User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20170121220436/@comment-28349479-20170121224603

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-24894325-20170121220436/@comment-28349479-20170121224603 I'd like to say that I did attempt to open a discussion concerning the change at Talk:The Doctor's TARDIS. Furthermore, I don't believe that this is a matter of policy, so T:BOUND does not and should not apply, though I'm perfectly willing to retract that statement should Amorkuz or anyone link me to a Tardis Wiki policy page stating that The Doctor's TARDIS must use the "Object" infobox.

My reasons for the change, as specified on the talk page:


 * The modern TV show has repeatedly reinforced the perspective that the TARDIS is as much a character as the Doctor and his companions.
 * The Doctor's Wife directly confirms that the TARDIS has a consciousness and a free will. The very title echoes this interpretation.
 * In series 7, there was an entire arc about how the TARDIS disliked and mistrusted Clara.
 * This perspective didn't even originate in NuWho: there's plenty of precedent elsewhere.
 * Conscious TARDISes appear in Alien Bodies.
 * Compassion's whole arc in the EDAs is about not gaining TARDIS powers but becoming a TARDIS, yet she keeps her individuality and consciousness.
 * Toy Story foreshadows The Doctor's Wife by showing a spoken conversation between TARDISes manifesting as humans.
 * Also, see all the sources cited in the page's massive section dedicated to the TARDIS' personality.
 * This would be a very tiny change to the page.
 * The change is effectively invisible: because of the existing similarities between the "object" and "individual" infoboxes, the only difference would be that the word "type" would be replaced with "species".
 * Nothing would need to be changed about the article. In fact, "Individual" already better represents how the page is written. Amorkuz is acting as if the idea that the Doctor's TARDIS is a living being, not an object, is some sort of radical belief, but it's directly stated in the third paragraph of the article in question. And as far as I can see, that paragraph has been that way for a very, very long time!

Amorkuz has stated that this would be a "drastic" change, but as I have already mentioned, the only visible difference would be the usage of "species" instead of "type [of object]", and even this isn't without precedent! Within Category:Individual TARDISes, there are already many pages that use the "Individual" infobox (and the "species" label) in this way: Marie, Lolita, Johannes Rausch, Glinda, Klyst, and Compassion are just a few examples. If Amorkuz would like to convert all those pages to the "Object" infobox, that would be another discussion entirely, I think.

In response to the Faction Paradox bit: frankly, I don't see how this creates any "tensions" whatsoever! There are tons of non-FP sources that treat the TARDIS as an individual, not an object. And I don't believe that any source has come out and said, "The Doctor's TARDIS doesn't have a sister," so how on earth is this "rewriting" any information? I'm frankly puzzled by how an addition of one line to a page has sparked this much frustration.

(Also, Amorkuz, are you proposing that the inclusion of the Faction Paradox series as a valid source should be reconsidered? I'd welcome a reopening of that debate, if you think you have new evidence that it breaks the four little rules.)

But I think I've shoved the burden of proof off my shoulders. If anyone has any information that contradicts anything I've said here, I'd love to hear it.