Talk:Tasha Lem

Theory she mentions dying to the Daleks multiple times, has an ambiguously sexual relationship with the Doctor and can pilot the Tardis

Is it possible this is actually River Song?– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.253.76.102 (talk).

No. Evan Norton ☎ 07:24, December 27, 2013 (UTC)

that's just silly. of course not. Allisonbn ☎ 02:29, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

Allisonbn please read Tardis:No personal attacks. There is no need to insult an editor or his idea. Shambala108 ☎ 02:48, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

It looks like she is an unknown incarnation of River Song - Lem is Mel backwards, and Tasha is short for Natasha, which translates into "Born on Christmas". Moffat wouldn't miss this opportunity. Nitrobg ☎ 12:05, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

For now at least, this is just speculation, and as such belongs only on Howling:The Howling. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 15:46, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

I know there's been some speculation that Tasha was originally meant to be River. If there's any truth to that, it may have only been very early on. Maybe at the story outline stage. Because a close examination of the episode reveals that River couldn't possibly have filled Tasha's role. It wouldn't make sense for River to be head of the Papal Mainframe, much less for her to be Dalek-ized. I also can't see her threatening to destroy an entire planet (especially one with a human colony on it). So apart from a few lines of dialogue and a somewhat flirty relationship with the Doctor, the two characters don't really have much in common. Slughorn42 ☎ 02:45, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Also, when Tasha first sees the Doctor, she asks him if he's got a new body. River Song would have been familiar with the Matt Smith body, and would not have needed to ask.

Species

In the infobox it says her species is human. First, we don't know that, especially given her ability to not age. Second, even if she was human, by the end of the episode she's a Dalek puppet, so shouldn't that be her species. Or, at least, "former human"? 68.146.70.124^{talk to me} 23:54, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

For the infobox, the species field can only take one name, so we always use the original species. So "Dalek" or "former human" are out. As for whether she's human or not, I can't help there as I've not seen the episode. If we're not sure she's human, then "humanoid" is a safe bet, since humans are a subset of humanoid. Shambala108 ☎ 00:04, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the infobox to read humanoid as there is no evidence that she is human. As the Doctor proves, just because somebody looks human, doesn't mean they are one. Tzvi ☎ 04:47, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Companion category?

Why has she been given the Eleventh Doctor companions category? Even if her past relationship with the Doctor was as a companion, she compliments him on his new body. This would not have even been with the Eleventh Doctor. And I certainly see no reason why her part in Time itself would make her one.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 17:59, July 28, 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree, nothing in the story suggests that they had that relationship and it’s not admitting if she’s referred to as a companion behind the scenes like Lady Christina. I’d definitely agree that she doesn’t belong in this category. SarahJaneFan ☎ 19:18, July 28, 2019 (UTC)