The Plaque

[mordrogyn]

Lol, I was talking with Deck about this very plaque in the chat room on Sunday, don't get me started on it.

OK I will bite.....

Ok....

Why was it built in 63?  Yes i know that's when Doctor Who started, but The Doctor stole it, it wasn't brand new and it merely landed on earth in 1963.
Yes I know Deck's argument perhaps it was built in 1963 did a lot of time travel and then returned to 1963 when the doctor stole it and brought it to earth, but then why gallifreyan years aren't measured the same as earth years so it's still a moot point.

Why does it say that the use is authorized by the Shadow Proclamation (RTD's worst invention EVER, a proclamation is in the same vein as a declaration and not a group acting as a police force, stupid stupid stupid) Gallifrey is way older than the Shadow proclamation who regard Time Lords as "legends" so why would and how could they dictate what Time Lords did with their time machine?

Extreme penalties and possible exile for misuse or theft of a TARDIS?  I will probably get pulled up on this one as my memory is rusty but isn't the standard penalty for stealing a TARDIS death?
Yes misuse can result in exile, and it's only because the Time Lords used the Doctor that he wasn't given the death sentence for nicking it in the first place.  Like I said could be wrong here and i can't give an episode name without wading through and watching them all again, but I am fairly sure the Time Lords were going to strip the Doctor of his lives for it at one point.

Build Site:  TARDISes are GROWN.  Yes I know there has to be some mechanics added to it later on, so that one is a bit weak.

The Plaque itself, where was it in 1963 when William Hartnell was the doctor? or for any other doctor between then and Eccleston?

There... that's off the top of my head, feel free to poke giant holes in my theory and I will wiggle my way out of them with my trusty sonic screwdriver, which can fix anything.

[Scarfwearer]

I don't imagine the plaque was put there with any serious intention other than to entertain the cast and crew.

Crispin

[exleo]

Oh Dear.... OK this is what is known in the buisness as an 'in joke'! It was never meant to be readable onscreen and is placed there purely at the entertainment of the crew who built the set, no study, no historical accuracy, no canonical accuracy, just purely to entertain those who work on the show!
Star Trek often did the same with the name plaque of the starship that was places on the bridge set, the list of names would include all the producers and often admin staff.....also on various starship consoles there are odd wordings...The giant Enterprise Display on the wall in main engineering had giant mice in the shuttle bays instead of shuttles....and yet at no point in star treks history is there a record of giant mice infesting the Enterprise.....
Like wise, This plaque is for the entertainment of those who work on the show, no doubt along with many other injokes if you can spot them, and there is NO point what so ever in trying to make it fit into the whoniverse...it won't......simple as that!
If you look at any designed set close enough, like we do on hese forums for the TARDIS you will find similar stuff on any drama, tv, film, or theatre set.....means nothing except to those who put it there

[exleo]

Crispin.... you beat me to it...LOL

[Rassilons Rod]

I don't imagine the plaque was put there with any serious intention other than to entertain the cast and crew.

Crispin

Much like the LCARS displays in Star Trek... If we weren't in HD we wouldn't be debating this. They had one in TNG where they listed the doctors by actors name...

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/curiosities/familytree-theneutralzone2.jpg
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/curiosities/familytree-theneutralzone3.jpg

There's a whole bunch of this type of thing here

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/curiosities2.htm

-Marc

EDIT: Damn! I was also beaten to it!

[deck5]

Oh Dear.... OK this is what is known in the buisness as an 'in joke'! It was never meant to be readable onscreen and is placed there purely at the entertainment of the crew who built the set, no study, no historical accuracy, no canonical accuracy, just purely to entertain those who work on the show!
Star Trek often did the same with the name plaque of the starship that was places on the bridge set, the list of names would include all the producers and often admin staff.....also on various starship consoles there are odd wordings...The giant Enterprise Display on the wall in main engineering had giant mice in the shuttle bays instead of shuttles....and yet at no point in star treks history is there a record of giant mice infesting the Enterprise.....
Like wise, This plaque is for the entertainment of those who work on the show, no doubt along with many other injokes if you can spot them, and there is NO point what so ever in trying to make it fit into the whoniverse...it won't......simple as that!
If you look at any designed set close enough, like we do on hese forums for the TARDIS you will find similar stuff on any drama, tv, film, or theatre set.....means nothing except to those who put it there

I'd say it's also there for the die-hard fans; it's clearly visible in a few frames in Amy's Choice, placed on the outside of a box of tools the Doctor pulls out.  Just a little nod for the freeze-framers.

[rocket]

Can anyone make out the fine print on the bottom two lines. I can read most of it, but some of it is a bit hard to read.

Here's the entire thing, cleaned up:

Excellent, that will make things a lot easier.

[lorisarvendu]

I don't imagine the plaque was put there with any serious intention other than to entertain the cast and crew.

Crispin

Much like the LCARS displays in Star Trek... If we weren't in HD we wouldn't be debating this. They had one in TNG where they listed the doctors by actors name...

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/curiosities/familytree-theneutralzone2.jpg
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/curiosities/familytree-theneutralzone3.jpg

There's a whole bunch of this type of thing here

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/curiosities2.htm

-Marc

EDIT: Damn! I was also beaten to it!

OT - My favourite is Serenity landing at Caprica City in the BSG mini-series!

[galacticprobe]

Ok....

Why was it built in 63?  Yes i know that's when Doctor Who started, but The Doctor stole it, it wasn't brand new and it merely landed on earth in 1963.
Yes I know Deck's argument perhaps it was built in 1963 did a lot of time travel and then returned to 1963 when the doctor stole it and brought it to earth, but then why gallifreyan years aren't measured the same as earth years so it's still a moot point.

In-jokes aside...

I won't tackle everything in your post, Paul, (that would require more lives than I have left) but I'll take on a few of your questions...

I'll start with the date thing with a reference to this link: http://www.meshyfish.com/~roo/docwho1.html (Rassilon, Omega, and The Other Guy). Down about 4/5ths of the page it describes Gallifreyan time in several ways, one of which is the Rassilon Era (RE). It also explains that RE dates are often abbreviated to the last four digits (as seen in the 1996 TV Movie). So the date on the plaque could read - in "full" Gallifreyan - as 3,503,411,963.2 RE (or the abbrev. 1963).

Don't ask about that ".2"; I have no idea how they came up with that.

The calculations can make your head dizzy (and I'm already there, so this only added more dizz), but off hand at a rough guess, 1963 in the Rassilon Era (even though the plaque doesn't say "RE") would put the Earth date at about the beginning of the Earth's formation (about 3.5 billion years ago). This may explain why the Doctor's TARDIS is so old and rundown in Earth's 1963.

I'll let someone else take over the date issue from here.

Extreme penalties and possible exile for misuse or theft of a TARDIS?  I will probably get pulled up on this one as my memory is rusty but isn't the standard penalty for stealing a TARDIS death?
Yes misuse can result in exile, and it's only because the Time Lords used the Doctor that he wasn't given the death sentence for nicking it in the first place.  Like I said could be wrong here and i can't give an episode name without wading through and watching them all again, but I am fairly sure the Time Lords were going to strip the Doctor of his lives for it at one point.

In "The Invasion of Time" that little slimy castellan seemed all too gleeful to point out to his contingent of guards that such unauthorized use of a TT Capsule carried only one penalty - more than alluded to be death. I believe that was also mentioned near the end of Patrick Troughton's final story "The War Games", when the Timelords, indeed as you said, Paul, (paraphrasing here) do away with the renegade Timelord War Chief and his cronies. They were planning the same for the Doctor, but the Doctor put forth such a good argument that he was only stripped of one life, and then he was indeed exiled to Earth.

Build Site:  TARDISes are GROWN.  Yes I know there has to be some mechanics added to it later on, so that one is a bit weak.

True, but once the entire construction process is complete (this includes growing the TARDIS and any extra installations that are required, but can't be grown in place), like any vehicle/vessel, a TARDIS most likely undergoes builders' (growers') and acceptance trials. Once tried, fixed/tweaked as necessary, and finally accepted, the TARDIS would be then registered and placed in commission, and that would be the date placed on such a plaque.

The Plaque itself, where was it in 1963 when William Hartnell was the doctor? or for any other doctor between then and Eccleston?

There... that's off the top of my head, feel free to poke giant holes in my theory and I will wiggle my way out of them with my trusty sonic screwdriver, which can fix anything.

As we have all seen, nothing in the TARDIS ever stays put. Consoles move around the room (I know to afford room for other set pieces as necessary, but stepping out of reality - which reality does suck, btw) as sometimes they're closer to some walls, and further away from the same walls at other times; console panels change places; components on said panels also change locations, and panels; rooms move about... It's that darned Architectural Configuration Circuit! [another pun to be pardoned coming] Who knows where the plaque might have been during all of the Doctor's other lives? The 3rd Doctor practically tore the TARDIS down completely and put it back together to get it working before the Timelords lifted his exile. That plaque could have been anywhere! (Just because we couldn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't there - remember the Vashta Narada, or the Krafayis?) The plaque was, after all, on the floor during the 9th and 10th Doctor's time, before the TARDIS moved it to the side of the console during her rebuilding.

And that's it from the top of my twisted head. Others can tackle the Shadow Proclamation issue. (Given enough time I'm sure I could come up with something on this, but my brain is squzzed dry right now!)

And thank you, Paul! This one really made me think of some plausible explanations! (What a brain workout!)

(I never imagined that asking that simple question about the plaque would cause this thread to sprout legs and start running like this!)

Dino.

[hb88banzai]

Interesting to see that the plaque is on the console as well.

The one in Amy's Choice is screwed to a box attached to the structure beneath the console (under the perspex floor), but it is slightly different than the one on the console shown above. Wording is the same, but on the one shown on screen there is a bit more metal below the last line, the corners are much less rounded, the attachment holes are smaller (appearing to be held on by small round head screws instead of the larger nuts and bolts of the above console version, with one of the screws missing) and in general it appears much cleaner (possibly a different material?).

Here is a screen shot -



It hasn't been mentioned, but it's quite obvious that the type is Courier, though I'm not sure which vendor-version.

[galacticprobe]

At a guess, I'd say the font was either Courier, or Courier New. I'm leaning more towards the Courier New because it looks like what's referred to as (I think) 'monospaced', meaning that each character - I, M, space, etc. - is the same width.

Dino.

[hb88banzai]

At a guess, I'd say the font was either Courier, or Courier New. I'm leaning more towards the Courier New because it looks like what's referred to as (I think) 'monospaced', meaning that each character - I, M, space, etc. - is the same width.

Dino.

Actually, all Couriers are monospaced fonts (as opposed to proportionally spaced). It's integral to the design, having originally been commissioned by IBM in the 1950's for their line of typewriters (but IBM stupidly failed to get exclusivity to the font - sound familiar? - can you say DOS?).

I don't have my full selection of the different Couriers on this computer (there are many, with very subtle differences to each), but it does look very much like the Courier New Bold that comes bundled with Win 7. I note, however, that if this is the case then there has been some kerning done to the text during layout so that the space between the characters is uniformly a little larger than is standard, at least judging from my sample text compared to the originals.

[type 83]

On console 34, you can clearly see the swing arm on the keyboard.

[galacticprobe]

At a guess, I'd say the font was either Courier, or Courier New. I'm leaning more towards the Courier New because it looks like what's referred to as (I think) 'monospaced', meaning that each character - I, M, space, etc. - is the same width.

Dino.

Actually, all Couriers are monospaced fonts (as opposed to proportionally spaced). It's integral to the design, having originally been commissioned by IBM in the 1950's for their line of typewriters (but IBM stupidly failed to get exclusivity to the font - sound familiar? - can you say DOS?).

I don't have my full selection of the different Couriers on this computer (there are many, with very subtle differences to each), but it does look very much like the Courier New Bold that comes bundled with Win 7. I note, however, that if this is the case then there has been some kerning done to the text during layout so that the space between the characters is uniformly a little larger than is standard, at least judging from my sample text compared to the originals.

Character spacing is a (relatively) easy fix of you want to get a more exacting layout. Just highlight the line(s) you want to adjust and find your way into 'Format' and then 'Font'. (I'm still using Word 2003 so that's easy to find. Word 2007 sucks worse than a black hole and I really had to dig to find it.)

One of the tabs in the Format Font menu says "Character Spacing", and from there you can expand or condense the spacing between the characters. You can notch it up (or down) in .1 increments until you get the right look.

Dino.

[Teletran]

Others can tackle the Shadow Proclamation issue.

I think the Shadow Proclamation is roughly equivalent to the Geneva Convention, a treaty agreed upon by multiple signatories who now enforce it and have become synonymous with it. If the Time Lords were involved with such a treaty they would naturally wish to maintain their jurisdiction over the laws of time.