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)

Okay, I've combed the previous article — which, again, is archived at the link above — and I think the article now reflects all the information in that article which is unique to the Type 40. The rest of the information should be placed, if it is not already, at the Doctor's TARDIS. Again, it is a fallacy of logic to suggest that because the Doctor's TARDIS is a type 40, and the Doctor's TARDIS has these qualities, therefore all type 40s also have these qualities. This article must limit itself only to that information which has definitively been said about Type 40s, rather than that which is known about the Doctor's Type 40. Also, any pictures that might be attached to this article shoudl probably be drawn from An Unearthly Child, as that's the closest to an unmodified Type 40 as we're likely to ever get. It's distinctly wrong to take something from the modern series, where the design ethic of Edward Thomas has clearly been to suggest that the Doctor has repaired the TARDIS however he best could. In other words, the Hartnell TARDIS is closest to "factory fresh" as there is. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 02:47, November 25, 2010 (UTC)