Talk:The Lodger (TV story)

No Sources
The Page needs deleting and protecting, the page constantly gets made once a week because people think its going to be one of the titles for a series 5 story. Well if it is, give a source please people. -- Michael Downey 15:25, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

in doctor who series 5 the lodger at the top of the stairs is a cyber converter

Why has the deletion banner been thrown up so quickly? People seem convinced this is the name of the episode, so why don't we leave it and just change it if its wrong? Removing deletion banner until we have a rational agreement to this. Fan555 15:27, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

There is no definite source. Added the delete template again. Without a reliable source, it should be deleted. ☆ The  Solar  Dragon  ( Talk ) ☆ 15:45, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

There Is a reliable source now from the BBC Doctor who website itself. You can't get any more reliable or definite than this. -- Michael Downey 15:47, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

So suddenly the BBC doesn't know the name of the Dr Who episodes. It is the Official website, and therefore an official source. Fan555 15:48, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Just seen it and removed the template. Should have looked more thoroughly first. ☆ The  Solar  Dragon  ( Talk ) ☆ 15:49, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

"Craig will either die or join the Doctor by the end of this episode. Another possibility is the the Doctor will offer him a trip, but Craig will decline." - so we have three options: he'll die, live and not go with the Doctor, or live and go with the Doctor. There are no other options. So in other words this adds nothing at all. I move to delete this "rumour".


 * Good point, deleted it. Digifiend 17:19, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Now titled Don't Go Up the Stairs by the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/2010/wk24/sat.shtml#sat_doctorwho Mennenennen 13:26, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. You got there before me. Name change time. ☆ The Solar Dragon  ( Talk ) ☆ 13:31, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * And I just changed it back, due to DWM Editor Tom Spilsbury's post on Gallifrey Base: 'The title is 'The Lodger'. The press office is out of date.' http://gallifreybase.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2381523&postcount=43

Craig
Shouldn't craig be a companion? Alpha111 19:50, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * No. 20:01, May 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Going by the standard implied by List of companions and other articles, Craig should be on the list of "disputed companions", marked as a companion here, etc.


 * But, if you look at Forum:Disputed Companions, there's currently a discussion going on about who we should count as companions, and nobody involved likes the current implied standard. So, I don't think anyone wants to add more companions that are just going to be removed later. If you think people like Craig (and Lynda Moss and the existing disputed companions) should be listed, you should go comment on that forum thread. --Falcotron 20:13, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

up the stairs
when it says the stairs people go up and never come down it will either be ailens are takeing them or there is a crack (wormhole type) up there just constantly takeing anyone who goes up into a diffrent part of the universe

Drwhoworld 09:38, June 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. It could be a murderer. On another note, the Doctor says "Is this how time passes? Really slowly and in the right order?" in Vincent and the Doctor. This week will kill him. The Thirteenth Doctor 09:08, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's a crack, they'd forget people who went upstairs, but in the trailer, the other two seem to remember the last person to go upstairs (the woman asks "what is he doing up there?"). Someone I know reckons it might be Cybermen because they're in the finale?90.210.32.122 13:28, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's a crack, they'd forget people who went upstairs, but in the trailer, the other two seem to remember the last person to go upstairs (the woman asks "what is he doing up there?"). Someone I know reckons it might be Cybermen because they're in the finale?90.210.32.122 13:28, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Title
I've recently noticed the number of titles for this episode. Where did they all come from?

"This episode was mistakenly entitled Reality Check, A Clinical Finish, Don't Go Up the Stairs"

And now this new one thats appeared out of nowhere, 'Something At the Top of the Stairs'.

Please do explain!!

Who7 16:12, June 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't Go Up the Stairs was on the BBC website for a short period before it was changed to The Lodger again. 16:14, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've never heard of a rumoured episode title 'Something at the Top of the Stairs'. What kind of a title is that ?
 * Who7 16:24, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

trail
watching the trailer on the website, i notice that the voice coming from the intercom on the door is different to the voice heard in the trailer shown after episode 10. should we make anything of this?90.210.32.122 13:23, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Just watched this and noticed it too. Maybe its the voice of the previous person (that whatever the cause is) taking people away therefore it takesaway 2 people so far. -- Michael Downey 14:43, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Trailer: "Hello, I need your help, there's been an accident!"

Preview: "Hello, Hello scuse me, can you help me please?"

Hmm which one sounds better?

Who7 18:20, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Trailer Differences
Well good pointing out there, whoever 90.210.32.122 is! Following on from that there are actually a lot of differences!

1: The Voice

2: Zooming into the intercom and the shadow thing. (One zooms in closer than the other)

3: The beeping noice as the man walks up the stairs

4: The crash before the women says, "What is he doing up there?" (Not heard in the bbc website preview)

Anyone notice any more differences?

Who7 18:34, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Materialisation Loop
It has been confirmed by Digital Spy that the TARDIS and Amy are stuck in a materialisation Loop. Fan555 17:03, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, what actually caused Amy to be trapped and prevented the TARDIS from landing? 90.192.36.137 16:42, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

SFX Preview 20 teasers
See http://www.sfx.co.uk/2010/06/09/the-lodger-preview/


 * 1) The first line is very funny
 * 2) A guest character from last week’s episode shows up a few times
 * 3) There’s the first gay allusion this series (sort of)
 * 4) The Doctor has more interesting adventures with food and drink
 * 5) Matt Smith fans will be freeze-framing one particular revealing moment
 * 6) A can of beer is opened at an important moment
 * 7) The Doctor commits an act of physical violence, sort of…
 * 8) A certain face shows up for the fourth time this series; another for a third; and others for a second time
 * 9) There’s lots of witty dialogue
 * 10) A regal couple put in an appearance
 * 11) Amy discovers something
 * 12) One of the most uttered phrases of series five comes up again
 * 13) It’s the most unusual ever episode of Doctor Who Confidential!
 * 14) It’s back
 * 15) Someone says the G-word
 * 16) There’s a monster’s hand in a drawer
 * 17) The psychic paper serves several purposes
 * 18) It’s rather a sweet love story and James Corden is actually quite likeable
 * 19) Someone says, “I love you”
 * 20) The Doctor is helped by some feline intuition

Some of these are revelead in the preview, next time and other 4 BBC clips ...

2 Van Gogh piccy on the fridge (but Craig hasn't been to the exhibition in Paris)

3 Craig telling about his and Mark's arrangement bringing back a girl / boyfriend

4 Salad cream in an omelette

5 bath towel

8 More previous Dr's

11 The engagement ring ?

12 Bow ties are cool ?

14 the crack ?

15 Ginger? Gravity ?

Any further thoughts? 86.26.137.154 08:13, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

7. A tackle during football? 8. The first for the fourth, third for the second and second for some others. 15. Gallifrey? Although I suppose it will be ginger, y'know, to do with the controversy. 19. James Cordon, as seen in the trailer. 20. A cat? --The Thirteenth Doctor 12:55, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

15. Geronimo? Alpha111 18:58, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

15 - o come on guys excuse my language but its GIT Who7 19:17, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

11. Amy discovers her engagement ring. Alpha111
 * I doubt it's git. I think it is ginger. It's referring to the whole ginger controversy which is a touchy subject right now. The Thirteenth Doctor 19:27, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think number 7 was the headbutt. And the mind-sharing was why Craig said Geronimo. 95.148.54.155 22:10, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

15.No ive watched it its Geronimo but craig says it not the doctor just before he puts his hand on the...no i wont give away too much(and yes it is broadcast)

New picture
See http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/more-on-the-lodger-6181.htm for a new picture of a coffin type box and Sophie seems to have a hand missing, (does this link to the teaser about a monster's hand in a drawer?), and a quote both from latest DWM issue 86.26.137.154 06:32, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Enemy
What should we class as the enemy of this episode then? The hologram or the Makeshift TARDIS? 18:44, June 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * The hologram was just a function of the makeshift TARDIS, so we should list the TARDIS. 76.210.69.11 19:15, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Tardis?
The doctors line of "Someone has tried to build a tardis" Makes me think this isn't a crashed time lord vehicle, but a time machine some other alien race has attempted to build. Any one else agree?A Pickering 19:15, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer it to be an alien race than the Time Lords ( - unless it's Omega). One thing I will point out though - a home made Tardis and still not that Blue Peter competition winners console. When's it gonna go in?Baziel 21:29, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Are there pictures from the Blue Peter console design? It wasn't necessarily going to make it into the show; the design would "feature in some way" towards the end of the season.

And not to mention; the TARDIS is old tech by Gallifrey's standard. It's highly probably that another advanced race came across a decommissioned TARDIS somewhere along the line, or the plans for one, and attempted to build their own. You would wonder why we haven't seen one before, especially since the Time Lords went *kablooey*. -Jedman67 04:51, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

The control pannels of the "TARDIS" had dome-like controls. Possibly Dalek Technology? DalekJast092 09:28, June 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Please sign your posts with four tilde (~) symbols... especially since I think you're on to something. It certainly looked Dalek-y (Dalekish? Dalekesque?) to me as well; the structure over the controls reminded me of the Dalek Emperor back in parting of the ways. Monkey with a Gun 06:17, June 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * The Daleks have already built DARDISes in the past, apparently from reverse-engineered Time Lord technology. So there's no reason to believe other sufficiently-advanced races couldn't do something similar. Also, the Doctor calls it an "alien timeship", which I don't think he'd say about a TARDIS. Nor would he say that "someone has tried to build a TARDIS" if it actually were one. Plus, it's clearly designed for 4 people, not 6, it doesn't appear to be dimensionally transcendental, it doesn't seem to be alive, and the default "true" shape looks like an insectiform spaceship rather than a featureless metal box. So, I'd say the original poster and most of the followups are almost certainly right.


 * As for it being the Daleks--well, again, copying a TARDIS is old news to them. Their DARDIS did pretty much everything the TARDIS did, and they apparently abandoned it for better forms of time travel, forms that apparently would have been good enough to beat the Time Lords if it weren't for Rassilon's Final Sanction and the Doctor ending the war. And they had much better tech than this (even not including the stolen Eye of Time) in City of the Daleks. So, I don't think it's them.


 * But someone could have built it from reverse-engineered Dalek technology, rather than Time Lord technology. Maybe the Doctor didn't do as good a job destroying the plans in VotD. Maybe the DARDIS that brought Ian and Barbara home and then self destructed wasn't totally destroyed. And think of how many other planets the Daleks have interacted with besides Earth. --Falcotron 08:06, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about not signing before... got caught up in my idea. But who knows what the daleks have been up to since VotD... they did speak about starting again. Possibly a precursor to a new time war. It could be a form of battle Tardis or Dardis. Also, This may seem completely pathetic but do you think it could be Jenny's attempt at finding her father aswell? DalekJast092 09:28, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * The exterior of ship at the end reminded me of the ship from City of Death. The owner of that ship was also experimenting with time travel as well. 189.115.167.212 20:35, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * If memory serves the Sontarans tried something like this back in The Two Doctors. They tried to create a time machine based on Time Lord technology. 122.105.223.16 07:50, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * The exterior of ship at the end reminded me of the ship from City of Death. The owner of that ship was also experimenting with time travel as well. 189.115.167.212 20:35, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * If memory serves the Sontarans tried something like this back in The Two Doctors. They tried to create a time machine based on Time Lord technology. 122.105.223.16 07:50, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * The exterior of ship at the end reminded me of the ship from City of Death. The owner of that ship was also experimenting with time travel as well. 189.115.167.212 20:35, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * If memory serves the Sontarans tried something like this back in The Two Doctors. They tried to create a time machine based on Time Lord technology. 122.105.223.16 07:50, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * The exterior of ship at the end reminded me of the ship from City of Death. The owner of that ship was also experimenting with time travel as well. 189.115.167.212 20:35, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * If memory serves the Sontarans tried something like this back in The Two Doctors. They tried to create a time machine based on Time Lord technology. 122.105.223.16 07:50, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Production error.
after craig touches the 'rot' in the ceiling he falls ill the next morning. when the doctor discovers him in bed he rushes to the kitchen and stuffs about ten teabags into the pot which he then makes craig drink. however, when the doctor is sat on his bed with the full teacup in his hand, the camera that is focusing on craig from over his shoulder clearly shows a teapot only half full of clear water.


 * Its not clear, you can clearly see tea dribbling down his face after the drinking from the spout. 83.104.138.141 22:57, June 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * You can indeed see tea dribbling out of his mouth but the original poster is correct, when you can actualy see inside the tea pot it's got nothing but clear water inside. --Lyco499 04:37, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek in-joke
Definitely a reference to Star Trek :Voyager towards the end when the Doctor says 'State the nature of the emergency' and then refers to the 'Emergency Crash Hologram'. In Voyager, the Doctor was an Emergency Medical Hologram who, when activated, usually said, 'Please state the nature of the medical emergency.' Neil DG 22:13, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I saw that too, and there was also the rather violent version of the Vulcan Mindmeld, y'know the headbutt. Maybe the writer was a fan or something ~Coolio~

It struck me more as a reference to Thunderbirds... "Captain ... of International Rescue. Please state the nature of your emergency." 121.208.92.214 05:02, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

It was a reference to Thunderbirds, that's why he started the sentence by mentioning International rescue.A Pickering 09:37, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that was a nod to both series. It doesn't have to be exclusive. Neil DG 11:43, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Gareth Roberts Signature?
When Amy uses the magnifying glass, is this a reference to the the Graeme Harper signature, last seen in DW: The Unicorn and the Wasp?


 * Please sign your posts with four tildes (~). Anyway, unless Gareth Roberts thought Harper was going to be directing this episode, I doubt he'd write something specifically to be used that way. Not to mention that Harper never has any problem including his signature scene no matter what the writers give him. Also, The Unicorn and the Wasp definitely wasn't the last time we've seen that. I don't remember anything in The Waters of Mars, but there's the mirrors scene in Turn Left and the fish-eye window scene in Journey's End. --Falcotron 03:21, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Doctor first looked at Amy with that magnifying glass near the beginning of The Beast Below, which was the only reference I immediately took from its reappearance DreamSong 03:07, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

A very odd picture...
Did anyone else notice the portrait on the wall between Craig and Sophie at about minute 25? Anybody have any idea what that was? Monkey with a Gun 05:30, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that bugs me too. It's centred in the shot as if it's important, but it seems to be totally irrelevant. It was most likely added just so that the shot isn't against a totally blank wall, but if that's the reason, the portrait certainly need not have been so... unusual. Maybe it was just added to make us think it was important, only to be a total red herring. Or maybe it's something that will crop up in series 6, since we know that Moffat is seting up a 'superarc' over these two series. Finally, I have one last theory... just for fun, mind you, cause it's really silly: how about the fact that a cameraman can be seen reflected in the portrait's glass cover? Perhaps that's actually all the picture is there for! XD -- Sorceror Nobody 19:37, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

The back of Amy's note
When the Doctor shows Amy's note to Craig and then turns it around to look at it (31:50), there's clearly something printed on the back. The top row (it's upside-down, so bottom to us) is in large caps and says something like "PO?? C????" (or maybe that "C" is an "O"), and then there's a second row in smaller type.

If anyone recorded he show in 1080p an can get a screencap, I'll be your best friend in the whole wide world and love you forever and ever.

Even though it's probably nothing ("POST CARD" or something like that). --Falcotron 06:01, June 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I'm not ready for that level of commitment, I'm not going to post a screencap, but it does just say "POST CARD". Monkey with a Gun 06:18, June 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * yeah its the standard blank post card sold in the UK, the lettering is their when their sold. --WatcherZero 13:21, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Character brief appearances
Since flashbacks of the Doctors and other enemies appear briefly, should we add these to their list of appearances or not? 06:57, June 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a bit of a discussion about the list of appearances on Forum:Villains Navigation templates (as well as a tiny bit in some other threads). Judging by what Tangerineduel said there, I believe the "list of appearances" pages are supposed to include even flashback cameos, but they don't go anywhere but those list pages. --Falcotron


 * Yep. Just realised that as I was looking through the pages. Starting to add them in. 07:30, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Junior Masterchef
Did Matt Smith really win Junior Masterchef? I got the impression that was part of a windup by James Corden.

I think it is too. I can't find anything on it on either his wikipedia page, nor the junior masterchef section of the masterchef page. The Thirteenth Doctor 20:03, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Picture
I did wonder if that picture in the hallway was an amalgamation of the faces of all the doctors, as that has been a recurring feature of the series, but on closer observation, have decided that if it is they have chosen the least recognisable (and least attractive!) features of each one. 81.141.81.53 07:24, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, some of the Doctors' most recognisable features are also their least attractive.

discontinuity template
the discontinuity template doesn't link to the right place, it links to just "The Lodger" without the (TV story) bit

can someone edit the template/set the parameters right? i'm not too sure of it myselfLord Aro 07:44, June 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, that seems to be the right place for it to link to. If you look at Shada, Rose, Dalek, etc., the discon pages don't have the (TV story) bit. Which makes sense--they're not ambiguous within a "television discontinuity" space. And the template that goes on those pages seems to automagically add the (TV story) bit in for its back-link to the article. And if you look at the list page for discontinuities, someone had to go through a lot of trickery to fool it into accepting the (TV story) bit.


 * So, I moved the page and edited the list. It should all work fine now. --Falcotron 08:14, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * So thats what the problem was. thanks --Lord Aro 08:29, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Chesterfield?
Amy's line is "It's saying we're on Earth. Essex. Colchester." TheKingOfWrong 12:28, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Football
Should we mension that since Matt Smith plays football that this could be why they've choosen to have the doctor play football.

Cricket?
When asked to play football the doctor askes if that's "the one with the stick" or something like that, posibly a referance to cricket.
 * I thought he was on about hockey. 13:43, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's much simpler than that, there are no sticks in football. It's a reference to every sport that isn't football. It's to show he has no idea what it is before he plays it. Steviesteveo 23:28, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Lammasteen
"You used non-technological technology of Lammasteen!" "Shut up!"

What's "Lammasteen"? A planet; a culture; a reference; a secret?

Sign your posts, and no idea. Sounds Raxicoricofallipatorian to me. It's probably just something the writer made up to explain the technology Excalibur-117 14:37, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis
I don't think that current Synopsis really fits... TakeruDavis 18:33, June 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * The English in some bits ("brake over" instead of "break up" etc) is a bit dodgy as well. Needs a clean up. Steviesteveo 15:52, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Past doctors
Who here besides me, think they keep showing the past Dr.s, So they can bring back an old, past enemy. I think they are doing this to remind us, Hey this shows been around for almost 40 years, I think the pandorica thing will hold, Either a version of the master or the Dr. himself. Theories, But that is just one Americans opinion.


 * Remember to sign please ;). The Pandorica is definitly Time Lord. Either based on Gallifrey Tech, based on something the Doctor did, or knowing SM, based on something the Doctor will do. My guess is that someone hijacked a future TARDIS, and it blows up The TARDIS. Which cracks the universe. And then the Doctor needs to fix it before it happens. My head is spinning now, lol. -Jedman67 19:34, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Got to love coming back to comments people made about a future event and seeing how their predictions panned out :P --Lyco499 04:29, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Alien Ship
The Alien ship revealed at the end resembles the Jagaroth ship from "City of Death". ~Sammy


 * Yes, I thought that too. Oddly enough the pilot of that ship was also experimenting with time travel. 189.115.167.212 20:45, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Wine
It looked to me like the Doctor was spitting out an ice cube into his wineglass. So maybe it's ice cubes (or at least, ones in wine and/or unexpected ones), not wine itself, that he dislikes? 78.143.223.5 21:04, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * The way in which he 'spits' out the wine is very much like the manner in which young children will 'spit' out something that they don't like – and I'm sure it will have been a very deliberate choice to make the Doctor do it in that way. This method of 'spitting' something out doesn't actually involve spitting at all. Instead, the child (or in this case, Time Lord) will just open their mouth and let the offending substance fall right out. It might look like he's 'spitting' out a solid, but that's probably just because virtually all of the wine leaves his mouth at once -- Sorceror Nobody 19:47, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Another production error in The Lodger
Hi there peoples, I've just watched The Lodger on iPlayer, and I've noticed another production error.

In the scene where Sophie unlocks Craigs door, near the end whilst The Doctor is implanting his memory in Craigs head, and the little girl at the top of the stairs says 'Can you help me?', just as Sophie starts walking up the stairs, the door at the top appears to open by itself, the next shot shows a view looking down the stairs as Sophie looks startled, and when the shot goes back to the little girl, the door appears to open again.

I think this is a pretty small production error, but I noticed it. I suggest people study that scene and they will know what I mean :)

Jubilee Pizza
Craig holds a Jubilee Pizza leaflet. This was also used in the episode "Dalek" and Torchwood's "Everything Changes". It references the audio story "Jubilee" that "Dalek" is based upon, both being written by Robert Shearman.

Watch City of Death w/ 4th doctor. An episode co written by Doug Adams ;) Notice the similar appearance of the Jagaroth ship, The repeating/blurring time scenes. The CRACKS IN TIME. Coincidence? (74.244.7.209 07:57, June 19, 2010 (UTC)) 

More Thunderbirds
It should also be noted that Craig's flat has photos of Ford Thunderbirds on the walls -- a '64/'65 and a '74/'76, if I'm not mistaken.

Great cars? Not really. Reference-y? Methinks so.

24.41.63.155 06:01, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Possible perception filter trick?
The Doctor showed Craig a blank card three times, calling them {something I missed}, insurance, and references. Graig thought he saw a reference from the Archbishop of Canterbury somehow. --76.25.184.28 05:53, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's called psychic paper. The Thirteenth Doctor 08:42, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed that you know enough to mention 'Perception Filters' but not Psychic Paper? Then again Perception Filters are mentioned over and over in this episode which you've obviously seen.--Lyco499 03:55, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Eleventh doctor
The Doctor here referes at himself with the word "eleventh", does this mean that the "first doctor" was actually his first incarnation? I always assumed that since he has 900 years and the TV show covers only his last 30-40 years the number of incarnations of the doctor should be much higher than the few we know.
 * I think the first Doctor is supposed to be his first incarnation, I know there's some rule mentioned in the old Doctor Who stuff about a Time Lord only having 12 or 13 incarnations before they die. It's a rule that gets mentioned and speculated about alot because people wonder what will happen when the Doctor reaches this point. I'm sure there has also been a device or means of extending the allowed incarnations mentioned but it was lost with Galifrey, so it's possible the Doctor could have used this at some point already, but I doubt it. --Lyco499 04:25, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually.... I have an thought about that... Since The Doctor has lived for about 907 years, maybe the whole time since he was a child till he regenerated to his 2nd incarnation.... That was his first incarnation. Because the Doctor "died of old age"...

Head Banging
Is the whole idea of banging heads to convey knowledge psychicaly a new idea? I don't recall it ever being used before and it's most likely just a comedy device I know but I thought it would be interesting to know. --Lyco499 03:53, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

The 3rd adapted story?
Jubilee ==> Dalek

Human Nature ==> Human Nature

A groatsworth of wit ==> Shakespeare Code?

What I did on my Christmas Holidays by Sally Sparrow ==> Blink?

Signatures/k9markiii 21:04, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

Overwritten
I have just made a beginning to editing this particular page and have given up a bit of the way into it. It is far too detailed to cut rationally, and every time I have been through it, correcting typos and misspelled words, someone has come back and has, it seems, reset everything.

I would appreciate it if someone who is more certain about these things would go through it and cut out some of the interminable details. I don't believe it is necessary to have every joke and sentence of conversation reproduced herein.Boblipton 23:40, May 9, 2011 (UTC)