Talk:TARDIS/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

TARDIS as companion

There have been several articles now - including articles featuring comment by Steven Moffat, Neil Gaiman and actors - that the TARDIS (or to be precise, the Doctor's TARDIS) is actually now considered a companion, rather than a vessel, due to the events of "The Doctor's Wife" confirming it to be a sentient being (or at least controlled by one). I'm not sure how to approach it in this article, but perhaps a subsection "Doctor's TARDIS as companion" might be able to cover this? Alternately, under the detailed discussion of the episode perhaps we add something like "In the aftermath of The Doctor's Wife, the Doctor's TARDIS is now considered a companion, as opposed to simply being a vessel", with a link to a Doctor Who Magazine or TV interview source with Moffat and Gaiman. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd avoid any major change, partly for fear that it will dominate a longer-term perspective (see WP:RECENT). Also, what about Compassion, the TARDIS companion in the EDAs? --Cedderstk 06:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Source Engine TARDIS game

We have an anon IP who's adding an appearance by the TARDIS in a game that appears to be under construction using the Source engine, citing a Youtube video as evidence that it's under construction. A bot removed the initial link and I've been undoing the IP's edits because I'm not sure Youtube is considered a reliable source. It looks like a bit of an edit war's developing though, either bordering or already transgressing the three-revert rule so I'm just posting this here for community consensus as to what course of action to take - do we take down the Youtube source and provide a better one (eg; an official page by the developers stating that such a game is in the works or an article stating this) or just remove the content entirely and try convincing the IP that their edits aren't properly sourced? I did a quick look on Google for another source but I don't think there was anything that would really work as an alternative. Comics (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted these edits as it looks like the level is a fan-made mod according to the creator's youtube comments and the website - I don't think fan-made creations such as this are notable enough for inclusion. Etron81 (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
As for Youtube in general; the uploader is the source. If ,for instance, the BBC puts a video on Youtube, it is considered a reliable source. — Edokter (talk) — 18:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's fair enough Edokter. I just thought I'd raise it here on the talk page though. Comics (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

hi guys, im the anon, just saying that i dont disagree with any of this and i accept the deletes, just wanted to let you know im new to this, and i only cited the utube once. once comic mentioned it i changed it to my home page at krauterz.com. using that instead of youtube is obvious, dont know why i didnt before... anyway, cheerio, the edits are up to you, if you dont think its worth keeping than leave it deleted, however, there are many inserts of the tardis in game culture lately, so i ask if you can keep the section at least? cheerio, its in your hands. not citing youtube etc, the reason you cant find a second source is because the page/map has only been out for a few days and google hasnt indexed it yet :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.2.137 (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That's alright, but we're not looking for a second source - we're just after a source that isn't related to any of the games themselves. We're after somebody else talking about the TARDIS games is all, not the creator. Comics (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

ahah. alrighty, that makes sense :) in that case it might be a while. but i know there are many sources for second life tardis's etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.2.137 (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving the page to "TaRDiS"...

Since TaRDiS stands for "Time and Relative Dimension in Space", would it make more sense if we moved the page to "TaRDiS"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by McLennonSon (talk • contribs) 08:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't make sense to move it to TaRDiS as the official acronym is TARDIS in all caps and the common name is TARDIS in all caps. Comics (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Grimes

One or two reviewers (and rather a lot of listeners) to the track "Eight" on Grimes' new album Visions have remarked that the word TARDIS seems to be repeated loudly in a mechanical voice throughout the piece. It also features some vaguely Tardisy sound effects, but that's pretty much what Grimes sounds like most of the time anyway. For now, this is just one to watch. No reliable sources on the official lyrics yet. As the word is a BBC trademark, this may be a sensitive matter. --TS 11:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

England or Wales?

The article states

In "Utopia", the Master has little trouble stealing the Doctor's TARDIS, although the Doctor "fuses the coordinates" of the TARDIS so that it can only travel between its two most recent journeys – the year 100 Trillion on Malcassairo, and England in the 21st century.


The 2 most recent journeys were from Cardiff to the year 100 trillion. So should it not be changed to "Wales in the 21st century"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.103.131.23 (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It should probably be "Earth", to be more general. DonQuixote (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Exploding TARDIS

I came here to get information about when the TARDIS exploded, at the end of Series 5 (Big Bang) when the Pandorica flew into it and am surprised not see it mentioned in this entry. How did this happen or was history rewritten? The Doctor rescued River Song from the exploding TARDIS but did it stay on an infinite repeating loop or did it explode? How could it either escape from the loop or be recovered after an explosion?69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Plural of TARDIS

I remember hearing this on an interview with Matt, Karen, Arthur, etc. where someone asked what the plural of TARDIS was.

It was unanimously agreed that "TARDIS" is in itself its own plural, as the acronym would be changed to "Times and Relative Dimensions in Spaces" or something similar.

I'm wondering if the page should be edited, or kept the same to avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.39.188 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a single off-the-cuff pronouncement by the current writers, let alone the current cast, should change what Wikipedia uses, unless that pronouncement does eventually overturn what is generally used and understood by unconnected readers. The ordinary English plural TARDISes was used in-universe in The Time Monster (1972) and Logopolis, and is probably in any number of non-fiction books and reviews eg [1], so there's a 40-year precedent it would be hard to overturn. (If we did, maybe it would be "Tardes"!) Similarly, when Steven Moffat said the blue box prop was reused from Dixon of Dock Green, it doesn't make it true. --Cedderstk 23:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Larger cleanup?

This article was once a featured article on the main page, but has since been assessed as C-class. I assume this is because well-meaning edits based mainly on new episodes have added excessive in-universe detail and disturbed the flow and structure of the text. I'm wondering whether to attempt a complete rewrite, and what the main problems are that prevent it getting to B-class.

  • Various additions (relatively recently the "leaving the handbrake on" gag) get inserted into multiple places in the text. This implies the article is too long and the structure isn't clear to editors. More, shorter sections might help.
  • "In popular culture" section gets rationalised and then accretes even more trivial examples from comics, so could probably be restructured as a "cultural influence" section. The use of the concept and word outside Doctor Who surely has better references than web comics. Should we spin that section into a separate page, or even have a list of appearances in popular culture (that is, it's better to have hatnotes pointing to articles of lower quality where people can add trivia they can add interesting sightings).
  • Is there a good way to translate in-universe text into better encyclopaedia style? At a minimum, years of broadcast helps readers understand the programme's development. Present tense seems to be standard in WP examples, so we can add phrases like "is described by a character as".
  • One problem is that a lot of reference material (which I don't collect) is itself in in-universe style. There are recent DWM "Fact of Fiction" articles and the Matthew Sweet stuff on CE Webber. There are some critical studies (and I think two books on philosophy and Doctor Who in the last two years), so anyone with those, please do add.

Please comment and suggest improvements. --Cedderstk 11:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Bigger on the inside...

Been watching Doctor Who recently and decided to read up on the Tardis to see if I missed anything. I noticed in the introduction it mentions that the interior of a Tardis is much bigger than the exterior. I think this is mostly speculation though because it is talking about all Tardis(es?) in general but the doctors may only be bigger on the inside because it is camouflaged. Who's to say the normal form isn't HUGE, I mean it is a spaceship after all. It may be better to amend it to contains a dimension or something similar pointing out that it is possible for the interior to be bigger than the exterior or just that it contains a dimension that has a size irreverent to the host ship. Just my two cents. --76.188.233.238 (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That bit of text is based on all the TARDISes shown within the series--all of which have been camouflaged. To state that there's some other configuration that the TARDISes can be in is speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
You're correct, but in The Doctor's Wife we do see the "corpses" of other TARDISes which are rather large spaceship-ey looking constructs. We've never seen mention of any active ones that did not use the Timelord bigger-on-the-inside tech, though, or anything to imply that a functioning one would be anything other than bigger-on-the-inside.Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it is useful to mention here, to readers confused by the idea of something being larger on the inside than the outside, that along with any ability to manipulate time would come the ability to manipulate space, mass, and gravity. In fact, you have no choice but to manipulate all of these when you manipulate any one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I think what you described here is way more confusing to the general audience than "larger on the inside". DonQuixote (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The tent used in 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (released March 1964) was also described as being bigger on the inside. 198.53.137.96 (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The TARDIS in Heartbeat

The TARDIS appears to make a subtle guest appearance in the Heartbeat episode "State of Mind" (season 13, episode 9). In it, Vernon Scripps asks David Stockwell to do a number of chores, part of them being to clean up wasteyard. One of the objects there is a police box looking like the TARDIS. As David has many chores to do he temporarily has to leave the wasteyard, and is surprised to see the police box having moved when he returns. In the end it ultimately disappears, and later when David and the others are gathered on the local pub, PC Crane is unsure of what police box David is talking about.

I don't know if this is of interest to Doctor Who fans, but if anyone finds any entertainment in it then I'm glad. Sky380 (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Before realizing this was Dr. Who, I thought it was about Harry Potter. Maybe to clear up some of the confusion, we could just use a cover time like magic, or even make a reference to something more popular? It's not difficult to draw in a conception of something being bigger on the outside than the inside. Just say, "after entering the two foot door of the tent he could easily see over, he was subject to a 12 foot high ceiling," or something. That proves the point easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Complete turing (talk • contribs) 09:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The name TARDIS

The name TARDIS was said to have been made up by Susan in the very first episode. So TARDIS is not the generic name for the Time Lords time ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.28.134 (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

From the Daleks' Master Plan onwards it's been common for Time Lords to use the term for all their time & space ships. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
See Backronym. If the term TARDIS came first, then the meaning of 'Time And Relative Dimension/s In Space' was created later to give it a 'meaning'. - 220 of Borg 15:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

'Too Technical' tagging

I agree that this page has lot of technical jargon. e.g. from the lede:

"TARDISes also possess a degree of sapience (which has been expressed in a variety of ways ranging from implied machine personality and free will through to the use of a conversant avatar) and provide their users with additional tools and abilities including a telepathically based universal translation system."
I am not sure it is too technical. The statement is written in a quite understandable language and the technical/scientific words do have links to specific articles. I believe 'Too Technical' tagging should be removed Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Avatar was linked to Avatar, which is actually a Hindu religious concept! I have re-linked it to Avatar (computing), though even that doesn't seem exactly right. Where it refers to "sapience". I think intelligence or more specifically Artificial intelligence (AI) would be more correct, and easier to understand. 220 of Borg 16:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree, that intelligence is more correct. Not sure about Artificial intelligence. It is clearly explained in the Doctor Who that TARDIS possess intelligence and free will, but there is no clear explanation either it's Artificial or not. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

--Dr zoidberg590 (talk) Agreed, I see no 'too technical' language here. Mods remove tag please.

Mark 1

There appears to be nowhere in any of The Time Meddler's four episodes that designates the TARDIS a Mark 1, only that the Monk's is a Mark 4, and the Doctor tells the Monk to mind his business when asked what his type is. I even rewatched the whole of the first episode specifically looking and found nothing. Even the 15:50 timestamp in the lead's supposed citation doesn't help. What certainly doesn't clarify matters is that in "Let's Kill Hitler", a computer screen readout describes the Doctor's TARDIS as "TT Type 40, Mark 3" about 16 minutes in. TardisTybort (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

I agree that this introduction is a bit long. I think some of the information is more related to an "About" section as it provides more detail than is necessary for in intro. Catrichardson31 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on TARDIS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on TARDIS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Not working, but fixed by changing ".htm" to ".html". nyuszika7h (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Weight of the TARDIS

A couple of weeks ago I merged two paragraphs both dealing with a factoid from the programme itself about the weight of the TARDIS. No problem with the merge, but I've just noticed errors in Cornell, Day and Topping's Discontinuity Guide that have propagated to the current text (it's always the way: pointing out solecisms you commit more yourself). It currently reads:

In Full Circle (1980), Romana stated that the weight of the TARDIS in Alzarius' Earth-like gravity was 5 × 106 Newtons (the weight of 50,000 tonnes).[28] This presumably refers to its internal weight, as the external part of the TARDIS is light enough for it to be lifted or otherwise moved with relative ease[...]

Now the probably obvious thing if you stop for just a second, is that 5x106 Newtons is the weight of 5,000,000 / 9.81 ms-2 or thereabouts / 1 000 kg in a tonne = 500 tonnes. Reference 28 is to the BBC site [2] which faithfully reproduces the text of the printed DG (including its failure to superscript the "6"):

Romana says that the TARDIS weighs 5x106 kilos 'in your gravity' (i.e. 50,000 tonnes) [but, given that the marsh people can carry it, and that in other stories it clearly has a comparable physical exterior to a police box, Romana must be forgetting her temporal physics. This must be the weight of the full ('inside') TARDIS rather than its seeming weight on Alzarius].

Actually, the start of this quotation is accurate. Here's my transcript from the programme itself:

Romana: Adric, is there any machinery on your planet that could lift the TARDIS?
Adric: How heavy is it?
Romana: Erm. Five times ten to the six kilos in your gravity.
Adric: No.

So that's kilos, not Newtons, and exactly 5,000 tonnes. Possibly the novelisation says something different, but I don't have it to hand.

While we're at it, the second sentence in the article, suggesting Romana made a mistake, is unreferenced and sounds a bit like editorial speculation, but has a precedent in the DM quote above. It seems obvious to me that the point of the dialogue is that the marshmen have very quickly developed superhuman strength. A consistent weight range with the rest of the series would be that which requires a forklift truck (eg Time-Flight, Faceless Ones, Brain of Morbius dialogue), so perhaps 0.5 - 50 tonnes, although as pointed out it in the article it seems sometimes to be lighter than a real police box would be (and even floats in the water in Fury from the Deep). The Alzarians might perhaps only have handtrucks, but considering they are pretty technologically advanced, it does seem the TARDIS exterior is heavier in E-Space (I know this is pure speculation/OR). The exterior weight would almost certainly not be 50,000 tonnes because I'd guess it would sink through the topsoil. 5,000 is pushing it, but does serve the purpose

So, it's a mess. I'll get rid of the Newtons, because there's no matching source at all (although it would have been plausible in that bit of dialogue). Perhaps the best thing is to say that the exterior weight appears to be variable? --Cedderstk 05:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Further notes, this being the fourth talk section on this topic: Talk:TARDIS/Archive 1#Mass_or_Weight asks for a proper distinction in the article between mass and weight (I had phrased the existing text to distinguish just that). Now the writers of the programme may not have been as clever as they'd like to think, but I'm sure they were aware of the basic distinction. I think you should read Romana's line as "whatever 5 000 tonnes weighs in your gravity". And regarding "doesn't make sense because a few swamp creatures carry it" above, without bending anything too far to support the programme, in this story the weight and apparent mass of the TARDIS is such that it cannot be carried by machines, and yet the "few swamp creatures" clearly have some very special properties. --Cedderstk 06:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The TARDIS is often parked on structures that would not support any great weight, while this doesn't indicate the weight it would somewhat suggest that it doesn't normally weigh anything close to 500+ tons. However since the TARDIS can fly, this is perhaps a feature whereby it will stay in place if needed, akin to a "parking brake". Aguyintobooks (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on TARDIS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

TARDIS zoo

According to a few of the comics; there is a zoo inside the TARDIS (http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/TARDIS_zoo). I've created the category alien zoos in fiction which I think would include the TARDIS for this reason. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the prose stories and comic book this appear in canon? CensoredScribe (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Pls no 'cannon' --217.42.180.60 (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Improvements

I have made some improvements to this article. It is still too long, and overly technical, however I have removed the flags since it is a technical subject based on a complicated science fiction series so to some extent this can be expected. Also this article is only going to be read by those looking for in depth information who ought to have some intelligence. I suggest that the lead section is kept simple and includes a summary of the most relevant information to assist casual readers, while the rest is left as is. A Guy into Books (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on TARDIS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Trade Mark

Is the assertion that the word TARDIS and the police box are trade marks of the BBC factually correct? They are used by a large waste disposal company called "TARDIS Environmental UK" which seems to have no connection or trading relationship with the BBC, and presumably use their name and police box symbol in trade. Their website is here: http://www.tardishire.co.uk/index.php/home 2.31.166.248 (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the word Tardis and the police box are trademarks of the BBC - for some but not all classes of goods and services. You can search for UK trademark registrations at https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmtext - I have to admit I'm puzzled by Tardis Environmental, since the BBC owns the trademark on TARDIS for class 11, water filtration services. But I Am Not A Lawyer. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Plural of the word

Edited: this official, BBC-owned website: http://www.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/tardis/other/ refers to the plural of TARDIS as TARDISes. I will begin correcting this in the article. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Too long and original research?

Article is rather long. And, lack of citations leads me to wonder if it includes (banned from Wikipedia) Wikipedia:Original research. I don't watch the show, so someone else should make the call(s) on this one. Acwilson9 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Punny

I realized yesterday that tardis is a play on the word "tardy". Liberty5651 (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Whatever Blorftheterrible (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No name

I like this article Blorftheterrible (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

Please help me with... (reposted by me cos i need help) getting this paragraph onto the TARDIS article. it keeps getting rejected due to either a lack of citations or original research, and i can't seem to get it accepted. so can someone please edit my paragraph and photo w/ description to make it acceptable for the article?

Inconsistencies between Props and Real Police Boxes

The prop has almost never been accurate to the real Police Box, its most accurate portrayal was in the Dalek films starring Peter Cushing where it is almost completely identical. the original prop is fairly close, but is noticeably smaller[1]. the free for use of public sign changed doors inconsistently throughout Patrick Troughton's run, starting from Evil of the Daleks (1967). The Shada box, used from 1976 to 1980[2] and inconsistently throughout the early eighties (notably Logopolis and Castrovalva 1981-2) is stockier with a completely flat roof, though it was steeped again for its appearance in Logopolis and Castrovalva. in 1980, a new prop was constructed from fibreglass[2] for The Leisure Hive (1980), and is now larger again with a firmer build, though still smaller than the genuine article. the 1996 TV movie is also slightly larger, and its windows, which normally have six panels with the two in the bottom corners being white or off-colour, this one has some panes in the wrong slots. the one on the right door is in the top corner and some have the off-colour panes directly adjacent to the other one.. the Eccleston/Tennant prop is much larger, and the panels/windows are almost square and take up much more space. This has caused many a joke where a character to comment on how "the windows are the wrong size" with the in-universe explanation being that the TARDIS is so old that the "bigger on the inside" has begun leaking out, causing the outside shell to grow. the original prop was navy blue, though on-screen it was grey as the show was in black and white at the time, and it was repainted to a lighter blue in 1972 which remained consistent (albeit some minor colour shifts) throughout the rest of the run. The 2005 prop is much greyer, with a green-yellowy twinge to it. The Smith Prop is a vibrant navy colour with an intense wood effect, while the Capaldi Prop turns this down significantly, making it a mostly solid blue. The Whittaker Prop returns to the 2005 Prop's colours, but re-adds the wood effect. Since the show's reboot in 2005, the dimensions have stayed identical with only minor alterations. The Hurt Prop, as seen in Day of the Doctor (2013) is essentially just the 2005 prop with sand and grime all over it and a few cracked windows. However, these inconsistencies don't just apply to the Doctor's TARDIS, as in Logopolis, both a real Police Box and the Master's TARDIS assume the Shada Box's proportions and in The Doctor, The Widow and The Wardrobe (2011) The Doctor finds a real Police Box that looks like his. Both of these situations were probably caused by budgetary constraints though, as it would be uneconomical to have many separate Police Box props in storage unused. The roof lamp has changed too, the original was rather accurate, while in season two it was replaced by a cheap plastic cylinder along with the whole roof being less steep. The Shada Box uses a generic lamp, while in its namesake story and a few others before and after it, it has a blue spinning police car lamp. The 2005 Prop uses a cylindrical lamp, while the Smith Prop has one from a ship (boat, not space-ship). None have ever gotten close to the real lamp, which would've been encased in a cylindrical cage with a dome on top.

then add picture named "Dinky Toy Police box" and its description (with alterations for brevity's sake) and add citations and the relevant links to where they are needed, and you're done! thanks in advance for helping me curate this paragraph for use in an article. WombleYT (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@WombleYT: Whoever is declining it for being original research/without sources in correct. No amount of pictures/formatting is going to make it not so. Find article(s) to support your claim and it can be more easily added in. — IVORK Talk 21:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd also like to say, while I appreciate the amount of research that has gone into it, personally I feel this is excessive detail for a Wikipedia entry. The number of users who will benefit from this is IMHO small, while the article gets cluttered, making more relevant information more difficult to find. I'd propose publishing your work on some dedicated fansite. --Syzygy (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, like tardis.fandom.com. The internet is vast. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wardrobe

It would be good if someone could do some research to discover if an influence on the invention of the Tardis was the wardrobe in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe". It has certainly been referenced in later stories as is shown here Burraron (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TARDIS/Archive_3&oldid=1127851261"