Talk:Meanwhile in the TARDIS (home video)

Canonical?

Is this canon? Cortion 16:59, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Doctor Who lacks someone like Lucas or Roddenberry or Straczynski who could declare canon for Doctor Who as a whole. Sydney Newman is acknowledged as the creator of Doctor Who, but he didn't hold long-term creative control of the series, so he never established a canon. Neither Russell T Davies nor Steven Moffat have made any public declaration about the canonicity of any of the outside-the-series productions they made (e.g. the Tardisodes, the prequels, the Children in Need specials, ect.), so Doctor Who canon is far more open to personal interpretation. Some could argue that, not having been televised, these are not. I say they are, but that's just my feeling. --Soukey ☎ 13:46, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

While you two aren't really active anymore, I do want to point out that both RTD and Moffatt have denounced canon with Doctor Who. I just wanna be pedantic. (Also, being televised doesn't equate into if something is canon.)

Epsilon📯 📂

18:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

List of visualized companions?

I asked this over on the Reference Desk, but is there a list anywhere of the companions that the TARDIS shows Amy?

Besides the fact that the list would be interesting and useful in its own right, it would be useful to editing the article. Before I edited it, the article said that it showed her "all his female companions from Barbra Chesterson to Donna Noble", which is clearly wrong (e.g., no Sam Jones), but I wasn't sure whether to change it to all of his televised female companions (which is possible, but I don't know if it's true), or just "many of his female companions" (which I went with, because it's clearly true, but it's a bit wishy-washy). --173.228.85.118 10:05, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's the sequence:

• Rose
• Sarah Jane
• Romana I
• Liz
• Martha
• Romana I again
• Rose again
• Donna
• Polly
• Dodo?
• Romana I again again
• Zoe
• Victoria?
• Romana II
• Leela
• Barbara
• Tegan
• Peri

After that, it shows four full-body shots of Leela in her leather bikini, then it appears to repeat the cycle twice (we see four indistint blurs, then the list from Martha to Peri, then Rose again, then some indistinct blurs).

So, that's only 15 of his female companions, nowhere near all. --173.228.85.118 22:11, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Even so, quite a harem.Boblipton 22:17, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Just nowhere near as big as his actual harem.

And it's an odd choice. Of course the off-camera reasons for leaving off non-TV companions are obvious (but still, they could have slipped in a photo of Lisa Bowerman as the one companion that Gandalf actually slept with…), but even just sticking to TV, it's a strange selection.

In 18 photos, there's room for 3 of Romana I (does someone on the production team have a thing for Mary Tamm, or did she just leave a lot of publicity photos in a drawer?), and you have to stretch far enough to include Donna (who would slap you for listing her in a collection of young TARDIS totty…), but there's no room for, say, Nyssa? --173.228.85.118 01:02, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Parts?

According to Forum:Meanwhile in the TARDIS: Differentiating the scenes, the booklet calls them Scene 1 and Scene 2. I think the article should use that designation. Calling them Parts 1 and 2 implies that they are sequential, with one leading directly into the other. They are not. They are totally unrelated storywise, and separated in time by four episodes. They should be called scenes, 'Parts' is misleading.

I'll give it a few days for objections.--Soukey ☎ 12:19, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Not One Story

Because they are unrelated episodes, the other sections need to be divided by episode, as most of the entries under References, Production Errors, and Continuity do not apply to both stories. --Soukey ☎ 12:56, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

It was decided at Forum:Meanwhile in the TARDIS: Differentiating the scenes to keep them on the same page since they have the same name and they have no titles that would differentiate between them. Shambala108 ☎ 14:38, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Separating them into separate pages is a different issue. I just mean within the article. Like the Plot section on this page has two separate parts, so should the References, Production Errors, and Continuity.--Soukey ☎ 12:19, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Any update to this? The forum decision linked above looks a tad outdated given what we've since done with stuff like Doctor Whoah! NightmareofEden ☎ 17:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The coverage of these stories should be changed to whatever is beneficial, however, given that this was discussed in a Forum, we need another Forum discussion to overrule it. Which we can't do, for obvious reasons.

Though I don't even think that this is a written rule, and is therefore meaningless, as it cannot be enforced under Fandom's global policies.

Epsilon📯 📂

18:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)