Talk:The Doctor's TARDIS

	Archives: #1, #2

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?– The preceding unsigned comment was added by DoctorDisco (talk • contribs) .

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.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schrammbo1965 (talk • contribs) .

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 {{Infobox Object}}, 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. {{Infobox Object}} 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”? 174.92.73.126^{talk to me} 04:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The Giggle

Hooo boy… so, how should we handle the TARDIS split going forward? Do we go with Fourteenth Doctor's TARDIS or Fifteenth Doctor's TARDIS? WaltK ☎ 20:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure it may be necessary considering we've merged The Doctor's TARDIS (Scream of the Shalka) and The Doctor's TARDIS (The Curse of Fatal Death) into the "main" page.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

20:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The suggestion is that Fifteen has mentally been pulled backwards from the point of Fourteen's future regeneration ("rehab out of order"); presumably the TARDIS has too. Even if it hasn't, it's a complicated space-time event with manifestations in realspace; two police boxes does not necessarily mean two TARDISes, rather than "two of the same TARDIS", as it were… I'm against a split until/unless we get further data. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

So all of this is filtering in very haphazardly, and I don't have access to the UK stuff, but allegedly this is not the intent, and instead it's that every time the Doctor would have died instead, due to the bigeneration, he gets up alive. Obviously, you know, authorial intent vs textual evidence, but I think the textual evidence is itself basically non existent. Perhaps the UK people can comment on this? It's allegedly on the iPlayer commentary. Najawin ☎ 20:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

My understanding of that comment is that Doctors 1-13 are a different deal from 14. The Toymaker weirdness causes Fifteen to be pulled backwards in time yadayada, and also resurrects all the past Doctors as a side-effect. Very weird, but then, this whole thing is very weird.

I strongly disagree with the idea that "the textual evidence is basically non-existent". When they're all discussing the Doctor's derelict psychological state, Fourteen remarks that Fifteen seems much more put-together, and Fifteen replies that it's because Fourteen fixes himself; and then has the "rehab out of order" line. This exchange only makes sense if Fifteen is continuous with the post-biregen Fourteen who goes on to have his healing happy-ever-after with the Nobles; if they were really splitting off for good, then Fifteen would not get to reap the rewards of Fourteen's future character development! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Also worth noting that he prefaces the "old Doctors resurrected" stuff with "Here's my theory" — it's in "in my head she's the Doctor's mum" territory, not something which he intends to be explicitly… for lack of a better term, 'canonical'. There's a reason he didn't put it explicitly in the TV story, we're not meant to intuit it as the only plausible conclusion of what we've just seen. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no need to worry! At 54:47 - 55:09 in Doctor Who: The Video Commentaries: The Giggle with Commentary, RTD confirms that Ncuti has the original TARDIS and David's is the "new" one. So if anything you'd just need to make a page for David's TARDIS but not Ncuti's.HarryPotterRules1 ☎ 23:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Is that the implication? Or are both the real TARDIS? A bi-regeneration of its own, perhaps. So that would mean don't make any new pages at all, all the same TARDIS Editoronthewiki ☎ 00:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Direct RTD quote from Doctor Who: The Video Commentaries: The Giggle with Commentary: "See, I think, if i'm any judge of Fandom, people will worry that that is a new TARDIS and not the old TARDIS, Ncuti's TARDIS. And I'm here to say, in a story to come, there is proof that it's still the old TARDIS. That's all I'm saying." - so, yes, the intention is that Ncuti has the "real" TARDIS.HarryPotterRules1 ☎ 01:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

My main issue with RTD's words here is that 15's TARDIS was visibly shown on-screen have been bashed out of the originial TARDIS. Why would 15 apologise to 14's TARDIS for hitting it if 15's was the new one? Also if 15's was the original, where does the juke box come from? Maybe it was supposed to be that 15 got the original and there was a mix-up between which one was on the left and which one was on the right on the filming day, but I think what's shown on-screen should trump what's said off-screen. Ohdear15 ☎ 01:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The way I interpret it is akin to a snake shedding its skin, just a little more complicated. The original TARDIS is the one that was, for lack of a better term, bashed out of the 'shell' TARDIS, so to speak, but because it was a case of bigeneration, both TARDISes are still the TARDIS, hence why the 'shell' TARDIS still has the interior and all of its functions and why the Fifteenth Doctor apologised to the TARDIS for hitting it, as while his TARDIS is the original, it is the 'shell' TARDIS that bore the hit. As for the where the jukebox came from, it could have been willed into existence by the Fifteenth Doctor as part of his prize.TheTARDISLegilimens ☎ 12:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

To me that quote sounds like he's saying both TARDISes are the same TARDIS, not that 15's is the original and 14's is a duplicate. Hopefully this future story he's talking about will clear things up. OMEGATRON ☎ 13:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Nah, I did my rewatch and I strongly disagree with your reading Scrooge. There's another option for Gatwa's line to make sense, namely, you know. I'm pretty sure that the lines about the Doctor that fought the Toymaker never stopping are not in reference to One, but in reference to the lineage from One to Fourteen. The entire scene doesn't make sense if it's just about One, imo. So I stand behind "basically no textual evidence". Obviously, you know, we'll just wait and see. But I stand behind my original comment. Najawin ☎ 09:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I shall chime in as well. The whole bi-generation is 15 being pulled from the future back to 14’s initial death. The whole reason he is so complete and mentally restored is because 14 spends his life retired, spending those “million years” coming to terms with his life. It is a timey-winey consequence of the Toy Maker’s meddling. 15 then uses the same out of main universe elemental force to also bring his TARDIS from the future back to that point so he can travel and 14 can stay. Hence it is all “out of order”. It is simply unique in that we don’t see 14’s actual final moments. This is all further supported by 15 openly stating he is so well because 14 spent that healing time, and both confirm he is much older despite being in a younger looking body. Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 13:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, this is a fascinating one.

In general, the wiki has tools for dealing with narrative ambiguity without adding speculation (in one account, according to another account, may have been, etc.) However, due to limitations of the medium, editors sometimes have to pick out of a discrete set of options — such as whether there's one page for something or several, and how many, and which. The wiki decides that based on continuity of consciousness — but what if that is itself one of the ambiguous narrative details?

---

If there wasn't an obvious way the wiki already covers Doctors, that bit could at least be solved by deferring to self-identification within the narrative. If you're the Doctor, and I'm the Doctor, then who's flying the plane? The old one does claim in-text that the new one is older and after, in some abstract conceptual sense if not necessarily in a perfectly literal one — and "two of you", "we", "our lifetime", etc. are said in a perfectly identical manner to how a usual multi-Doctor story is handled. There's at least something here to tip a perfect balance toward the "same person in the way the Wiki defines it" conclusion, if you're not very concerned about possibility and consistency and how it all logically works out. Fool's errand with Doctor Who, anyway. :)

TARDISes, however, don't generally use language to communicate in a way perceptible to the audience, and definitely not in The Giggle, so editors will have to figure something else out.

---

I'd say it would not be the right approach to figure out the One True Interpretation and edit the wiki strictly according to it forever. The very fact that a significant portion of the audience disagrees on what, exactly, happened means that this ambiguity exists, and, I think, means that it's a significant part of the narrative and omitting it would be omitting information — sort of as per Man with the rosette precedent, but not exactly, of course.

The question is: is the best way to keep the ambiguity to split the pages, or keep them merged? I think it's the second one, but that may just be me.

---

There's also the perennial question of does this make the wiki better, and if so, how? Does this help interpret the narrative or hinder that? For example, minor alternate reality versions are covered on the character's ""main"" page — I'd guess that it's because what details there are are mainly interpreted in the context of the ""main"" version (not always to be confused with the N-Space version) rather than in the context of creating a new, fleshed-out version of the character.

Here, I think, the meaning of both the TARDISes is that they are in some important sense the same as "the original" — the new Doctor's per the RTD quote (OOU, but no other information so far), the old Doctor's per the quote "I could never let go of the TARDIS" (emphasis mine) while accepting the "duplicate" completely. However, the Ganger Doctor and the Meta-Crisis have the analogous things true about them, and the wiki does cover them separately, so that's not clear-cut at all.

So, from this perspective, what's left is just the point that there's not enough information (yet?) for covering things separately to be worth it. That reasoning would be against policy for cases where we know for certain it's different people, though, wouldn't it?

---

So, in conclusion, I'd be against the split/for the merger (if/since the pages have already been created), until/unless there's new relevant information in a source somewhere. "Don't make decisions based on things that only might be revealed in the future" still holds! But it's all very complicated and interesting.

jsmith5504^{talk to me} 20:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image update?

Hi everyone. We've had the current TARDIS image in the infobox since 2012, and it's very low quality. (I say this as a fan of B&W Doctor Who but...) It's also in black and white, rather than colour. I appreciate that it's from the first ever serial, and has some significance because of that, but I thought it might be worth posing the question of whether or not it might be time to update and refresh it. I have posted the current image below, along with a handful of other suggestions (some of which could be tweaked or cropped slightly if necessary).

Naturally, if we even agree to update the image, I know there are many variants and props and no single "iconic" image so it's not a straight-forward change. The show also doesn't have as many "hero" shots of the TARDIS [without anyone else in frame, and showing the full prop] as one might think.

So I guess, in summary: should we update the infobox image? Should we opt for one of the TARDIS in colour? If no, can we at least try and source a higher quality version of the one we currently use? If yes, do any of these work or do you have any other suggestions to add to the gallery? FractalDoctor ☎ 20:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• 

  Current

• 

  1. 1
• 

  1. 2
• 

  1. 3
• 

  1. 4
• 

  1. 5
• 

  1. 6
• 

  1. 7
• 

  1. 8
• 

  1. 9
• 

  1. 10

Added a few more images. I was hoping to find a good shot of the TARDIS in flight too but it's a bit tricky to find one that is close enough and isn't too blurry to work.

Out of the provided images, I would say that #6 is the best quality, but I understand with the symbolism of having the first iteration of the TARDIS. I suppose a tabbed gallery is within the realm of possibility, considering the changes the TARDIS exterior has seen over the years, but then we would probably need to include one-offs like the exteriors seen in Attack of the Cybermen or the shrunken TARDIS from Flatline. BlueSupergiant ☎ 23:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Image 6 is very sharp, clean, and recent, but is it too dark at thumbnail size, I wonder? × Fractal • 10:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

These are lovely! I was having trouble finding some good images of all the TARDIS exteriors, but these are good. The newly-made Category:TARDIS police box exteriors probably removes the need for an infobox gallery of every single variation (there are just too many). I would agree that 6 is good, although for the different reason that it is the current TARDIS. TheChampionOfTime ☎ 16:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)