlanetEarth?

2. External doors. In the TV series, the police box doors have always opened inwards. In contrast, the doors of Peter Cushing's police box in the Dalek movies open outwards. Interestingly, in some of the publcicity stills for the 9th Doctor series, the police box doors are shown opened fully outwards, while in the TV series itself they always open inwards.

3. Doors. Occasionally, the external doors close by themselves suggesting they are physically connected to the electronicaly operated internal doors. For example, in the second episode of Unearthly Child, there is a very satisfying moment when we see an internal shot of the console room with the inner doors closing slowly, followed by a cut to the outside showing the external doors slamming shut right on cue (wonderful direction!) while everyone is some distance from the TARDIS. On many other occasions, however, we see the Doctor pulling the right hand external door closed, suggesting the two entrances are not linked, or at least that they can be unlinked. This refers to the original series only, of course.

4. TARDIS destroyed. The destructability/indestructability of the TARDIS has been discussed, but there has been at least one instance I can think of (Mind Robber) where the TARDIS was actually destroyed and shown to explode in space with all the panels going off in different directions, leaving the Doctor and companions clinging to the control console. Should this be mentioned?

5. Popular culture. Another appearance for the TARDIS is in a song on the album Six by Manusn, which also features a speaking part by Tom Baker. At the end of the song, the dematerializaton sound can be clearly heard in the fade out. Also, Robbie Williams 'Fashion Tardis down at Quo Vadis' - is that a relevant one?

-- 08:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just my own views:
1. This refers to fan-built models but not for commercial use, which the BBC seem to have no problem with, though. There are lots of websites out there where people have built TARDISes out of garden sheds, etc., so it seems pretty common.
2. This seems a little too trivial for me: any particular significance to be attached to it?
3. "For most of the series' run, the exterior doors of the police box operated separately from the heavier interior doors, although sometimes the two sets could open simultaneously to allow the ship's passengers to look directly outside and vice versa." Does this cover it? Or a variation on this?
4. It may be worth noting, but it seems that the destruction of the TARDIS in that instance was more of an illusion. A better example might be Frontios.
5. The Six reference seems all right, but not sure about the Robbie Williams one. How significant is the reference to the song? --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 09:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Khaosworks :-) 1. This was me thinking aloud really, so I've no strong feelings about the original version of the text, I was just interested to see what everyone else thinks. It may be worth mentioning that the TPE replica is the only officially licensed one though and include the link. On the same point, this is actually marketed as a movie TARDIS. TPE do not have a licence to produce a TV TARDIS but I was told when I bought mine that the two were so similar that they didn't think it was worth the expense to apply for a second licence. Most purchasers adapt them to suit their own preferences, e.g. I have modified mine to look more like a Tom Baker era TV prop. 2. I'd like to hear other opinions, I thought it was an interesting titbit of information. 3. That sounds good to me 4. Ditto 5. OK, I'll mention Six. Does anyone else have an opinion about Robbie Williams? (keep it clean!). I don't really understand the significance of the line myself. I'll wait to see if there is any other feedback before doing the mods. -- 11:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

6. The TARDIS is not fictional.

In the 2005 series, the keys are also remotely linked to the TARDIS,

It should be pointed out that this process takes some time to occur.

Not signalling its arrival; the summoning, perhaps, but that was a particularly special circumstance. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 14:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

this article is getting flagged as very long

Editing the page and Wikipedia will now tell you that it's over 50K characters long, and that people using Google toolbar might encounter problems editing this article. Sounds like time to split some sections off to sister articles? I have absolutely no knowledge nor interest in this TV series so I can't be of help in the actual splitting, sorry. 11:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The section "The Doctor's TARDIS" is 17 kilobytes long, the longest top-level division in the article. Might be a good candidate for splitting off. Bryan 23:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, the Other appearances in pop culture needs to secede from this article... Either that, or shortened. This could grow inconveniently bigger with other not-so-useful references as anything that happens to be bigger on the inside than out..
For instance, having seen episode 42 of Star Trek: Enterprise, have the people involved with creating it ever say that it was intended to be a homage unto Doctor Who's time-machine? DrWho42 23:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I strongly believe we should remove connections between the TARDIS and anything with a weak similarity (such as the Spice Girls bus, or anything that just seems to be based on the TARDIS. Furthermore other things named TARDIS should go on a disambiguation page, even if they are named after the Doctor's timeship —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kransky (talkcontribs) 13:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

one other minor cultural reference

There have been for years a range of toolboxes and chests with intricate folding drawers in the UK which go under the brand name 'TARDIS'.Wolfe 18:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Any objection to the article having an infobox? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to having an infobox per se, but I'm not sure that the one currently on the page adds much of value to the article. Most of the fields are empty (appropriately so, since they're inapplicable), and the accuracy of the "force field" one is debatable. If you're thinking of The Parting of the Ways, that was just a temporary lash-up using the tribophysical waveform extrapolator (the surfboard), not part of the TARDIS's standard equipment; Rose even says, "The TARDIS doesn't have any defences!" There have been other defence systems mentioned in the classic series (the Hostile Action Displacement System, or HADS, comes to mind, but it was only mentioned once), but by and large the series hasn't dwelt on the TARDIS's technical specs, which seems to be what that infobox is looking for. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 23:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I echo Josiah's comments. It's very difficult to have a useful infobox about a spaceship that has never really had consistent capabilities aside from time travel and a malfunctioning camouflage circuit. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 02:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Yea, true. I've removed the infobox anyway (-: thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem. It was a reasonable idea. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 02:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure whether the TARDIS really belongs in Category:Bioships. Although it is alive in some sense, and the Doctor says that TARDISes were "grown, not made", it's not really portrayed as having organic or biological components in the usual sense of the term. The bioship article mentions Axos, but not the TARDIS. It's certainly a less clear-cut example than, say, Moya from Farscape. Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 18:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be really pushing it to call the TARDIS a bio-ship, to my knowledge it does not possess any biological components. MatthewFenton (talk  contribs) 19:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The doctor certainly spoke of the ship dying in the new series. If it's established to be alive, then it's bio, no? Whether it's "organic" is a different issue, I'd think.  OzLawyer / talk  19:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but why is the one reference in "Impossible Planet" considered of overriding canonicity as opposed to the multiple references to the ship being built in the old series? --Mong the Senseless —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:30, November 27, 2006 (UTC)

What are these "multiple references" of which you speak? I can't recall any references to the TARDIS being built — although that may just be a hole in my memory. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 18:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The end of Warriors' Gate makes references to K-9 having a set of TARDIS blueprints in his memory, implying there's a building process involved. That's the only real reference during the classic series, though, and the novels have them "birthed". --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
If something is biomechanical, the distinction between "blueprints" and "anatomy" is pretty fuzzy. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, in Torchwood, Captain Jack is growing a TARDIS on his desk - obviously impossible if it is made. I agree with Josiah, that the TARDIS is alive, and it is a bioship - Weebiloobil 07:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Visual Dictionary, it most definitely is alive - the whole mechanism of the way it's bigger on the inside than the outside is shown... I'm not really sure how to explain it, but I'll try and it add it here first so that you guys and gals can see what it actually says about it... UltimateNagash 15:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've always understood that the TARDIS was alive in the sense that it had an emergent intelligence rather than being organic in nature. Also I'm somewhat confused by Osgoodelawyer's suggestion that something biological is not necessarily organic, although I suppose that you "construct" a biological entity Frankenstein style without it having to go through the normal organic growth processes. I don't think a ship qualifies as a bio-ship unless it is primarily biological, a half and halfer would most likely be considered biomechanical.--Teletran 03:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


I actually believe a new image would be a good thing.. the one we have at present is pretty crappy.. I'm sure a decent view of the TARDIS could be found. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It might be good to have a screencap from the new series for the top of the article, and one from the Hartnell days showing the St. John's Ambulance badge to accompany the "Exterior" section. Since both aspects are discussed in the article, the fair use justification should be solid. If we get a better image, it could also be added at Police box#Police boxes and Doctor Who, since the point of that section of that article is that the police box image is now associated with Doctor Who more than with the police. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the new CG image provided by Smomo to the "Exterior" section, since I think it illustrates that very nicely. I still think it would be nice to replace the Pertwee image with a screencap from the new series — perhaps the TARDIS in the snow from The Unquiet Dead? I'd do it myself, but I actually don't know how. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

'Weight' of the TARDIS?

In 'The Doctor's TARDIS/Interior', it is claimed that the 'weight' of the TARDIS in the 'Earth-like gravity of Alzarius' is some value in kilograms. Since kilograms are a measure of mass, not weight, and are therefore constant no matter what the gravity is, we should probably consider revising this, even if it is a direct quote, simply because it's nonsensical. 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:TARDIS/Archive_1#Mass or Weight?. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 18:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"In Full Circle (1980), Romana stated that the weight of the TARDIS in Alzarius' Earth-like gravity was 5 × 106 kilograms (5000 tonnes). This presumably refers to its internal weight"

Another note on this. Romana gives the answer in specific reference to whether there are machines on Alzarius capable of moving the external Tardis around on the planet. It doesn't make sense because a few swamp creatures carry it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation of languages

I encountered a debate on one of the talk pages regarding the TARDIS's translation of Galifreyan writing which I intended to contribute to once I had checked some references, but cannot remember where it was, now. I am sure the original questioner, if still interested, will probably find this comment. So: 'is Gallifreyan writing 'translated' for Rose?' I would say the Tardis (and the Doctor) keeps this private for Time Lords (i.e. is not included in 'the Time Lord gift'). References: Canon: In 'Fear Her', when the Tardis is analysing the scribble creature, Rose has to ask what the Gallifreyan writing says. Not-so-canon examples: the novel 'Only Human' p 15, refers to (from Rose's POV) 'A maze of graphics, in the incomprehensible alien script the Doctor always worked in.' The book suggests (p16) that Captain Jack can understand some of it, although in 'Deviant Strain', p9 (Jack's POV) 'Not a lot of it made sense but he nodded knowingly.'

Incidentally, Jack seems able to understand much of the TARDIS technology (as did others in the classic series, including Nyssa). Where did they learn to do so? Is the technology not exclusive to the Time Lords? Gwinva 14:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's because Rose is blonde :D Seriously though, I guess it's common sense technology? Or people with Time Travel knowledge can do it??? UltimateNagash 15:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

how is the Tardis bigger on the inside.

is it explained how the Tardis is bigger on the inside. it's explained how the tardis can (in the doctor's tardis's case was able to) camoflague ( by a chameloeon circuit) so what tachnolgy makes the Tardis bigger on the inside. plz notify me on my user talkpage when u answer thx.--I.W 21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The TARDIS' dimensional transcendentality is made possible by a state-of-the-art neutron flow polarity reverser (just kidding). In fact, Clarke's Third Law seems to be the fundamental principle behind the TARDIS' unusual dimensions. -Steve —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
Steve is, of course, right. That said, the series has given a few hand-waves towards an explanation. The most common is the phrase "dimensionally transcendental". In Colony in Space, the Doctor "explained" to Jo Grant that the TARDIS was bigger on the inside because it was dimensionally transcendental. When she asked, "What does that mean?", he said, "It means that it's bigger on the inside than the outside." He also gave less-than-helpful explanations in "An Unearthly Child" (comparing it to a building on a small TV screen) and The Robots of Death (comparing it to the way that something farther away looks smaller than something up close). The general assumption is that the interior exists in a different dimension from the exterior, which would jibe with what happens to the TARDIS in Father's Day (the interior gets separated from the exterior, leaving the police box shell). Hope that helps. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dimensional Pockets actually... The console room you see is actually a sphere, with the living 'switch room' below, which controls everything. This is surrounded by more of the coral to link it up to a massive 'sceptre', with the console room at the top.

Above it is the sensor tower, ending in a large spike/antenna.

Below the console room is a sphere about twice the size, called the Core Services Module (CSM), which contains all the main things any ship needs: power rooms, time travel control rooms, navigation, life support and of course, bedrooms...

Below that it slowly thins down to the end, with an antenna to take power from various stuff. Just above that is the Cloister Room.

On the part just below the CSM are four orbs joined by rods that contain the main knowledge, databanks etc...

Surrounding this completely is hundreds of spheres joined together by curving rods, all flowing around the sceptre inside a pocket a dimension. Each of these spheres contain something, and are linked by 'bridges' (more like wormholes, I guess...)

All of this info compiled from the Visual Dictionary, ISBN 978-1-40531-867-9

Hope that helps...

UltimateNagash 15:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No not really. In "The Robots of Death" the Doctor explained it in terms of objects appearing smaller than they really are when they're far away. If you think of the interior tardis being connected to the exterior by a wormhole then the outside doesn't necessarily need to fit around the inside. Of course then the problem becomes where you put the inside, as previously stated a pocket dimension is probably the best solution. --Teletran 03:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC) It has been explained that the TARDIS is not actually bigger on the inside. I do not remember which episode. It simply requires less energy to move the door of the TARDIS than to move the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

See, here's the thing. And yes, I will state up front and in advance I understand that this is just a t.v. show and was not and still is not written to be technically accurate or sufficient to stand up to the light of close scrutiny (however, given the foregoing comments on this discussion page, you folks were long past that point ages ago, so don't complain that I'm adding to it.) Anyhow, a TARDIS's exterior is a solid matter projection, kind of similar (at least in concept) to the solid projections of a holodeck from Star Trek. When the power is removed -- or, for that matter, the source -- then the object should just pfft out of existence. Now, whether that's instantaneous or gradual can be argued, but without the TARDIS "there" and actively maintaining the exterior, there should be no exterior. Capedude2005 (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Fluorescent walls?

An anon recently added the following:

In an episode from the First Doctor's era, one of his companions, Barbara asks "What I don't understand is where's the light's coming from?". he replies "It must be some kind of fluorescent substance in the walls."

This sounds vaguely familiar to me, but since TARDIS is a featured article we should include information like this only if we can provide a specific episode citation. Anyone remember where, specifically, this is from? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed his TARDIS test

In "The Shakespeare Code" Martha asks if someone needs to take a "driving test" to fly the TARDIS and the Doctor replies that not only that it does, but that he failed his. This was a joke of course but it did strike me as a possibly truthful one. Do we mention this? (I can't find it if we do). --GracieLizzie 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Gallifrey Chronicles reference should be removed

I think that this article attempts to integrate televised and non-televised material to such a degree that it's really getting unclear what ideas are fully supported by televised evidence and what are not. In section 2, we have a general statement about TARDISes alluding to The Two Doctors:

Before a TARDIS becomes fully functional, it must be primed with the biological imprint of a Time Lord, normally done by simply having a Time Lord operate the TARDIS for the first time. This imprint comes from the Rassilon Imprimatur, part of the biological makeup of Time Lords, which gives them both a symbiotic link to their TARDISes and the ability to withstand the physical stresses of time travel.

This paragraph is fine, though I think the word "normally" should be removed. I don't think there's any doubt in The Two Doctors that it's absolutely done this way. This idea of a symbiotic link between the Doctor and his particular TARDIS has a great deal of overt support in the new series (what was Bad Wolf if not the TARDIS protecting the Doctor?) and it also is implied in the way several classic Doctors anthropomorphize the TARDIS. Indeed, Hand of Fear's "call from Gallifrey" scene and The Masque of Mandragora's invention of TARDIS language translation services (as importantly revised in The Christmas Invasion) directly demonstrate that the TARDIS establishes mental links specifically with the Doctor. Importantly, if the Doctor's disabled, so too is the link the TARDIS establishes with others. He is, as Rose points out, "part of the circuit". All of this completely jibes with The Two Doctors.

However, in the very next section we have what I think is a contradictory statement:

In the programme, the Doctor's TARDIS is an obsolete Type 40 TT capsule (presumably TT stands for "time travel") that he unofficially "borrowed" when he departed his home planet of Gallifrey. According to the Eighth Doctor Adventures novel The Gallifrey Chronicles by Lance Parkin, it previously belonged to a Time Lord named Marnal, who was, like the Doctor, somewhat of a renegade.

This co-mingling of spin-off material with the televised facts leaves me, as a reader of this article, scratching my head as to how the TARDIS has become an obviously imprinted on the Doctor if he wasn't the original owner. The simpler conclusion from just the televised facts is that the First Doctor stole the TARDIS when it was in its unprimed state.

Mentioning Lance Parkin in the thick of the article just muddies the water. Gallifrey Chronicles is perhaps a worthy footnote, but it definitely shouldn't be a part of the main body of the article. If anything, The Two Doctors proves The Doctor didn't steal someone else's TARDIS, he just stole from the government on Gallifrey, which is consistent with his character. CzechOut 02:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've watched The Two Doctors a number of times over the years, and the impression I've always gotten is twofold: One, the whole "Rassilon imprimature" was complete and utter B.S. that The Doctor used knowing Styke would have been listening. Two, that the way The Doctor described it, it was more of an initialization procedure which, having been completed, meant that anyone could use a TARDIS from then on, regardless of biology or origin.
Moreover, while I appreciate what you're saying vis a vis the canonicity of non-episode materials, there have been so many painful contradictions and inconsistencies within the series itself that it is hard to argue whether, in fact, there's actually any canon at all. Capedude2005 (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

TARDIS models mentioned in the series?

The meddling monk is said to possess a "Mark IV TARDIS" which is 'newer' than the Doctors, should the "mark etc" model system at least be mentioned once somewhere in the article? 02:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

TARDIS v. Tardis (yet again)

Don't want to re-open that old wound of TARDIS vs Tardis again - archived at TARDIS vs. Tardis and Backronym - but over the past couple of weeks there have been letters in the Beeb staff mag, Ariel which I've put here - and as a result of this extra info., I've gradually expanded the first footnote of the article to include it - hope this meets with approval. Zir 13:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And added a photo of the 1980s fibreglass TARDIS which can now no longer be taken apart Zir 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Cameleon circuit

What, no mention of the famously malfunctioning "Cameleon circuit"? This name is given in some episode or other to describe the system that is supposed to make a TARDIS blend in with its surroundings. Although it isn't given that name at first, the circuit makes its appearance early on when it malfunctions on a voyage in the very first Doctor Who story. --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The chameleon circuit is mentioned several times in the article. Lexicon (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the problem is my inability to spell chameleon. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Article fails FA criterion #3

This article fails FA criterion #3. Please add {{Non-free media rationale}} for all non-free images without a rationale, or remove the images from this article. – Ilse@ 22:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a use rationale for the picture of the Jade Pagoda. I'll let the uploaders of the other images handle the others. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all for providing the fair use rationales. – Ilse@ 12:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who DK guide

I had a flip-through in the local shop, and saw the Dorling Kindersley guide to the revived series. There's an excellent spread on the current TARDIS and its overall design: the control room is near the top of a "scepter" connected to time and space. I'm just making a request if anyone could properly cite the information and include it. Ilse@ 12:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

TARDIS in "Torchwood"

From the article: "A TARDIS has also appeared in the Torchwood episode "End of Days". Because Torchwood is situated near a rift of temperal energy, The Doctor uses it to recharge the TARDIS. In the episode Jack Harkness hears the tell-tale sound of the engines, smiles and afterwards is nowhere to be found."

I have little issue with this particular statement, although the TARDIS didn't technically appear in the episode itself, just the familiar engine whine. The issue that I have found is in the following:

"As the camera shows Cardiff Bay at the end of the Torchwood episode "End of Days", You can see a tiny TARDIS sitting near the metallic piller fountain of "Roald Dahl Plass. Veiwers assumed that he was picked up and lead to the mis-conception that the TARDIS materialised inside Touchwood but infact it did not. This is further explained in the Dr Who episode "Utopia"(S03EP11)."

I've watched the episode again and I am not convinced it is the TARDIS. The shot is long and doesn't allow much in the way of detail. Not to mention that there appears to be a SECOND "TARDIS", down and to the right of the first "TARDIS". Can someone verify that the TARDIS actually appears in the shot before I rewrite this section of text? Thank you. - DrachenFyre > YOU! 15:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I still have it recorded from when I saw it in HD. I can confirm the TARDIS does NOT appear, once or twice. Hope that helps - Weebiloobil 20:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Contested move request

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

From WP:RM:

  • TARDISTardis — Per WP:CAPS naming convention. There also might be the need for a history page merger. I request that a sysop double check that, just in case, as I am unsure at this point. —Lord Sesshomaru 05:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I looked at the discussion page, methinks this would not be uncontroversial. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 09:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose TARDIS is an acronym. 07:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - I fail to see how this falls under WP:CAPS, the BBC and most references use "TARDIS", and precedent is certainly set by examples such as, well, "BBC". --Ckatzchatspy 11:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - although both versions of the name are well attested, the all caps version is more common and makes more sense, being an acronym. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 11:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the basis that TARDIS is correct -- it's an acronym. Matthew 11:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - TARDIS is the most common form used and it is an acronym. Timrollpickering 22:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Same reason as previous. I know that no formal request has been made, but I'm going to "vote" anyway. --Val42 23:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that no actual request is underway. The text was moved here as a more appropriate place to archive the discussion than buried in the history of WP:RM, which is a very active page. In any case, the consensus here is already apparent. I shall remove the proposal from WP:RM immediately. Consider the move rejected. --Stemonitis 11:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And there I was going to say that Laser is Laser, but JPEG remains JPEG. I'd guess that TARDIS has become a word more than an acronym, even if (like Laser or sonar) it started as one. Totnesmartin 12:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I too favour the present arrangement as "TARDIS" implies an acronym, tho' as I've mentioned before "Tardis" and "Tardis" are equally correct. See recent Ariel BBC staff mag letters reproduced hereZir 22:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unprecedented Hull Breach

The wall of the TARDIS is breached for the first time ever in 'The Last of the Time Lords', by a ship, presumably the RMS Titanic. Is this relevant enough to be mentioned and/or pictured? - The Good Ol' Country Doctor Ụšəг ŧª∫Қ 21:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC) It is only breached because the sheilds were down.... i hope this helps! --MiniGuy1994 (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. I *know* I'm going to catch at least 10 shades of hell for saying any of the following, and yes I know the show doesn't really stand up to any sort of scrutiny, but...
1. A TARDIS' exterior (as mentioned above) is a projection of solid matter, like on a holodeck from Star Trek. Without the projector, there is nothing there.
2. Imagine you're in a car and, one day, decide to floor it and slam into a building that doesn't exist. What happens? It's a ridiculous question, I know, but the answer is "nothing happens" because "there isn't anything there". Likewise, you cannot "hit" a TARDIS given that (and check out Logopolis as one episodic "canon" source) each TARDIS sits in it's own self-generated pocket micro-universe (a.k.a. "dimension") so unless you were already inside the TARDIS' microverse, there wouldn't be anything to hit, just like the previously-mentioned non-existent building.
3. I totally don't have an issue with a TARDIS having shielding. Anything as valuable as a TARDIS should absolutely have multiple layers of protection and defense. But that being said, refer to #2 above. Capedude2005 (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

External link: TARDIS scanner

Earlier today I removed an external link to a site called, which ties together a number of Who-related RSS feeds -- useful enough a resource, but it can't be considered to be a TARDIS/Police Box site, relevant to the article. It was re-added[1] by Doctor_No1, a user whose only contributions have been to include that link. Which is odd, seeing that the ID is similar to the LiveJournal account[2] of the chap who runs said site. This seems like a potential WP:COI to me.

It's not a huge deal, but I was under the impression self-promotion was not the done thing. Mark H Wilkinson 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Police Box

The Conceptual history portion of the article gives this description of a police box:

At the time of the series' debut in 1963, the police box was still a common fixture in British cities (it was used in the 1960s as a temporary holding cell for suspected offenders until police back-up arrived), and with some 700 in London alone, it was a logical choice for camouflaging a time machine.

Which while not strictly inaccurate gives a misleading view of a police boxes function so I wrote this:

The main function of a police box was to allow communication between police officers they contained a telephone with a direct line to the nearest police station which could also be used by the public. The police box contained first aid equipment as well as a small workstation and could temporarily be used as a holding cell. As police cars and two way radios became more common the police box was rendered obsolete.

Which doesn't fit into the rest of the paragraph so I'm not sure what to do with it. Any suggestions?--Teletran 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit more detailed than needed here (there's a link to the article on police boxes if more detail is needed). The main point is that the primary function is for communications, so I've rewritten the sentence to reflect this.

BBC Doctor Who Visual Dictionary TARDIS reference

There's a significant amount of detail in that book on the TARDIS and I thought it would be useful here. Particularly the mention of something called a Time Sceptre. Its certainly as cannonical as any of the other Doctor Who books (if not more so, as the writers did consult with the Producers of Doctor Who in the making of it), and surely at least deserves a mention. I've seen the Visual Dictionary referenced in other Doctor Who articles, and seems even more important to mention it here, where such an important part of the book is about the TARDIS. Steve Terran 23:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't dare to suggest that the Visual Dictionary is or isn't canonical, and the article shouldn't either — strictly speaking, there's no such thing as canon in Doctor Who, and we should do our best to avoid the suggestion that there is. That said, I see nothing wrong with mentioning the details from the Visual Dictionary, as long as they're properly sourced. The goal should be to present the information in a way that's simultaneously acceptable to both the reader who cares only about the television series and the reader who wants to know about Doctor Who in all its forms. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 17:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Mobile Phones?

On a number of episodes of the current series the TARDIS appears to act as a relay between Rose's mobile phone (and possibly Martha's as well, cant remember if I saw it or not) allowing her to call home wherever she is in the universe. Although nobody says that this is specifically linked to the TARDISes systems, during "The Impossible Planet" the disappearance of the TARDIS into an earthquake rift renders Roses's phone useless, giving the impression they are linked. Just wondered whther this should be mentioned? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 16:44, August 12, 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, unless you can find the subject being discussed in a reliable source somewhere (in this case, something like Doctor Who Magazine would do). We need to avoid original research, and since it's never been explicitly stated that the Doctor's "jiggery-pokery" linked the mobile phones to the TARDIS, it would be original research to mention the phones in this article (unless, as I said, the connection has been made by someone else in a reliable source). —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 17:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Forcefield and The Runaway Bride

As this is zipping in and out of the article, let me just point out that although the extrapolator acquired in Series One does grant the TARDIS a handy-dandy forcefield, at no point in "The Runaway Bride" does the script assert that it's that very thing which keeps the atmosphere inside the TARDIS when the doors are open; the Doctor only says that "The TARDIS is protecting us." While it may be the case that that's what RTD had in mind, we don't know that for sure. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 11:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Mark — I was confused. My bad. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 14:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That was my rationale for removing it - there was no direct link between the two. Apologies for not explaining that point here right away, as that might have helped to avoid the revert. --Ckatzchatspy 17:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Another power source

The paragraph on power source (or subsequent ones on other essential substances that need replenishing) needs updating. In the episode that just aired on the SciFi channel, a "rift" in Cardif is set to be a refuling stop. —Długosz 25-September-2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a mention of this in the section on "Other Tardises" - the Rift was previously used as a pit stop in "Boom Town". - 07:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Weight of the Tardis

How would the weight of the Tardis be calculated?

It appears to exist in more than three spatial directions, and does not disrupt the surface on which it rests to the extent that the weight of its contents might suggest.

(A link to "Weighing four-dimensional objects on a three dimensional weighing scale/weighbridge" or similar would suffice.) Jackiespeel 17:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What you're asking for is not going to happen. First of all, it wouldn't work for the TARDIS unless it were stated on Doctor Who. Second, using such a page to calculate the weight of the TARDIS would be original research, and, as such, couldn't be used on Wikipedia.. — Val42 02:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The weight of the TARDIS (5000 tonnes) is already included in the "Interior" section anyway. -Father Inire 04:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But - the question has not really been answered.

The weight of the Tardis-police-box-form would be only a fraction of the 5000 tons (in what gravity?) mentioned, otherwise there would probably be significant damage to the ground underneath its footprint.

Sometimes Wikipedia talk pages are the best places to ask such questions - even if to be redirected to appropriate places. Jackiespeel 15:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The 5000-tons figure is for "the Earthlike gravity of Alzarius" (see the article). The article also suggests that this is the weight of the TARDIS interior, which is why the police-box exterior can be moved so easily. The article and talk pages are not good places for speculation, but you can probably find some discussion of the matter at the Gallifrey One forums. -Father Inire 23:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr Who the series operates in "the universe as we know it" - the rules of physics etc (apart from the Tardis' specific properties).

A "red phone box" is about a metre square - and the Tardis appears to be of the same size.

The Tardis can materialise on any surface, and be supported by any ground (spaceship etc) which would support the weight of a red phone box: when it leaves, there is no visible mark. Its contents are larger/heavier/more massive, so must exist "somewhere else" - where in the multi-dimensional universe would its contents cause the Tardis to have a different weight? Would a "non-cube shaped tesseract" have different weights in different three dimensional planes?

I was asking the question in case someone on Wikipedia knew where the answer could be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiespeel (talkcontribs) 21:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that. The idea that the TARDIS exterior is in some sense separate from the interior is supported by events of "Father's Day", where although the TARDIS interior is thrown clear of the Earth, the shell of the police box remains. This does explain how the TARDIS can be so heavy, yet avoid disturbing the surface it lands on. As for issues about tesseracts, you'll probably get a more authoritative answer from contributors to the tesseract article. -Father Inire 22:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The FASA RPG mentions that TARDISes can vary their weight, from next to nothing (to allow landings on unstable surfaces) to several thousand tonnes. Their whole argument is that the craft is a mathematical construct made solid ("Logopolis", and built upon in several novels), therefore the weight can be adjusted as easily as the interior/exterior appearance. Presumably, this defaults, at least externally, to the weight of the object the TARDIS is impersonating, as part of the camouflage.

Not canon of course, but perhaps worth a mention like other non-canon sources. -Wolfe (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I keep seeing the basic tenets of this discussion repeated over and over and over and over again here on this page. I think Josiah Rowe (above) had it right when he said there is effectively no canon in Dr. Who. This show simply was never written to stand up to any sort or form of scrutiny, which actually is something I believe is unfortunate and actually distracting. But in any event, the exterior of any TARDIS should nominally weigh just what whatever it's made to be like would weigh, assuming the operator didn't decide to just add additional mass through increased density, or whatever. If the exterior of the TARDIS is made to look like a one pound rock, then it should weigh -- you guessed it -- one pound. As for the weight of the rest of the TARDIS, remember (as I and others have pointed out elsewhere) the TARDIS itself actually sits in a self-generated pocket universe (a.k.a. microverse) and so, while it has whatever mass it's got, has an apparent mass in this universe of nil. Whether the act of projection of the exterior would have therefore "exposed" some portion of a TARDIS to this universe and therefore the apparent mass is >0 is so far beyond the capabilities of anyone to say with authority (up to and including, in my view, writers for the show and producers of the show, as it would only be their own opinion with nothing more "authoritative" on which to really go, thanks to no real scientific thought or any kind of developmental forethought being put into this) that there's no point in us discussing the matter. And yes, for the record, I do find this highly frustrating. It's like an itch you can never scratch. Capedude2005 (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

cite 12

The fact that these facts may not be true is pretty important; should we shift the text of cite 12 into the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue

I've removed the following:

It has been reported that Kylie Minogue will be playing the role of the TARDIS in humanoid form.(ref

Firstly, this is sourced to a scandal rag, The Sun. Moreover, their source is unidentified and merely speculates:

"Viewers have often been told the Tardis is a living organism. But mystery has always surrounded what it is and what gives it its powers. The elements we know about Kylie's appearance all point towards her being the Tardis.

"The elements we know about Kylie's appearance point towards" means "I do not know but I am speculating that."

Even setting aside the Sun's poor reputation, even if we knew who this unidentified individual was, reporting his speculation is not reliable sourcing. --Tony Sidaway 11:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Use in popular culture

Would it be worth mentioning that in a recent episode of CSI: NY the sound of the TARDIS is used a few times? The plot revolved around a "time machine" built by an eccentric, but brilliant scientist. One of the characters, upon seeing it says something along the lines of "Paging Doctor Who." And in the flashback sequences showing the scientist using the machine, the distinct sound of the TARDIS is heard. (sorry if this doesn't make a new section, still new to editing talk pages.)UncleThursday 06:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm torn about this, myself - there are so many mentions of the TARDIS in popular culture, I'm not sure how encyclopedic they are. That said, a mention on CSI is a lot more noteworthy than some of the items on the list right now. I would say go ahead, be bold and add it, although it may end up being removed if the list is overhauled. Just be sure to cite it properly (I suggest using the {{cite episode}} template). --Brian Olsen 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I added the reference, and used the cite episode template. Let me know how it reads, and I double checked the links in the preview pane, so I know they work.UncleThursday 22:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Side-remark under this heading. You could probably find hundreds, quite possibly thousands, of references to the TARDIS in print and broadcast with no connection to the BBC if you looked systematically (I can think of several in novels offhand), although only a minority would be mentioned on the web. It would be good to restrict it to those that show notability by being discussed by multiple, independent sources, as some under this section are already tenuous. -- (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

Chameleon Circuit was created today, duplicating much of the material in this article. I don't see it growing, and as yet it lacks references which exist here. Hence the proposal to merge it here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 09:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also an entry for the chameleon circuit in the List of Doctor Who items - merging with that article might be more appropriate, although I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I would agree that the chameleon circuit doesn't merit its own article. -Father Inire (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with the merger...after all, it is part of the TARDIS, right? Exactly. But you may want to clean it up a bit first. -Luna''keet'' (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

do it (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed for merger--the 'article' by itself really serves no purpose and can be put as its own section. (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've redirected this to List of Doctor Who items#C; having looked at it, there's nothing that amplifies what we already have, and it's been quite some time. --Rodhullandemu 12:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad Wolf in Turn Left

The TARDIS exterior (along with manys surrounding props) was altered for the Turn Left finale to read 'Bad Wolf' over and over. I believe this is notable as it is the first (?) time that the TARDIS exterior is seen as being altered by an external (I assume) force. It was removed as non-notable. For the sake of reversion wars, discussion here? --.../Nemo (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts... one, how do we know it is the first? That would need a citation. Second, it is notable in the episode article, but is it really notable here in the main article? Third, how do we know that it is an external force causing the change? It could even be the TARDIS itself, given that it has already been established that it translates spoken and written language for the Doctor and the companions. All in all, I don't think it is needed unless we find out there is something more to this event. --Ckatzchatspy 08:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll concede I can't cite an external source regarding the consistency of the shape of the TARDIS - though the article here itself does already note other (imho much more minor) changes regarding the wording of the front panel, St Johns Ambulance badge... Whilst this change has certainly had much less screen time, it is (for once) a change which is relevant to the plot. I would say that alone makes it notable. Regardless of the origin of the 'Bad Wolf' text, very rarely has the actual TARDIS appearance been a concern to the Doctor (Father's Day is the only other that springs to my mind), and that also makes it notable. Either of these, imho, would be enough to warrant the one sentance note regdarding the change of signage. --.../Nemo (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Six TARDIS Pilots

I think we need to clarify who the six pilots are in the final episode of Series 4. The article says both "Rose Tyler, Martha Jones, Sarah Jane Smith, Mickey Smith, the Doctor and the Doctor's doppelgänger" and "Mickey Smith, Jack Harkness, Rose Tyler, Martha Jones, Sarah Jane Smith, and a clone of The Doctor" in two separate parts. The common characters on the lists are "Rose Tyler, Martha Jones, Sarah Jane Smith, Mickey Smith and the Doctor's clone/doppelgänger.

Watching the scene again on iTunes, I believe it is Rose Tyler, Martha Jones, Jack Harkness, Mickey Smith, Sarah Jane Smith and the Doctor. To begin with, it looks like the clone (blue suit) is helping as well, but him and Donna move to the side. And Jackie (Rose's mother) stands with her arms crossed, leaving the other six to pilot the tardis.

I have edited the article to reflect what I can clearly see on the episode, and have noted this in the edit summary. Thanks. --Woodgreener (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The article presently states the following on the question of the number of pilots:

"A previous episode showed six Timelords piloting a TARDIS (in flashback), using a pristine console devoid of the Doctor's somewhat jury-rigged modifications and repairs. The controls resembled coloured glass spheres and obelisk shaped spikes protruding from the surface of the console."

This is new to me! I suggest we delete this unless someone can actually give an episode reference. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. Surprised that stayed in the article as long as it did (it was added by an anonymous editor on [ October 19). I'm 99.44% sure that there's no such episode. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Unless it's a missing episode - (and I think all of those are before Time Lords appeared) then there isn't one. (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing I've ever seen in the new series or in the classic series to back this up. The closest thing I am aware of is a description (in a book somewhere who's title I simply don't recollect) that the six operator figure is nominally how a TARDIS is supposed to be operated. However given how well The Doctor can fly his TARDIS, and The Master his, and The Rani hers (and so on and so on) it should be patently obvious to anybody that a TARDIS in no way requires six operators to be piloted. Capedude2005 (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


The TARDIS also possesses a scanner so that its crew may examine the exterior environment before exiting the ship. In the 2005 series the scanner display is attached to the console and is able to display television signals as well as various computing functions and occasionally what the production team has stated are Gallifreyan numbers and text.

Is this in reference to the main viewscreen that looks like a flat panel TV hidden behind a sliding panel, or the console display that Tegan used to look at the Index File ? (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, see, that's the interesting bit. Prior to The Five Doctors, the TARDIS had only relatively primitive displays for read-outs. It never, in fact, had a built-in screen. The exception to this was during Logopolis (and there only) that that generation of console had a display. My guess -- and this is nothing but a guess -- is that The Master, through his Block Transfer Computation-synthetically generated Adric caused it to appear somehow. Perhaps it was a remote modification that The Master made -- perhaps it was an overlay of BTC on The Doctor's TARDIS -- but after that one episode, it disappears and is never seen again. Perhaps the show's production team at the time wanted to have a go at what sticking an actual computer display on the console would be like to work with, but that's just speculation. Capedude2005 (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


In Scream of The Shalka, the Doctor locks the TARDIS doors remotely, presumably using central locking. I see it's not mentioned here - as I don't know how you guys view the canonicity of this story I am reluctant to just plonk this info in the aricle. Thoughts? (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Flight control mistake

Regarding the following:

  • The Time Lords (as well as similarly powerful beings) are able to divert the TARDIS's flight path (The Ribos Operation, 1978),...
The Rani diverted The Doctor's TARDIS in Time and the Rani but was rather sloppy about it and caused The Doctor to regenerate. Capedude2005 (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I just rewatched the serial, and it was the White Guardian, not the Timelords, who hijacked the Doctor's TARDIS in the Ribos Operations, though Romana had believed she'd been sent by the President of the Timelords. I believe it was in Genesis of the Daleks that the TARDIS was externally controlled, and one or two other episodes, but am not sure enough to edit. IMHO (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And scratch Genesis, at least if the wiki article is right. According to that, the Timelords hijacked the Doctor cum companions whilst they were undergoing transmat. IMHO (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Douglas Adams

When the article talks about the tardis as not gernerally noticed by people,

"Despite the anachronistic police box shape, the TARDIS's presence is rarely questioned when it materialises in the present-day United Kingdom. In "Boom Town", the Doctor simply noted that humans do not notice odd things like the TARDIS, echoing a similar sentiment expressed by the Seventh Doctor in Remembrance of the Daleks (1988), that humans have an "amazing capacity for self-deception". Various episodes, notably "The Sound of Drums", also note that the TARDIS generates a perception filter to reinforce the idea that it is perfectly ordinary."

It may be a reference to the SEP (somebody else's problem) field that surrounds the bistromath in the Hitchhiker's Guide series. See Somebody Else's Problem.

Maybe; do you have a reliable source for that info, though? Haipa Doragon (talkcontributions) 19:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

St. John's Ambulance badge

Should it be noted that the St. John's Ambulance badge returns to the TARDIS door in Series Five, from the set photographs The Sun have published online today? (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the history and background for this? When was it inclded before? Is it a TARDIS-only feature, or did real police boxes incorporate a St John ambulance tie-up at some stage? regards, Lynbarn (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The First Doctor's TARDIS had one. DonQuixote (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jackson Lake's TARDIS

In the 2008 Christmas special edition, The Next Doctor, Jackson Lake (David Morrissey), while under the delusion that he is the Doctor, has a hot air balloon of the same colour and name as the TARDIS, which he explains as standing for "Tethered Aerial Release Developed In Style". It is not capable of time travel.

Surely this is inaccurate? This version of the TARDIS could indeed travel through time, but in only one direction (and just as quickly as the rest of us). - (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

TARDIS traveling through time

Shouldn't we include a picture of the tardis traveling through time? There's lots. Use any search engine and type in "TARDIS" into the pictures part. See? Pictures galore!WinifredJ (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


For fear of being slammed if I edit the actual page I am writing this here. It seems odd to have the plural of TARDIS be TARDISes. Surely it would simply be TARDISs. The e seems unnecessary. (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Our various takes on a Manual of Style seem to be ambiguous from this and this that there should not be an apostrophe in this case, and I agree, but also that there should not be an "e". In particular, I think TARDIS is normally rendered in all caps, and everyone know how to pronounce it, so "TARDISs" is perfectly acceptable, and clear, and the intervening "e" in "TARDISes" would seem unnecessary. Rodhullandemu 01:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I go the other way on this one: "TARDISes" looks right, "TARDISs", looking too much like it should be a possessive form, demands an apostrophe. (I don't distinguish between ordinary words and acronyms with respect to plural and possessive forms, and I don't see why there should be any such distinction.) Dsalt (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I showed both of your answers to my English class, and two thirds said the e should be removed. However a third said it should stay. I'm not sure why, but the e seems redundant. Thank you both of you for your input. Anyone know an impartial third source to weight in here? (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The appropriate thing to do in an ambiguous case like this is to find what reliable sources use as the plural of TARDIS. The BBC's Doctor Who website has "TARDISes" here (open "information" and click on "TARDIS Trivia": it reads, "TARDISes are equipped with a device called a chameleon circuit..."). Doctor Who: The Television Companion by David J. Howe and Stephen James Walker uses "TARDISes" (e.g. on p. 395, in the entry for The Keeper of Traken: "The Master has two TARDISes..."). So does Justin Richards in Doctor Who — The Legend: 40 Years of Time Travel (e.g. on p. 155, in the entry for Terror of the Autons: "The dematerialisation circuits from the two TARDISes look the same, but are incompatible.") Looks like the reliable sources agree on "TARDISes" for the plural. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 02:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Jafeluv (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

TARDISTardis — There are two major reasons for making this move. Firstly, Tardis is a trademark of the BBC, see this article here. Both Wikipedia's poicy on trademarks and Wikipedia's policy on capitalisation state that using all capitalisation is frowned upon, with the only exception I can see being generally permitted are when the letters are pronounced individually, which in the Tardis doesn't apply as it is always pronounced "tar-dis". The second major reason for moving is that the spelling "Tardis" is that it is almost always the spelling used in the mainstream media, such as this article in The Times, this article in the Daily Mail, and this article in The Independent. That "Tardis" is a fictional acronym ("Time And Relative Dimension(s) In Space") is not that significant, as like laser it has clearly entered popular usage as an individual word. — (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose per MOSTM. "TARDIS" is an abbreviation, so it does not violate the policy on trademarks or capitalization. Mainstream press uses the correct capitalization [3][4][5] (I can find plenty of mainstream sources that incorrectly write iPod as Ipod or eBay as Ebay, for examples of why some sources incorrectly writing it as "Tardis" is not an indication of anything. I also see mainstream sources write "Fifa" instead of "FIFA"). Most acronyms are trademarked too ("WWE" is trademarked by World Wrestling Entertainment, for example). TJ Spyke 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, I'll try to address your criticisms as best I can. Firstly, you base your opposition on WP:MOSTM – as far as I can see, that page, which I cited as part of my move request, does not say that abbreviations should be rendered in all capitals. Rather, it states: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official".
To address the links you provide, the Boston Herald article you cite uses "TARDIS" to explain the acronym, as part of explaining what Doctor Who is for American readers. The second souce you provide comes from Newsarama, which is essentially a fan site focusing mainly on comicbooks, and can hardly be seen as mainstream. The third wbsite you cite, Cnet News, does not use "TARDIS" in the editorial – the word, and that spelling, only appears in a reader comment below the article. With due respect, these are not authorative sources, and I fail to see how you can view "TARDIS" as the "official" spelling when the BBC themselves use "Tardis".
To address your comments about other articles, the article about WWE is fully spelled out in the article title, but wouldn't be written as "Wwe" in any case, as the letters are pronounced individually in that case. With FIFA, the only reason we do not use the full version is that it is a French acronym for "Fédération internationale de football association", which is completely unheard of in English and would violate WP:UE as an article title. The French Wikipedia does use Fédération internationale de football association. With regard to the CamelCase trademarks you mentioned, such as iPod, Wikipedia has a different policy to the one affecting this article, and isn't relevent to this move request. (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - For all intents and purposes, TARDIS is an acronym, which per WP:MOSABBR should be capitalised according to the most common asapted form; in this case, with capitals. EdokterTalk 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Even if we do treat Tardis as an acronym (and I personally think we shouldn't, as a contrived acronym with an incoherent expansion), you haven't addressed my point that "Tardis" is the most commonly used form by reputable sources like the BBC and the media. (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Suppport. I am unconvinced that the Tardis is not known as the Tardis in the general mainstream media, and thus, is how it should be referred to in a general reference encyclopoedia. Sure, the BBC first intended it to be an abbreviation, and DW fans might still think that is the most important thing in the world and should be respected, but the general public and mainstream sources gave up caring about this detail long ago, and the article frankly looks ridiculous with the capitalised form splashed all over it. Just imagine the hell there would be on if this were applied to RADAR and LASER articles. Just because this is a fiction topic, does not mean common sense should be ignored in favour of canon. MickMacNee (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Edokter. It's also not really worth it to change the capitalisation of the name unless it's obviously incorrect; most people will come to the page by a case-insensitive search engine. See also NATO, an organisation that is never referred to as "Enn-eh-tee-oh". Sceptre (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
That's because NATO is almost always written in that form, rather than as "Nato" or the "North Atalantic Treaty Organisation". A similar example is BBC, which is almost never expanded to "British Broadcasting Coorporation". As I have pointed out several times, "Tardis" is the most common spelling of the Doctor's ship. If you're worried about links between this article and others, there's no problem as all links to "TARDIS" will automatically redirect to the right article. (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. I would think this would be clear under the guidelines of acronyms. "RADAR" and "LASER" are poor comparisons, as both words have evolved from their original usage in the language to what they are today. "Common Sense" is pretty well outlined, and it's already been pointed out that the full-caps is used in one of the very links of the original suggestion. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Its a legitimate acronym, not a backronym or anything of the sort. It is traditionally capitalised, and most people know that its all caps. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
"most people know that its all caps." - I think you'd have a hard time proving that tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose. You're misreading trademark policy, naming conventions, the facts of the name of the fictional device within "Doctor Who" works, and more. It's also a case of original research that is bordering on PoV-pushing (cf. related naming dispute at Talk:TARDISode#Move?). The real clincher is, of course, that the "Doctor Who" novels and other official printed materials almost invariably say "TARDIS", not "Tardis". Finally, it doesn't matter one whit that RADAR and LASER are no longer spelled that way. Some acronyms slowly turn into "words" in mainstream usage, others do not (cf. NASA, which is never "Nasa"). Regardless, the sources and their overwhelming agreement on "TARDIS" ends this discussion before it has begun. We don't get to make up new name spellings just because we like them that way. PS: The fact taht newspapers often spell it wrong is not an argument for moving this article, only for creating a redirect from the misspelling since it is a plausible error that some readers will surely try to use to find the article. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō  Contribs. 11:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, how am I pushing a point or conducting original research? You say the newspaper spell Tardis wrong – how do you respond to the BBC themselves using "Tardis"? While I enjoy fan media, we should be using respected sources like media organisations to determine where this page is moved too; we shouldn't be using comics and cartoons. Also, please read WP:OFFICIAL. (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The news piece you cite also refers to the Doctor as "Dr Who". Does that mean we should move Doctor (Doctor Who)? Of course not, it is more than likely that the person writing the article is not too familiar with the series or its naming conventions. TR-BT (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
No, because I could find much more professional sources talking about "the Doctor" than "Dr. Who". Whereas, the consensus as far as "Tardis" is concerned is for the lower case version. (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Pushing a point: You don't like acronyms, and think that if any acronym can be pronounced as a word it should be spelled like one, and that WP articles should be named this way, especially if a newspaper can be cited as a source for this spelling. No one else here appears to agree with you, yet you continue advancing this position in a WP:IDIDNOTSEETHAT manner, ignoring rationales for why it isn't viable. Everyone has a point to advance sometimes, but it becomes a WP:POINT/WP:SOAPBOX/WP:GREATWRONGS point when this listening to others part isn't happening. As for the other matters: Who cares if a newspaper spells it one way when all the official merchandise spells it the other? You think you've found some kind of "smoking gun" but all you've dug up is (surprise!) evidence that BBC is a large organization and that the writers of its news articles are not the same people as the writers of its sci-fi TV shows and their spinoff media. WP:OFFICIAL is just noise. It is a draft version of an outline of a personal essay that in point of fact is contradicted every single day at WP:AFD, WP:CFD and elsewhere, because we have a strong preference for and precedent of naming articles and categories for the official names (sans junk like "Inc.", "Ltd.", etc.) of their subjects, unless there is a major reason not to do so, such as some alternative being overwhelmingly more common. "Tardis" is not overwhelmingly more common than "TARDIS", it's just preferred by you and apparently either preferred by some journalists or the only spelling they are aware of. I.e., it's a non-issue. Even the more established essay WP:OFFICIALNAMES only provides for 3 criteria to use names other than the official one, none of which apply here, and admits that we usually use the official name even if there are "many" exceptions. This has not been justified as one of them.— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 03:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
That's completely untrue, I have nothing against acronyms and I strongly support articles like NATO and BBC being at their present locations. It's not that I "don't like" the spelling "TARDIS"; it's just that I find that almost all reputable sources use "Tardis", and I believe that Wikipedia should reflect common consensus. Moreover, I don't see why this move is turning out to be so controversial – why can't we just apply Wikipedia policy and have done with it? I'm not going to respond to your accusations of ""smoking guns" and all the rest of your personal attacks. (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Comics and cartoons indeed. Heaven forbid that we base the article around the material it is actually covering. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
That's like saying we should cite Simpson comics when we write an article about The Simpsons, rather than authorative books, news reports and documentaries about the series. By the way, I mean Doctor Who spin-offs; I know the show is a television programme. (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Please, don't be pedantic. It should be rather clear I was intending to be flippant over the fact that this is an entirely too-long debate about an aspect of a fictional series, especially in regards to comments as to how the actual subject matter is lower reliability than entertainment news reviews. If an authorized spin-off, document or what-not references one thing and a journalist then contradicts that I'm not terribly inclined to lean towards that. So in this case yes, you would be better off refercing "The Official Simpsons Comic of Who-The-Heck-Cares" than you would be referencing Bobcat Goldthwait's review of the subject. Original material and comments by production staff take precedence over statements by journalists (at least in this type of case). I don't believe that's an on-the-edge mentality. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I came off as pedantic, but I disagree with the argument that "refercing "The Official Simpsons Comic of Who-The-Heck-Cares" [is better way of getting knowledge] than you would be referencing Bobcat Goldthwait's review of the subject". Wikipedia favours reliable, published sources over media that is only of interest to fans. (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
First off, I'm not suggesting the use of "fancruft". I'm saying that first-party publications and statements by the subject of the article hold more weight than the statements of reviewers in situations like this. If the producers want to call it "TARDIS" (which they have, though like many things not with 100% reliability) that holds more weight than what a newspaper reviewer says, just like what the newspaper reviewer says means more than the statements of the average piece of fan-work. Also, authorized novels and interviews in whatever Doctor Who magazine are not works of fanfiction; one is statements by the production staff (still something to be taken with a grain of salt), and the others are indeed official. Whether they are written by the same staff or not is irrelevant; official is official. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Why do we write Seven instead of Se7en? Why do we call it Next instead of NEXT? Both are the 'official' versions from the 'reliable' sources, or canon if you will. Yet, for obvious reasons, Wikipedia is in line with the rest of the general sources out there. The whole - 'it comes from DW so Wikipedia has to follow it' argument is weak, and patently ignores what Wikipedia is and is not supposed to be. It's a fine argument for how to do it in Memory Alpha type reference compendiums, but that's it. People are arguing in here as if we didn't have a whole raft of similar rules which make it clear that such primary sources do not control what goes on here - such as writing out of universe instead of in universe, such as not simply going and creating a character articles for every single character with zero real world notability, etc etc. The facts of this debate are absolutely no different, if one is prepared to look at it objectively and with an acceptance of what Wikipedia really is - a general reference work that incorporates specialist material, but is not a mirror or portal of it. MickMacNee (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: Doctor Who: The Legend Continues, The Doctor Who Encyclopedia, Doctor Who Magazine, the various novels, etc. They spell it TARDIS. DonQuixote (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
They are fan media; precisely the point I'm trying to make. Mainstream sources use "Tardis". There's quite clearly more opposition than support for this move, but you all seem to be making the same arguments against moving: namely, that "TARDIS" is somehow cannon or "official", and that somehow overrides Wikipedia's policies on trademarks, capitalisation and acronyms. The most recognisable way of writing the word, outside of Doctor Who spinoff media, is "Tardis", as I have repeatedly shown. (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
They are reliable sources. If you can prove that they are less reliable than, say, The Guardian, then do so, otherwise they carry the same weight, and in academic circles even more weight than what you seem to prefer. DonQuixote (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Much more importantly, they are official, i.e. canonical sources as well as sources of legal trademarks, so they are, in fact, beyond reliable on this particular matter, but are 100% authoritative. Mick's position would seem to be that if a major newspaper got Superman's real name wrong all the time, as "Cal Ell", that we should use that mispelling in Wikipedia. This requested moves debate should be closed per WP:SNOWBALL, and this growing flamewar archived with {{Discussion top}} / {{Discussion bottom}}, with everyone going back to their happier and more productive activities. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 03:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I am saying nothing of the sort. Your mispelling example is a totally unrealistic and incomparable straw man, just like the Times/Perpetual motion example below. Permeating a direct mispelling is nothing like the choice of capitalising an acronym or not. It is not policy in the slightest that what happens in canon style takes absolute precedence here, and that is clear in the very policies cited in this debate, and is why we write Seven, not Se7en, Next not NEXT, etc etc. MickMacNee (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Of the sources I provided, The Times is widely considered to be Britain's newspaper of record. The BBC is the national broadcaster of the United Kingdom. The Gaurdian has a 180 year history of reporting news; The Independent is much newer but nonetheless still has a circulation of around 200,000. The Daily Mail is a tabloid, but sells over 2 million copies every day. These sources are more reputable, more reliable, more distinguished and more popular than, for example, Doctor Who Magazine, or similar franchised publications. (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The Times might be Britain's "newspaper of record", but in an article about black holes, an issue of that has less weight than an issue of, say, American Journal of Physics. So, unless you can prove that a specialised journal is less reliable than a general journal, dismissing specialised journals is narrow. DonQuixote (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
In the field of physics, I would agree with you and place the American Journal of Physics ahead of any newspaper. Doctor Who, however, is not rocket science. Something like "Doctor Who: The Legend Continues" may be enjoyable to read, but it is not a specialised journal. It does not provide high quality factual information; it is simply meant to be entertaining. (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
All right, I'll give you that book, but DWM has researched articles on the show and Doctor Who: The Scripts contain the actual scripts used within the programme, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. But something like DWM, which I grant is a better source than "Doctor Who: The Legend Continues", is still much less independent of its subject then the mass media, and while it does research articles, its opinions and views are only important to a small minority of fans. The same goes for the scripts. Also, for Doctor Who episodes, we title each episode article based on the title that appears on its first broadcast; we don't use the production codes. (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
How are well-researched articles fancruft? Applying this equally to all other similarly formatted journals, how is a well-researched article about Emily Dickinson in a poetry journal fancruft? How is a well-researched article on history of astrophysics in a popular science journal fancruft? DonQuixote (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
They are "fancruft" (I dislike the term) in the sense that they are extremely niche publications which are being given undue weight in this move request. Poetry and science do not have fan communities comparable with Doctor Who fandom; they do have enthusiasts, yes, but, I can't picture a scenario where a newspaper and a poetry journal would outrightly contradict each other (except in the case of a simple factual mistake). (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
See below. DonQuixote (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not even an issue of reliability which has no real meaning for basic points of fact of canon, unless I've misunderstood, you are only holding up the books as basic point of fact of canon, and in fiction, that's it. It's either a fact of canon, or its non-canon. Even if you had a DW source quoting the top man of the DW franchise stating TARDIS is and always should be written in caps in canon, that cannot ever outweigh the fact that this is just ignored in general sources, because that's what Wikipedia is ultimately written to reflect, with due recognition of fiction source material. MickMacNee (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You've misunderstood. I'm arguing against the fact that you're holding up one form of sources above another form without any reason. Yes, Wikipedia is meant to be written like a general source in that technobabble is to be avoided. However, it does not mean that general sources should be given preference over technical sources. DonQuixote (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not accept that DWM, Outpost Gallifrey and the rest comprise "technical sources". They are fan sources. (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head - insisting on writing it as TARDIS all over the article, is an exercise in technobable, because it is clear from the contradictory general sources, that people who are not DW fans, gave up caring it is an acryonym a long time ago, and it is Wikipedia's job to reflect that, per WP:5P. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. - Wikipedia is a general encyclopoedia which incorporates elements of fan fiction, it is not a general encyclopoedia, and an encyclopoedia of Doctor Who. It doesn't really matter if every single DW related sources calls it the TARDIS, that can never ever outweigh a proven discrepancy in general media, because of what Wikipedia is. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
That's being naive. If every physics related source says that perpetual motion engines are impossible, but The Times, for example, happens to mention that it is possible, then it matters a great deal. DonQuixote (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see my above comment, and my argument that you can't equate Doctor Who fan media to specialised publications. Also, please don't accuse other editors of being naive. (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you can, considering that a lot of them have been researched, either through first source documentation or first source people. DonQuixote (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Technical sources are ones that undertake thorough research, submit to peer review, and so forth. Something like Nature is a technical source. You wouldn't call something like Heat a technical source would you, just because it has access to celebraties? (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I apologise that I unintentionally switched from "specialised sources" to "technical sources" (technical sources being a type of specialised source). But the point remains, well-researched articles or even just plain direct interviews don't require peer review as much since it's just reporting on available sources (interpretation of the sources, on the other hand, is another thing). So publications such as Heat can be used as sources if you're citing an interview for a biography. Similary, DWM magazine is a valid source if you're citing it for well-researched production documents and interviews. DonQuixote (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, you have a point in that there is distinction betweeen specialised and technical sources, and that DW can be considered a specialist subject. I would also agree that DWM and similar sources can have a valid purpose on DW articles, such as production details for episodes that wouldn't be covered in the mainstream media. Where I would disagree is in your argument that DWM and be considered important here; because they are so intregral to the Doctor Who fan community, I think they're unfairly being given a prominent status over publications with much wider readerships and coverage. (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
See below. DonQuixote (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
How is it naive? I may be naive in thinking that everybody here believes that Wikipedia is what WP:5 says, and that has certainly seen many battles in fiction topics, but other than that, you lost me with that comment. Your point about sources would carry much more weight if were a realistic scenario, or even one that has happened, rather than a hypothetical straw man. I cannot ever envisage the Times contradicting a point of fact of the world of Physics - and how you write Tardis is hardly the same as whether perpetual motion exists. The closer and more relasitic the example, the better. Even then, I am not entirely convinced that physics - fiction are comparable topics. MickMacNee (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not a straw man, it's a simple application of symbolic logic. Reducing "general print media spelling it Tardis" to A, "specialised media spelling it TARDIS" to B and "we should spell it Tardis" to C, then it becomes A should be given more weight than B therefore we should C. I'm saying that you have to prove why that statement is true. The statement as-is can be expanded just as equally to "general media says X"=A, "specialised media says Y"=B and "we should accept X"=C. That is, we need a D=? such that The Times being given more weight than DWM is valid.
As to physics vs fiction, I just used physics because that was the first thing I could think of. The point is "any area of academic study", which includes sociology, biology, literature (ie fiction). Again, you have to prove why the sources that you prefer are more reliable, or at the very least more acceptable. DonQuixote (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course it is a straw man - an argument set up to be knocked down. It is not a situation that will ever occur, so it is not a situation that I need to justify doing one thing or the other. As for the symbolic logic, I've explained all over the place why, in this particular situation, DW sources should never going to over-ride general references. Wikipedia is frankly not a DW-portal, it is not here to simply parrot information in a canon format. Tomorrow, ask anyone you meet who is not a Dr Who fan, a) whether they knew TARDIS was an acronym and what it stands for, and b) if they couldn't answer yes to a), but went to a general reference work to find out more, would it, or would it not, irritate the living crap out of them if they were reading an article about it, and TARDIS was spelled TARDIS every third line, for page after page, when that is not something any non-DW source would ever do. That's the man in the street version of my argument, which is a nice parallel to the other more factual and policy based reasons already given for Cavendish et al as to why the general media dropped this long ago and why Wikipedia doesn't look anything other than unprofessional by not doing otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
"Straw man" involves a misunderstanding or misrepresentation in the construction. "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To 'attack a straw man' is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the 'straw man'), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." (from straw man). Your argument is that general media, such as the Times contradicting specialised media, such as Doctor Who related media, doesn't matter. I replied that it mattered a great deal since, similarly, general media, such as the Times, can contradict a specialised media, such as physics related media. Now, unless you give a valid reason as to why Doctor Who related media should be treated differently than any other specialised media, your statement is unjustified.
As to a "situtation that can occur", see vaccination controversy, psychics, magnet therapy, etc. (As I said, the above was the first thing I could think of.) DonQuixote (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
(Addendum) Actually, come to think of it, the perpetual motion engine example wasn't unrealistic in that severl have been mentioned in newspapers over the years -- it's just that they were quietly forgotten when it turned out that they didn't work. So, no, not a "straw man". DonQuixote (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)a
I've given reasons all over this page, you are surely purposely ignoring them by know. And it is a straw man, plain and simple - your misrepresentation is that I would in both circumstances argue that general source should be followed over 'specialist' sources (and can we just call it DW canon, that's what it is), by giving an example situation that is never going to happen, simply to give the illusion of refuting my position on the situation that can and does happen, this one. I would simply never say that The Times overides Physics sources to say that perpetual motion exists, and to tie into the other example elsewhere, I would also never say that if The Times mis-spelled Superman's name then Wikipedia should follow it over canon. You can argue all you want that that is what I am saying, but I'm really not, honest. I really have got no idea what those other supposed examples are, but I seriously doubt they have anything at all to do with a discrepency in how to write an acronym either. MickMacNee (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I've only responsed to responses to my comments and haven't noticed any of your other responses to anyone else's. C'est la vie.
Anyway, to your point, I never said that you said "both circumstances". I asked why should one circustance be different from the other. Like I've said, I need a reason (D=?) such that in one circumstance the general source should be given preference over a specialised source -- otherwise, as I've said, without validation it would be as rediculous as a general source saying "perpetual motion engines exist" being given preference over a specialised source saying "perpetual motion engines don't exist", as have happend before. So not a "straw man". I'm asking you to validate your assertion. DonQuixote (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
If you are asking for a reason to believe an assertion only you yourself created, which you have already said you don't accept, before you will accept the validity of my assertion, then it is a straw man. All day, every day. I have no need to defend a position I didn't create, and don't believe. You are arguing that Wikipedia should follow canon style rather than reflect what the rest of the world does. That's it. The validity of my argument as to why it shouldn't, really has got nothing to do with perpetual motion in any way, and cannot be defeated with men of straw. MickMacNee (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
You're the one saying that general media should be given preference to specialised media such as DWM. That's your assertion. Quote: "It doesn't really matter if every single DW related sources calls it the TARDIS, that can never ever outweigh a proven discrepancy in general media, because of what Wikipedia is." That's why I'm responding to you. So, not a "straw man". For me to accept it, you'll have to convince me. As an example of why just blindly accepting any position, including yours, can be wrong, I've used the example of perpetual motion -- a situation that has occured in reality. That is, every physics related sources says that it's impossible, which does outweigh a discrepancy in general media, such as perpetual motion engines being touted as possible.
So either prove your assertion (see quoted passage above) or stop throwing around buzz words. DonQuixote (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
As above, technical publications are ones with prominent specialist authors, which undergo a range of processes to ensure reliability and accuracy. The same process doesn't take place for fan magazines. Compare Academic publishing with Science fiction magazine. (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
From OED -- "Tardis n. In allusive use. Something resembling or likened to Doctor Who's TARDIS; spec.: (a) a thing which has a larger capacity than its outward appearance suggests; a building, etc., that is larger on the inside than it appears from the outside; (b) a thing seemingly from another time (past or future)."
Note "in allusive use" and "Doctor Who's TARDIS". DonQuixote (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
What that shows, more than anything, is how "Tardis" has become genericised. I'm willing to bet the OED doesn't have a seperate definition under the spelling "TARDIS". (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
No, the OED does not contain definitions of fictional machines. What the above shows is that even a non-Doctor Who related source refers to the fictional device by name as TARDIS within the definition of the everyday word (albeit it's also a specialised source in that it's a dictionary). DonQuixote (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, it has only one entry, and that is under "Tardis". The lower case form is used by all the mainstream newspaper, press agencies, and so forth when talking about the ship in the context of the show (The Mirror: The End of Time finishes with the 11th Doctor "hurtling through space in a crashing Tardis"), in addition to the aforementioned "allusive" use. (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
What a lot of us are forgetting (myself included), is that this is an article about a fictional device. That is, this article summarises the appearance of a device within a body of fiction, describes the conception and production of said work of fiction, and mentions its cultural impact. Within the body of fiction it's referred to as "TARDIS". A TARDIS is not a real object. Given that, this article should use what appears in the body of fiction rather than how it is referred to in general media since, again, this is about the fictional works themselves.
Similar examples are:
The answer to the question of life, the universe and everything is "42" no matter what the general media says the answer might be if the article is about the answer from a specific body of fiction.
GLaDOS is a fictional character from a work of fiction and should be spelled as such no matter what the general media says.
HAL is a fictional character from a work of fiction and should be spelled as such no matter what the general media says.
DonQuixote (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the Tardis being a fictional object makes this move request different from any other, to be honest. The reason I haven't proposing a similar move request for HAL 9000 is that the capatalised form of that abbreviation is most commonly used in print; see the Chicago Tribune for example. With Tardis, the reverse is true with most organisations calling it "Tardis". With regard to GLaDOS, which I'm not familiar with, there seems a good reason to move since Wikipedia follows standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", but I would have to research that more carefully if I were to propose a move for that page. Ultimately, Wikipedia is driven by sources, and being fictional shouldn't gain this page an exception from standard Wikipedia procedure. (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, my point is that, no matter what we do now, the works of fiction will remain unchanged and being that this article is describing a body of fiction, it should be consistent with it. If this article was about a real-world Tardis, then, yes, it should be changed, but it's not about a real-world object.
As to sources, all the specialised sources (including the non-subject related OED) refer to the fictional device as TARDIS. DonQuixote (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, I have to disagree. The reliable and comprehensive sources all use "Tardis". What is considered canonical is beside the point. We don't title Star Wars as "STAR WARS" because of how it appears in the logo and in spin-off media. Again, I will reiterate that the sources I have provided use "Tardis" when talking about the ship in the context of the show. (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's not exactly the same thing as "STAR WARS" is not anythng within the fictional world of Star Wars, that is, there is no object or person called STAR WARS within the body of fiction. The point is that, within the fictional world of Doctor Who, the device is always "TARDIS". In the real world, we have things like Tardis hubs, Tardis wardrobes and Tardis cookie jars. DonQuixote (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that's not the best example. But what's your evidence for asserting that "within the fictional world of Doctor Who, the device is always 'TARDIS'"? As I've said many times before, the sources I've provided all use Tardis when talking about the fictional object. My arguments are not based on cookie jars and wardrobes; they are based on reliable, authorarative sources, and Wikipedia guidlines and policy on capatalisation and trademarks. (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The "fictional world" is described by the scripts and the books. Doctor Who: The Scripts, the New Adventures novels, the Target novelisations, etc. Also there are the references such as Doctor Who: The Inside Story and Doctor Who: The Early Years, etc., which describe the production and contents of the fictional world. DonQuixote (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
As I said before, the mainstream sources use Tardis consistantly, including when they are talking about the ship in the context of the show. It's not like they describe "the TARDIS crashing" but state that "Downing Street is like Tardis"; they use Tardis consistantly. (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment NATO and NASA, being only four letters long, don't look nearly half as dumb in normal prose text as LASER and RADAR do being much longer, and that is probably why most mainstream sources abandoned TARDIS years, if not decades, ago. Its a simple matter of style, and Wikipedia is supposed to be a general reference work reflecting general usage, not to stand as a beacon of defiance. Another very good reason for NATO and NASA remaining acronyms even today, is that most normal people could still tell you what they are acronyms of - National Aeronautics and Space Administration and North Atlantic Treaty Organization. By contrast, I doubt the general population realises a Laser is Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, or that Radar is RAdio Detection And Ranging (and yes, I had to look it up). If the DW fans are being honest with themselves, the same is true of Tardis/TARDIS, and there really is no general policy reason for the discrepency in how Wikipedie reflects reality. Still, this request is heading for a landslide fast, but I thought I would put this on record for future generations anyway. And on a final personal opinion, if the title is not changed then at the very least the ludicrious use of TARDIS through the entire article should stop, being as it is a crime against the senses. MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC) And I nearly vomited when I looked at TARDISODE. MickMacNee (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
    • A five letter word is "much longer" than a four letter word? Has the word "much" lost all of its meaning? How long would a word have to be to be "longer" than a four letter word, but not "much longer"? I know this isn't a particularly on-point comment, but I feel compelled to point out that that's a strange use of language... -GTBacchus(talk) 23:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, "TARDIS" is six letters and it does look aesthetically quite odd, especially when words like "TARDISes" are being used in this article at present. Worth pointing out again that the reason we do have NATO, NASA and others is that the capatalised abbreviation is the most common form for these organisations, whereas "Tardis" is the most common form for the Doctor's ship, per my above sources. As a trademark, all caps should not be used for "Tardis". (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I was responding quite directly to the post preceding mine, in which it was asserted that "LASER" and "RADAR" are much longer than "NASA" and "NATO". I dispute the assertion that 5 is "much more" than 4, and that's it. As for your comments right here, I don't know why you follow your good argument about sources with an irrelevant point about it being a "trademark". We follow sources because they're our sources; there's no need to confuse that reasoning with something else. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake, and I'd agree that there isn't much difference between a 5 letter and a 4 letter word. That "Tardis" is a trademark is not irrelevent though - it distinguishes this article from the ones mentioned above, which are acronyms formed from the names of organisations. The BBC didn't register "Time And Relative Dimension(s) In Space" as a trademark; they registered "TARDIS". As for the sources, see my other comments. (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, it is visually much longer, LASER is 125% the length of NATO, and TARDIS is even worse, at 150%. But on reflection, it is probably my second point that holds more truth, but the first is definitely a factor. MickMacNee (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
          • If you wish to make an argument that an increase from 4 to 5 results in a "much" longer word, then I'll simply note that I disagree with that use of "much". It's not a very interesting disagreement though, is it? I wonder, is there any word that's only a little bit longer than a four-letter one, or do we go straight from zero to "much"? (Important note: This is a silly point. Ignore it.) -GTBacchus(talk) 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Mick, no one cares. This is a storm in teacup. Why on earth are you arguing about the one-character-different lengths of acronyms and whatever other noise is happening up there when this entire thread exists, and is supposed to be about and stay focused on, policy/guideline-defensible rationales pro or con a proposed article rename? To get back to that actual topic: You have no sources that the "mainstream" have "abandoned" TARDIS for Tardis "years ago", only some evidence that the Tardis spelling turns up in things like newspapers fairly often, from which you assume (original research, novel synthesis) that such an abandonment has taken place and has done so when and as broadly as you suggest. You simply don't like acronyms, and are pushing an anti-acronym advocacy position. I can be stubborn (I think GTBacchus can vouch for that) on matters of policy and guideline consistency, but this is just your subjective preference. There *isn't even a legitimate Wikipedia issue to discuss here*. The official books and other merch use TARDIS (or in older ones T.A.R.D.I.S., but per WP:MOS we don't use periods in acronyms any longer). That's that. The end. The best that can be said for Tardis is that it might be common enough in newspapers and such to include it in the lead as an alternate spelling, and it definitely should continue to exist as a redirect. PS: There is nothing at all wrong with pluralizing acronyms/initialisms (Example: If some other country than the US has an agency with an acronym of "NASA" we could legitimately say "and the differences between the two NASAs are...), so bringing "TARDISes" is an irrelevancy. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 03:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I think its pretty obvious as to what the relevance to this debate as to the probable reasons why NASA and NATO are still NASA and NATO, but LASER/RADAR/TARDIS are no longer capitalised, in sources, despite being acronyms. You say there is simply no debate to be had because of the official books, that's nonsense. You say I am an 'anti-acronym agenda pusher', that's total nonsense. But you are correct, I am not going to waste my time proving beyond doubt that TARDIS has been abandoned in mainstream sources because I dout very much it would sway you anyway (and for crying out loud, you actually even seem to be asking for a source to say that specificaly, rather than a more normal sampling based approach). I am satisfied it has been. You don't have to believe me, but I am most certainly not saying it out of some nefarious POV push, I have a million and one other ways to waste my time than on such oddness. MickMacNee (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Which format is most commonly used in the reliable sources from which the article is written? We should follow those, because we're source-based. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I hope I've conclusively argued that "Tardis" is used by most professional organisations that are fully detached from the subject. If these sources are not referenced in the article, I will try and improve this article by incorporating them; if you wish me to produce more sources showing that "Tardis" is the most favoured spelling, I will produce them. (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Having looked at the current sources being cited in the article, all the mainstream sources such as The Guardian, the Evening Standard, BBC News (2) (3) use "Tardis", as do many more eclectic sources such as the University of Edinburgh's "Tardis Project". Other sources, mainly fan media, use "TARDIS"; a lot of the references are tv episodes, which do not use any spelling of the word. Completely unrelated to this move, but should this source really be referenced in the article? (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose It is an abbreviation, it was explained by Susan Foreman in the first serial An Unearthly Child exactly what TARDIS is supposed to stand for, so has existed as an abbreviation for the entire history of the TV show, and has been expounded several times in the history of the show in full form. (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I can only respond by re-stressing that Wikipedia policy explicitly discourages using all capitals, particularly as in this case when the word is pronounced "tar-dis", and that the most common form of writing the word is as "Tardis", as evidenced by all the reliable sources. (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
NASA is pronounced na-sa ; CERN is pronounced sern ; RVAN is pronounced R-van ; etc. You haven't made a point in stating that some abbreviations are pronounced as words. Wikipedia discourages all capitals in the case they are NOT abbreviations. (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I should concede that point, although as I stressed before "Time and Relative Dimension(s) in Space" is an essentially meaningless expression, making it a contrived acronym. That doesn't change the fact that the term has been assimilated into the English language in much the same way laser has, and that all reliable sources now exclusively use "Tardis" as their principal spelling, as I have repeatedly shown. (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
So it's a contrived acronym, pronounced as a word? Like USA PATRIOT Act. And it's a "common" English word? I guess it's probably just as common as the contrived CAPTCHA. In my experience, Captcha and Patriot Act are the most often-used spelling in those two cases, although others don't appear to think so. Of course, maybe I'm too close to Internet/Doctor Who fandom to get used to the idea of spelling it like "Tardis." That looks weird to me.-- (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Official BBC site defines it as TARDIS, stating "The TARDIS - a Time and Relative Dimensions In Space machine."[6] Regarding the claim that the OED refers to it as "Tardis," that is not true. OED states (in part): "Tardis n. In allusive use. Something resembling or likened to Doctor Who's TARDIS" In other words, the Doctor's device is specifically named by the OED as being "TARDIS," whereas "Tardis"es are defined as being other objects that resemble the TARDIS. Also, regarding the claim that "the most common form of writing the word is as 'Tardis', as evidenced by all the reliable sources," that is clearly not true since as I have just shown, the definitive sources name it TARDIS . Macduff (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Different Console Rooms

Could there not be some kind of list or complination of pictures to show the different TARDIS interiors shown on doctor who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Time Sceptre

Explained in Doctor Who The Visual Dictionary by DK books, the inside of the TARDIS in it's dimension is called the Time Scepture. There's an entire image of what the TARDIS looks like in it's dimension, is it possible if we could have it uploaded to here? --Victory93 (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Fallout (1997 computer game) Dr. Who and TARDIS reference

And it's a pretty direct reference in one of the most popular games ever. Never edited Wikipedia so I'll leave it to you guys, lest I mess up something... (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the reference was already in here somewhere... Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


Hey, Wikipedites.

I was just browsing through here when I noticed mentions of "Compassion" and other references to novels and such, and was wondering if they were considered canon or not. Usually, I see something along the lines of "canonicity is disputed" or something when I come across these, but not here. Just something to clear my head up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The passage mentioning Compassion starts off with "In the spin-off media...", and should be read with that in mind. DonQuixote (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, the BBC has specifically refused to define what "canon" is and isn't in the Dr. Who universe. Rapier (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Any time i see the "canonicity is disputed" phrase, I consider whether it needs to be there. And most of the time it probably doesn't. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
See things like Arthurian Legends, or even Superman, for the status of "canon" for things that outgrow their medium of origin. DonQuixote (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Other Tardises

This section is a mess, it needs a complete rewrite as it just rambles and repeats itself a few times. (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Doctor's Wife

Is anyone planning to add the mass of new information provided in The Doctor's Wife? (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

TARDIS a "she" not an "it"

I made some adjustments, at least in the discussion of The Doctor's Wife, with regards to referring to the TARDIS as an it. First, the TARDIS is a ship, and nautical tradition holds that ships are always to be referenced in the feminine. But beyond that, the episode confirms that the soul of the TARDIS is female. Not because she was placed within the body of a woman, but due to other references, not the least of which is the very title of the episode, but in terms of on-screen references, she makes direct reference to "my sisters" when talking about dead TARDISes. Plus the Doctor himself referred to the TARDIS as "old girl" and other terms going back to the earliest episodes; he knew the TARDIS was alive, and he knew it was female. Having just watched the episode for the 4th time, it's also pretty clear that, silly as it may sound, the TARDIS' name (or at least that of the soul of the TARDIS) is officially "Sexy". They say the Devil will get you once you say his name 3 times. She suggests the name when asked, the Doctor says "it's your name" when she asks him to confirm later, and finally she self-identifies with the name. It's her name (or, at the very least, a legitimate nickname). (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)