Archives: #1

Considering this article is about TARDISes in general, NOT the Doctor's TARDIS, the image used here should not be of the phone box. Alternatives could include interiors of the Master's or Rani's TARDISes. Alternately, don't we see some "generic" TARDISes in The Invasion of Time? 23skidoo 13:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I substituted image of a generic TARDIS from The War Games. CzechOut | 18:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thanks for finding that. it looks great.
That's not even a picture of any TARDIS. It's a SIDRAT, which is an entirely different machine (though related) with its own page. Maybe the graveyard/junkyard of TARDISes in The Doctor's Wife might be an option for generic TARDIS images. NileQT87 21:13, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
No, you'll find those come from Ep. 4, and ARE TARDISes! Sidrat's are darker. And showing a wrecked TARDIS would be the equivalent of showing Jack Harkness dead for his main image! A more recent image does not make it better. --OS24 05:46, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Main image Edit

Is it right to assume that the black box from The War Games is a TARDIS? Is it identified as such in the televised serial or any other valid resource? It's a nice picture, of course, but if it can't be confirmed to actually show a TARDIS then maybe it isn't appropriate. 08:40, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

I believe the picture shown isn't actually a TARDIS, but a SIDRAT, as noted before. So obviously we should take it off. However, that leaves us the question: what should we replace it with? Considering that the reason a SIDRAT picture was used was because someone thought is was a "generic TARDIS" (a TARDIS not in disguise), I think that we should actually look for a picture of a "generic TARDIS." Anyone disagree? --Bold Clone 18:23, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
No, I respectfully disagree. I believe we should use a pic of a camouflaged TARDIS until we find a pic of a uncamouflaged TARDIS. Truthfully, while a pic of a "uncamouflaged TARDIS" would be ideal, I've never seen a pic of an uncamouflaged TARDIS. I don't think one exists, with the exception of a wreckage of what I believe is an uncamouflaged TARDIS in a pic of the Bubble Universe's TARDIS Junkyard from the episode The Doctor's Wife. NileQT87 has recommended this already po ste above post. So unless you want to use that pic, we should just go with a pic of a camouflaged TARDIS for now. Also, I think using the word "uncamouflaged TARDIS" better describes the state of the TARDIS which we are discussing. "generic TARDIS" makes it sound like were talking about a knock-off TARDIS like the SIDRAT. MochaShakaKhan 19:29, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
This probably doesn't mean anything to anyone because I can't remember the source, but someone can probably chase it up... Anyway, I'm sure I've read somewhere that an undisguised TARDIS appears as a big green cabinate - essentially what a SIDRAT looks like. So yeah...
Anyway, the Doctor's TARDIS is somewhat of an icon when it comes to TARDISes. In the real world, when people see a police telephone box, they think of a TARDIS. So I think for that reason, the Doctor's TARDIS would be a suitable substitute. Also, please pardon my spelling. 00:04, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
If memory serves of the War Games, some Time Lords do in fact step out of those cabinets, which would lead to think that an uncamo'd TARDIS does look like a SIDRAT... Plus, wasn't the SIDRAT modeled after a TARDIS? So wouldn't that mean that they would look the same too? Considering a SIDRAT has a Chameleon Circuit, wouldn't it change to the appearence of a regular TARDIS if it was on present day Gallifrey? Just some thoughts... TheTARDIScontroller 05:19, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Right, you are now complaining about the main image for this article. We can't show a camouflaged one, because frankly that isn't it's true appearance, contrary to popular belief. The image which was already up there is what a TARDIS looks like without a camouflage. It is a TARDIS, have any of you even seen The War Games? This wiki has seen all of them (except the missing episodes). It's highly unlikely we had an image of something which wasn't a TARDIS before. BroadcastCorp (talk) 09:03, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a legit complaint, particularly since I made it. :) There had been two other complaints on the talk before my own, but they are now archived. The pic that had been on the page was of a SIDRAT. While I personally did not see the episode, my conclusion was based on the fact that the same pic that was being used on this page was also used as the main image on the SIDRAT wikia page. While the SIDRAT may be based on the TARDIS, there is nothing to suggest they look the same or even are the same. For example, I'm sure the VHS tape recorder of the 1980's was based on the BETA tape recorders that came before it, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna put a pic of a VHS recorder on a BETA wikia page. Makes no sense. The same holds true here. Placing a pic of an camouflaged TARDIS is better then placing no pic or a pic of something that isn't an actual TARDIS. All people need is a visual representation of what the article represents. In the end the article isn't an article for an "uncamouflaged TARDIS", it's an article for TARDISes, period. All TARDISes, camouflaged TARDIS and uncamouflaged TARDIS alike so a pic of camouflaged TARDIS is more then appropriate. And conscidering there supposedly hasn't been an actual uncamouflaged TARDIS in the 35+ years Doctor Who has been on the air, showing a camouflaged TARDIS seems more appropriate conscidering, don't you think. We want to show what the article is discussing, not what we imagine. For all we know the TARDIS doesn't have a visibly tangible uncamouflaged form. MochaShakaKhan 11:02, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, I completely disagree. No, no, no, no, no, plus a thousand more. We can't have a camouflaged TARDIS, because that is mimicing another thing, it isn't it's true appearance. And for it to be a legit complaint is pretty obvious, if it wasn't legit then it would probably have been removed. And what proff do you have of that old image not being a real TARDIS? BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 11:31, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

I thought for a second that we might have a TARDIS interior, when it occurred to me that's just as illusory, a 'desktop'. No, the only image of a TARDIS without.... embellishment, I suppose is the word is te Junk Tardis from THE DOCTOR'S WIFE. Boblipton 14:28, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

There we go, I've found my source. 'The TARDIS Handbook" by Steve Tribe and published by BBC Books, officially licensed and 100% canon states: "The default appearance of an undisguised TARDIS is a grey metal cabinet with a sliding door." This is supported with a picture of the time capsules seen in 'The War Games'. A TARDIS naturally looks like a grey cabinet. That's what TARDISes look like. The original image was fine. To show a disguised TARDIS would be a bit silly, as you're showing an image of what the TARDIS is pretending to be. Maybe we could satisfy both parties by putting together a small collage of disguised TARDISes with focus on an undisguised one? 14:26, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea. Boblipton 14:28, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'd favour the grey box and not a collage of images, as I don't think it's necessary, the article itself should have those images in it, not the infobox, and as we've had with the Master article, having multiple images in the infobox is a contentious issue. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:53, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Tagerinedual--having more than one photo is just going to lead to a big mess; what we need is confirmation for this question: was the original picture a picture of an undisguised TARDIS? The reason I first removed it was because people claimed it wasn't a TARDIS. --Bold Clone 16:30, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
See we are making progress! That leaves us with the question, is the grey cabinet originally featured on the page a SIDRAT or a TARDIS? Quite the quandary. Luckily I was able to find a pic of a bay of TARDISes on Galifrey. I actually made a screen capture from the War Games episode. It's already posted as the main image on the page. Hope you like. Also maybe someone should point out on the wikia page how SIDRATs and TARDISes look alike and how the image featured on the page is of a TARDIS, to avoid any future confusion. I'll do it myself later if I get a chance. And BroadcastCorp, you really need to watch your tone. It's really condescending. I think we can keep these discussions civil right. MochaShakaKhan 17:37, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
Nice. This is the same scene/image as was used in the book I mentioned, so we know they're TARDISes. 00:15, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I know we've already solved this, I just feel like adding one more point before all's said and done. If the TARDIS is supposed to disguise itself, then how would we know that the image is of a TARDIS or an actual version of the disguised object? Just saying... That is all. TheTARDIScontroller 18:46, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
Look at's post above. A book exsplains their real appearance, and it matches the one from The War Games.--OS24 05:51, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
At approximately 36:03 in "The Name Of The Doctor", there is an scene with the Doctor's Tardis, undisguised, flying through the time vortex. Personally, I can't think of a better image, and I'd probably upload it immediately if I had access to some higher-quality footage. Thomsons Gazelle 21:15, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Those time capsules shown in the current main infobox image are definitely and undeniably SIDRATs. Since this is a page for TARDISes, it should most likely be changed for an actual TARDIS. I would suggest using an image of the TARDISes from The Name of the Doctor seen in the repair shop. Although they're technically broken (as discussed at the top of the talk page that broken TARDISes can't be used) they're only broken in their systems, and nothing is broken about their appearance. I propose that we use those and remove the image of the SIDRATs. --DCLM 16:57, September 20, 2015 (UTC)


This section needs to be updated to take account of information from Series 6. For example, "It is also possible that each type had several marks. Thus, both the Monk and the Doctor might have had "Type 40s", the Monk's a later version of a Type 40." has now been largely confirmed. The information on the screen in the Teselecta described the Doctor's TARDIS as "Type 40 Mark 3". The obvious implication for the Monk's TARDIS is that she was a "Type 40 Mark 4". -- to me 12:40, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Sound Effect Edit

How do they synthesize the TARDIS' warp sound? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

From the behind the scenes on the Doctor's TARDIS: The characteristic wheezing noise of the dematerialising TARDIS is made by scraping a key against piano wire. I think there's other treatments using 60s technology like reversing the recording, but I don't know the specifics. -- Tybort (talk page) 18:38, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Plaque from "The Angels Take Manhattan" Edit

The text referring to the shiny plaque shown in The Angels Take Manhattan says it "insinuates" (wrong word, anyway) the TARDIS was manufactured by Rolls Royce. It doesn't. It indicates that something designated "TYPE FD 12 MK V11" was manufactured by Rolls Royce. That designation belongs to a variety of marine engine. It's certainly not the designation of the TARDIS, which is a Type 40 Mark 3 TT Capsule.

From what I can gather using Google, the engine was often used to drive an electric generator that was notorious for being so poor that it made the lights flicker. It seems highly likely that that's the reason for showing the plaque in an episode about the Weeping Angels.

The text needs to be amended so that it doesn't make out that Rolls Royce builds TARDISes. -- to me 09:35, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Initialisms as words Edit

Removed this bit from the behind the scenes section:

British English frequently treats acronyms that are pronounced (rather than spelt out) as regular nouns - just as Nasa and Nato, so Tardis.

While I HAVE seen some news media make all initialisms like that, I don't recall it being a standard of British English. On top of that, it seems to contradict a later part of the paragraph:

Like laser and sonar, then, "Tardis" is what some linguists call an anachronym. Since most of the general public doesn't know that it is an acronym, its heritage as an acronym is viewed as anachronistic, and therefore forgotten.

Pretty sure the British general public would understand NATO and NASA, which are spelt that way on this wiki, as acronyms/initialisms. -- Tybort (talk page) 18:42, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

acronym Edit

If Susan named the TARDIS, then how do people from other planets/bubble universe know the name? Pringles132 00:18, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

She named it in English. That's why it makes sense as an acronym. So whatever Time Lords call it, we hear it translated as TARDIS thanks to Susan. Having coined an English word for it, the TARDIS translation matrix makes it comprehensible in any language, which we hear as "TARDIS" (which would otherwise be a nonsense word) rather than "time capsule" which some Time Lords occasionally use instead. to me 17:28, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

Main Image Replaced Edit

I took the liberty of updating the main image to a vortex-flight screenshot from TV]]: The Name of the Doctor since it's more recent, descriptive, clearer and in color. I did bring it up in the old image discussion, but now I'm thinking that that was another debate than this(should there even be one). Thomsons Gazelle 21:24, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

I put the same photo exactly here right after The Name ended, and the admin removed it, saying the "this is the Doctor's TARDIS, not TARDIS at general. And he's the king, so i believe him. It should be back to what it was before. Puchplimmirdeyslithin 22:54, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

The Doctor's TARDIS is a TARDIS, no? And if it is seen in its default shape, then it has just a much of a right as any other TARDIS to appear here. The important issue should not be over whether the TARDIS seen is the Doctor's, but rather if the TARDIS seen is in its "blank" or "original" shape. --Bold Clone 01:36, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

I know, and I think just like you, but look at the post Czechout posted on my wall after i put this picture in the TARDIS article. "The infobox picture at TARDIS is the result of a rather long discussion to be found at Talk:TARDIS and its archive. The War Games offers the clearest look at it. The picture you put there is not of "a TARDIS", but of "the Doctor's TARDIS". One of the governing principles of the discussion about the infobox pic on this page was that it should be, if at all possible, of a generic TARDIS. I realise that there are currently pictures of the Doctor's TARDIS on this page, but they should be removed, and the article refactored such that it is speaking much more generically about TARDISes. Your image belongs somewhere (not in the infobox, but somewhere) at the Doctor's TARDIS."

He said it on the exactly same photo. Puchplimmirdeyslithin 16:57, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

And that's just foolish for him to say that. The picture is that of the Doctor's TARDIS, but it is the TARDIS in its "generic" form, and that is what matters more. Additionally, don't we see multiple TARDISes in the scene with the First Doctor and Clara? Maybe we could use a shot from that? --Bold Clone 18:32, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Again - I agree, but he SHOULD confirm this. And i tried to catch a good screenshot of the repair shop (where the multiple TARDISes were held), and it is just impossible. Puchplimmirdeyslithin 20:01, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, an undisguised Tardis is an undisguised Tardis, no matter to whom it belongs. Thomsons Gazelle 07:34, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

In 2009 23skidoo made the point that it shouldn't be the Doctor's TARDIS, I agreed, and an anon user said that the current pic from The War Games looked great.
It does matter that this page not be illustrated with the Doctor's TARDIS, regardless of the form it's seen in, because this article is not about that craft. It is about the entire classification of vehicle, which means that we must have multiple TARDISes in shot.
The point is not, as this discussion has assumed up to this point, that we illustrate the article with undisguised TARDISes. It's that we have multiple TARDISes. The difference in the focus of the two main TARDIS articles is that the Doctor's TARDIS is about a specific, individual craft. TARDIS is about the vehicle type. And when you want to show that there are many things of the same kind, you show multiple individuals.
Also, there's not much merit in the argument that this isn't a colour shot. For the main illustration of the Doctor's TARDIS, we use one of the first glimpses of its exterior from An Unearthly Child. Similarly here we use one of the first glimpses of the exterior of other TARDISes. Having a colour image is not necessary or even desirable, given the age of this franchise. The clarity of this image is far superior to anything from The Name of the Doctor, because of the heavy treatment the whole scene needed to match Hartnell colourisation with the naturally in-colour images featuring Coleman. As a result, like Puchplimmirdeyslithin discovered, getting a good, clear shot of the row of TARDISes is difficult. Quite obviously, the best shot of multiple TARDISes not belonging to the Doctor is still from The War Games.
czechout@fandom    06:31: Tue 03 Sep 2013

Okay, so it's about having an image of multiple Tardises? Well, that sounds reasonable. However, would you mind clarifying, are you also claiming that the need for multiple Tardises aside, it's still not desirable with an image of the doctors tardis? I'm not quite certain what implications that would have for the rest of the wiki.Thomsons Gazelle 14:00, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to explain the reasoning behind the image decision. We already have specific articles for the Doctor's TARDIS, the Master's TARDIS and even the Rani's TARDIS. These articles obviously include images of those specific TARDISes. However, this article is for TARDISes in general, so we don't want to feature someone's specific TARDIS as the infobox image. As CzechOut explained in the post immediately above yours, the image from The War Games is of better quality than the one from The Name of the Doctor.
I don't really know what you mean about implications for the rest of the wiki. We do have similar situations at, for example, Time Lord, which does not feature a specific familiar Time Lord but rather a couple of random Time Lords in typical Time Lord outfits.
I hope this clears things up for you a bit. Shambala108 14:37, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

Sentience Edit


Conflicting evidence from many sources, such as other Time Lords and the Doctor himself, leave unclear how the average TARDIS was alive and whether that life extended beyond artificial sentience and into a biological existence.

If evidence is in conflict, we say the facts, and if they are irreconcilable, define the "it's an AI" POV as well as the "it's a biological sentience" one and mention what is in conflict. "It is unknown" is not good wiki writing, and violates one policy or another; possibly T:NPOV. -- Tybort (talk page) 15:45, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

TARDIS malfunction Edit

When i was watching Season 2 Episode 6 Rise Of The Cybermen i failed to understand how a TARDIS could malfunction? Could someone please enlighten me? (Goldenpencil8 20:03, May 24, 2015 (UTC))

You will probably have a better chance of getting an answer if you post your question on Board:The Reference Desk. I think more people will see it that way and you might get a response. Shambala108 00:34, May 25, 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try and figure it out. Thanks for the help:)

Tardis or TARDIS Edit

The behind the scenes section mentioning TARDIS' capitalisation mentions pre-Virgin Books, contemporaneous-with-the-1963 show normally using Tardis. But the two Target Books I've read so far (Doctor Who and the Terror of the Autons and Doctor Who and the Cave-Monsters) and Piccolo's version of The Making of Doctor Who all use "TARDIS" in all caps (including a "TARDISES" on at least one page of The Making of Doctor Who). Even if there's some media like annuals which continued to do this practice, are we positive that Target did this? -- Tybort (talk page) 17:14, May 16, 2016 (UTC)