Talk:Type 40

Stub Status

I don't think this article quite counts as a Stub anymore, so should its status be updated? -- Kooky 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

go nuts and edit it out. every other article here has "stub" on it, regardless of length, importance or completeness.--216.236.252.234 20:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

okay, I edited it out. --192.80.65.234 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is only based on the Doctor's TARDIS, how does anyone know the same settings and functions apply to other Type 40 TARDISes? The article even states that we don't know if Type 40 only applies to Mark I or if there are multiple different Type 40s. Doesn't it make much more sense to list these function in Doctor's TARDIS and just link that article to this one stating it is an example with possible functions for Type 40 TARDISes? --222.166.181.43 20:27, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

As there isno clear rationale given here for the cleanup tag, I've had to kinda figure out on my own what's wrong with the article. And the way I see it, it's just fundamentally redundant. There's no real difference between this article, at the time I encountered it, and The Doctor's TARDIS. That makes sense, really, because we don't know too much information about the Type 40. Most of what we know is that the Doctor's is a Type 40, and then we extrapolate what we know about the Doctor's TARDIS to be true of all Type 40s. That's almost cetainly a dangerous thing to do, because we know the Doctor's made a lot of his own modifications along the way. It's also boring for our readers, because this article is repetitive.

I'm therefore taking the bold move of chopping the hell out of this thing. Frankly, what we know of the type 40 can be said in at most a few paragraphs, but probably perfectly adequately by one.

The former article has been moved here. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 22:49, November 24, 2010 (UTC)