Talk:The Doctor's TARDIS

Cloister room
Are we essentially saying the room in Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS is the cloister room because it has the Eye of Harmony in it? Admittedly, the TV movie incarnation is hard to reconcile with what's in Journey, but still, there seems to be a difference between a room with the collapsing star and what's shown in Doctor Who (TV story). -- Tybort (talk page) 23:02, May 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * In the Movie: Doesn't the "well" open up and look into the "Eye of Harmony"? I think the room they are in is not the room where the "Eye" actually is. Also, each TARDIS has her own layout. She changes things up. So if the room in the movie is the actually room the EYE is in, then she just redecorated. -- Canadian Whovian


 * I'm a little busy with the Eccleston and the Tennant era right now to double-check, but I'm pretty sure Journey doesn't give a name for the room; it just namechecks the Eye. Regardless of if the well thing in the TV movie, or at least a later retcon, says that that version of the room's a connection to Gallifrey, Journey's account of the Eye can't be. Not even with "it exists at every point in time and space including before Gallifrey's destruction" rationale. It's a collapsing star inside the TARDIS on the way to the engines. -- Tybort (talk page) 18:34, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Typo citation?
Removed this instance from the books in the Doctor's library.


 * the complete set of the eleven Harry Potter novels by J.K. Rowling and PQ Rowling, (PROSE: The Companion Chronicles)

The Companion Chronicles is an audio series made alongside the Eighth Doctor audios and the monthly series from 2007. I'm gathering this isn't what the editors were trying to cite. -- Tybort (talk page) 18:25, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

It is The Gallifrey Chronicles. --Kerry Stapleton ☎  14:23, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Timey-wimey matters
I've been wondering, how does the TARDIS take off just seconds after the door closes when we see the exterior, but when we follow him in, it takes him a considerable amount of time to 1. Reach the console and 2. Program it to fly off. Anyone got an explanation? -WhoGirl183
 * I've noticed this several times over the series, and I assumed that space and time work differently in the TARDIS. So it might take the Doctor a few minutes to take off, but from the outside (because time flows differently) it takes off immediately after the doors close. That's just a fan-theory, though. -- Bold  Clone  17:01, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Individual vs Object infobox
It's very traditional to consider the TARDIS as an object, but I think there's loads of evidence that it would be better treated as an individual. This is certainly the perspective that the modern TV show holds: in S7, there was an entire sub-arc around how the TARDIS disliked Clara, and The Doctor's Wife makes it extraordinarily clear that she is an individual and plays a conscious role in where the Doctor goes. This isn't even anything new: there's tons of precedent for this in the EDAs, where conscious humanoid TARDISes appear in Alien Bodies, the Doctor's TARDIS talks to her "sister" in the later-published deleted scene Toy Story, and Compassion's whole arc is about her becoming a TARDIS - not "gaining TARDIS powers", but becoming one, and keeping her individuality regardless.

Especially considering that the "individual" infobox has all the "object" categories used by The Doctor's TARDIS except for "type" (which corresponds with "species" anyway), I'm going ahead and switching the template. Anyone who wants to argue can please reply. (I'm posting this explanation because it appears that Pluto2 went ahead and did this by herself, but another user quickly switched it back, so I thought I'd discuss.) NateBumber ☎  21:32, January 21, 2017 (UTC)


 * I have started a discussion on Panopticon. You can explain your reasoning there. But it is not alright with me that such a central point of the lore is decided by two individual editors without consulting the wide community of editors represented here. Until an admin closes that discussion at Panopticon, the change to individual should not take place. Amorkuz ☎  22:09, January 21, 2017 (UTC)

List of Appearances?
How many episodes has the TARDIS not featured in? Theres *about* 8 episodes where the actual police box isn't featured at all.

But how many episodes have not featured the interior? Even in the revived series it misses out a lot. Dalek, Long Game, Idiot's Lantern, Midnight etc. does anyone know all the episodes?
 * Hi! Article talk pages are for discussing the editing of the articles. Questions like yours get posted at Board:The Reference Desk, where it will be more visible and you will hopefully get more attention. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎  20:58, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

In the Sickbay reference, there is one more episode it exists in. In "The Invasion of Time" The Doctor, Borusa, Leela and Andred all run through it while Castellan Kelner and a Silurian chase them through the TARDIS. The set was composed of a central door with a conventional knob facing a corridor made of two cubicles on each side. Each cubicle was hidden by a simple white curtain on a metal rod. Leela and Andred hid in one and IIRC the walls in each enclosure were blank. Unfortunately I have been completely unable to find any pictures of it. Perhaps someone with the DVD could upload an image.

Family.
In Toy Story we find out that Lolita is the TARDIS’s twin Sister. So surely she should be added to the info box. secondly this is more ambiguous but could River Song and Compassion count as children? River is even more ambiguous but is she not at least once described as a child of the TARDIS. Compassion on the other hand becomes the TARDIS after the TARDIS maps her Biodata onto Compassion, to me this makes her seem like her child?Anastasia Cousins ☎  15:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This was adjudicated in a forum thread we can no longer see. It was specifically decided to use a vehicle inbox for The Doctor's TARDIS rather than an individual one. The examples you mentioned are part of what prompted the discussion. (See Nate and Amorkuz's discussion above.) Najawin ☎  15:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Mind you, it was suggested somewhere that we could simply add rarely-used "sibling", "children", etc. variables to the vehicle infobox. I don't think that discussion ever came to a conclusion. Any thoughts? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * apologies for the delay but yes I am all for adding those. Also if you don’t mind me asking why was TARDIS given the vehicle info box? If that is the case then surely Lolita, Compassion and well any other humanoid TARDIS/ Timeship bE given a Vehicle info box? It seem rather exclusionary to separate the Humanoid and the non humanoid in such a manner, they are the same species after all (at least to a degree)#Anastasia Cousins ☎  23:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As I recall from the thread, it's all about depiction in actual sources, more than what they all "really" are or a question of humanoid vs. non-humanoid. (The Melkur is humanoid, and yet still gets the object infobox.) Lolita and Compassion are mostly characters, while the TARDIS is still presented as a vehicle by the majority of stories which use it. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a of very marginal usage, mainly because of a specific ruling some of us don't like. iirc the closing post was literally "c'mon guys, it's just an infobox". Najawin ☎  23:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The Melkur is an object? So what is the general consensus currently on this?Anastasia Cousins ☎  14:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Ahah, found a good deal (not all) of the thread on the wayback machine. (Always a fun reread.) There's a partial closing post higher up that I forgot by SOTO:


 * To be clear about the use of, that is the correct infobox for a vehicle. It is not saying that the TARDIS is an object, but she isunequivocally a vehicle.


 * Now, this isn't a philosophical discussion about what is and isn't a living thing within the Doctor Who universe. In fact, this is almost purely a technical issue.  is used because of the parameters it provides. It's "type" is a Type 40 TARDIS. It used to say it was "used by" the Doctor, and I don't know when or why that was removed.


 * An actor variable could feasibly be added to this infobox, if necessary, as there are a number of objects who are/become sentient, and are performed by someone in their story.


 * Now within the category tree, this are both individuals and vehicles. "I'm not trying to say that all TARDISes are individuals. I'm trying to say that the Doctor's TARDIS is an individual." No, there is a clear flaw in this logic. Regardless, it's not a question or one or the other, at least in regards to definition of the topic. It's about which infobox it makes the most sense to use.


 * This isn't an explicit denial that other variables could be added, but since actor is mentioned and family variables aren't, I'd say it's weighted against. Najawin ☎  01:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Used by
Not sure whether “Used by” in the infobox means “Traveled in the TARDIS” or “Piloted the TARDIS”. If it’s the latter as I assume, when did Bill take control? And wouldn’t Graham and Kate count since they were copilots in “The Power of the Doctor”? 174.92.73.126talk to me 04:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)