# Talk:The Lodger (Doctor Who)

Is an image hosted on a blogging site with no information and no source really considered a reliable source for this? AnemoneProjectors 18:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We know it's from this episode, and we have eyes and can see the ticket in the picture, so I'd say in this instance it can be considered reliable.  As a screen grab from the trailer, perhaps linking to said trailer would be better though. magnius (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess once it's broadcast we'd base it on what we can see ourselves, or would we? AnemoneProjectors 18:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
We already can see it for ourselves, it's in the trailer. magnius (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I think linking to the trailer would be better if that's at all possible. Just didn't want to stray into original research territory. AnemoneProjectors 18:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Linked, the ticket is definitely for the Musée d'Orsay as the museum logo can be seen in the bottom corner of the ticket [1], however that could be seen as original research on my part.  If consenus is remove and wait, I have no objection. magnius (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
It was just really the unsourced picture with no info that I was concerned about, but along with the link to the trailer I don't have a problem :) AnemoneProjectors 18:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just tried to add a source for the "Doctor wears number 11 shirt", but it got deleted whilst I was editing.   BRIANTIST  (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Because you didn't source your reasoning.  I agree that it is likely a reference to him being the 11th Doctor, but without a reliable source it is original research.  You well know this having just applied an OR template to another article. magnius (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I was just adding it in and it got stopped by your nazi-editing.  Sieg heil!  BRIANTIST  (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you be a bit more offensive, please?  ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 21:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You are already treading on thin ice, don't make it worse with your offensive comments.  The onus is on you to source your additions, not verbally abuse other editors who ask you to follow wiki guidelines. magnius (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear. Comments like that are a one-way shortcut to being blocked. Reverting to assuming good faith, however, your edit was pure original research unless you can find a source that equates the two "11"s. Rodhullandemu 00:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The Doctor Who related articles are controlled by a little group of editors. They own the articles, they are anal and they bite newcomers. 86.198.144.167 (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, perhaps we're anal, but at least we can read English. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 21:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
...Or perhaps, being experienced editors, they understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly those for writing about fiction on television, but overall, the requirement for reliable sources? Rodhullandemu 16:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an oval portrait in the hallway visible between Craig and Sophie when there are about 17 minutes left. If it is obvious to anyone what that is, and especially if it happens to matter for the plot, could someone explain it, please? The portrait does not seem to be accidental. It may be obvious to native British, but it is not to me. --Mlewan (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it could possibly "matter for the plot" and would warn anybody contemplating a reply that WP:FORUM does apply on this talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 08:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

[...seeking a candidate pilot who meets the requirement of "wanting to stay here" ]
This is incorrect. Quote from the Doctor at 36:05 min : "This is a machine, it needs to leave, it wants people who want to escape.." and the Doctor goes on to say that Craig's not wanted by the machine because he's "Mr Sofa.." and doesn't want to leave. Hence, it should be changed to a candidate pilot who meets the requirement of "wanting to escape".
Someone please change this? I'm new here. Don't know the proper stuff Skyfire101 (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Something that I noticed whilst watching the episode seems to have been confirmed by a reliable source. The hologram paraphrases the Doctor hologram from Star Trek: Voyager when he states “Please state the nature of your  emergency.” (missing only the word 'medical').  Is this worth mentioning as an outside reference alonng with the SFX (magazine) source? [2] magnius (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not we use DWM and the line you meantioned is very clear in the article on the other hand though, it looks like a blog.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
SFX magazine is well respected, and the review written by Russell Lewin, Production Editor of the magazine, far from a simple "blog". [3] magnius (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and added this, but if the source is considered dubious then please revert.
I disagree with this... the Doctor says "Hello, I'm Captain Troy Hanson of International Rescue, please state the nature of your emergency!"
This appears to me to be a Thunderbirds reference (International Rescue is the "official" name of the Thunderbirds and Captain Hanson is the name of one of the characters in the pilot episode), not a Star Trek one, and while I respect SFX, their assumption that it's a Voyager reference (which I would love it if it was), has not been based on something from the production team, that I can see. I don't have a problem with magazines like SFX being used as references when they are researched stories, interviews, et cetera, but a review is an opinion piece, and while Russell Lewin's opinion may be respectable, it is based on his personal knowledge and assumptions, and can't be taken as representative of the intentions of the writing or production team. Masterflea (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Unless we have a source - a reliable source - that says that the Who episode was inspired by something from ST, we don't get to extrapolate. Come on, that's just basic Wikipedia 101: If you cannot cite it, you cannot say it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
No reason why they can't say that it has been suggested it is a reference to star trek voyager with that reference, though. --78.144.221.33 (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the above provides precisely the reason why we cannot do that. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan forum. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Captain Troy Tempest was the captain of the Stingray.  The line could be a reference to several shows.  Andrew Swallow (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you have reliable references that can be verified that connect? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me but an RS (in a review) make the connection.Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It usually goes without saying that any sources added to articles have to be reliable, Slatersteven. You should know that by now. Stop trying to pick fights and go edit something, - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Has it been established that SFX magazine is not RS? AS to your accusation of stalking, well I can think of a couple of artciels that you have edited that I have not, and I can prove that I am a Dr who fan.Slatersteven (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

On Craig's fridge is a postcard advertising the Van Gogh exhibit at the Parisian Musée d'Orsay, which the Doctor, Amy and later Van Gogh himself visit in the previous episode.[2][3] Craig says he has never been to Paris, however, when the Doctor asks him. Postcards are generally sent to people at home from a person on vacation, so noting that Craig said he's never been to Paris is moot, right? In other words, the postcard would be from a third party, not picked up by Craig himself. First part of the entry stands well on his own, though. --Snograt talk here 16:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Last night HD viewing figures were added to this are other articles by an IP, but I'm not able to find these on the BARB website (which is the source given). Is it just me, are these figures available on this website? Edgepedia (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The top 10 ratings for the BBC HD channel are available on the BARB website and the HD figures come from there. Only the five terrestrial channels have their top 30 programmes listed, so you have to go to the top 10 section to get the HD figures. The way the BARB site works makes specific links impossible, but the data is all there. If you want a source that you can link to then the reports of the final ratings can be found here: [4]. Maccy69 (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


### Commenting on viewing figures
I've reverted an attempt reintroduce the claim that this is lowest rated on BBC1 episode since the series came back. This seems to be adding commentary where none is appropriate and is not an evaluation of the ratings used by a reliable source - I therefore think it strays into original research. Another problem is that the BBC HD channel didn't simulcast Doctor Who until 2009, making comparisons of BBC1 figures alone problematic. The last problem is that stating a "lowest episode" rating in individual articles requires many articles to be kept up to date (The Satan Pit is currently out of date, for example, I'll be fixing it once I've finished here). I think the best thing for an encyclopedia is to state the figures without further comment. If anyone wants to find out the lowest rated episode then the figures are there for them to work it out for themselves. --Maccy69 (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I am encountering a lot of unnecessary detail being added to the Plot summary, and it's growing tedious griming the article down every few days. We don't need to know:

that the Doctor outperforms Craig - it isn't necessary to the plotline.
it is a wedding ring, not an engagement ring. The two were due to get married, not engaged.
I am still of mixed feelings regarding the continuity stuff; it seems like a lot of synthesis going on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is very important that the Doctor outperforms Craig - that's what drives Craig to become upset enough to look into the Doctor's room and later demand he leave; the straw that broke the camel's back after winning over the footballers and convincing Sophie to travel.  Secondly, it is the engagement ring - it is not the ring he was going to give to Amy, but instead what he was wearing when the Doctor picked Rory up from the stag party, and decided to leave it aboard the TARDIS at the start of Hungry Earth.
But the key is that what I'm trying to add (and I know what I'm doing on plots here, I've shortened most of the new series down already) is establish enough setting without wordy detail.  For example, nowhere in the present version does it state "when" this occurs, so adding "modern-day" is a fair addition.  Other additions simply help to establish detail without expanding the word count excessively.  --MASEM (t) 18:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Respectfully, that the 'outperforming Craig' bit is very important is your assessment, Masem; we cannot use your assessment, as your observations aren't citable. To my mind, it isn't intrinsic to an understanding of the episode. We don't include extremely detailed content because it infringes on the copyright of the series. Plot summaries are just that: summaries, and not storyboards. It isn't just about word count. If folk want the excessive detail as provided in the DW wikia or the scads of fansites, they can find them there, not here. Our job is to inform the reader so they can explore on their own: we are not a one stop-shop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyright is not the reason we use concise plot summaries - it is instead the fact that we balance the plot with the reception of the work that we try to keep plots within reasonable length.  Presently we're lacking in reception and development of the episode as it only just aired in the US and the DW Confidental stuff usually is needed to plug in details; but given most other new-series episode articles, this isn't going to be a problem.  We do need to avoid looking like a fan guide, but trust me, if I wanted a fan-guide like plot, this would be at least three times its present size.  --MASEM (t) 19:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
And to add, the only place where copyright is important - until otherwise told to us from Mike Godwin, the Foundation's lawyer - is verbatim copying of lines and scripts in part or in whole.  We certainly aren't doing that. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't aware that you were utterly up-to-date on copyright law, or cozy with Mike - my apologies. Since we are on the topic of copyright, though, allow me to point out the following:
"Some care should be taken not to provide a point-by-point description of the plot, but instead to provide an overview, appropriate to give the reader a general understanding of the work, but not intended to replace the work itself." (1).
I wasn't suggesting you trying to over-inflate the article's plot; you were just adding detail where none was required.
Allow me to stick to the meat of the matter: we don't use expansive plot summaries because that isn't what a summary is. Wikipedia is not If people want the nitty-gritty of the episode, they can follow the links we provide at the bottom of the article page and watch it for themselves. It is absolutely not our job - or even an intended goal - to parrot the episode in the article via the use of excessive detail. We say what the episode was in broad strokes and let the reader explore further. I feel minimalism is the better (by far) approach here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not a copyright law expert, but I have been in head deep in discussions of fiction and plots on WP and how copyright does and does not relate to them.  The point about copyright is: beyond verbatim inclusion of large sections of copyrighted text, we cannot use copyright to guide what we include.  Now, as the differences that I'm attempting to add, we are nowhere close to what most would call a scene-by-scene description, before or after; it is still a very broad stroke of the episode, and the changes only meant to ascribe better flow for the reader who may never see the episode.  For example, we tell them Craig finds the Doctor replaced him at work, and then next tell the reader that Craig wants them out.  There's a missing lack of motivation that occurs as a result of the Doctor being awesome at his job that tips Craig to take the steps that eventually lead the Doctor to tell him everything.  Now, we could go into every bit about those steps: the Doctor gets served tea and a biscuit by Sophia, tells off a rude client, participates in an important meeting and makes specific suggestions, gets tons of admiration by the boss; Craig returns home, opens up Doc's room to find the device, hears the Doctor talking to the cat outside, and *then* demands him to leave. But that's far excessive, even in that shortened form. Saying three words to what's already there establishes the logical connection that is shown emotionally in the actual show but not reiterated in the plot. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
We aren't supposed to give the fine details about the episode - that's the episode's job. Or the external links. We don't need to provide "missing" motivations; we aren't reviewers, so the key parts of an episode aren't up for review/interpretation. If anything, the article is supposed to provide a concise  account of the episode, and allow the reader to explore the depth of the episode on their own. As I said before, there is a misapprehension that Wikipedia is meant to be a one-stop shop for info. It is not. We provide basic information outside of sources and more, if sources warrant it. We also provide links and further reading directions for the reader. Wikipedia is not intended to become a haven for DW content; while I have already stated that I don't think you are trying to cram cruft into the article, it bears repeating: I don't think your content is nearly as bad as other examples I've seen. That said, less will always be more in the encyclopedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed (again) the addition of the different incarnations of the Doctor that Craig sees after the head-butting. I have done so for two reasons. Firstly, it isn't intrinsic to an understanding of the episode. Simply saying that Craig sees the faces of previous Doctors is more than enough without going into excessive detail, much less detailing which Doctor's don't appear. 
Secondly, the inclusion of those names required the person adding (or retaining) them to use his or her personal knowledge of the series to identify the faces, which is original research and deductive knowledge. Undoubtedly, there are many DW fans patrolling these pages, but we do not write the articles for them - we write them for the ordinary reader. And that reader wouldn't know (or perhaps care) who these faces specifically were. If they did, we have external links for them to explore outside of the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

First, because it is within continuity, nearly any reappearance of older elements of the series within the new is kept, particularly in reference to the Doctors.  It is not critic to the plot, but it does assert that this show is not completely ignoring the roots from where it came from.  But more importantly, it is nowhere close to original research; just because a person that has not seen the show before may not be able to identify who those people are, people "skilled in the art" can easily identify them, and they clearly are the previously Doctors in their show outfits (as opposed to, say, just a random picture of Tom Baker the actor).  It takes zero synthesis to state that. I do consider the value of mentioning which Doctors aren't shown as partially OR since we don't know who else the BBC considers canon, but we can positively state those that did appear.  Where synthesis would come into play would be to connect a prop or the line to a specific version of the Doctor without any substance behind it; for example, if there as a recorder whistle, a long scarf, and a stalk of celery on a table in the episode for no apparent reason, calling that out as a homage to the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Doctors respectively would be OR and would need removal or a statement from someone that made the episode that that was intentional references.  --MASEM (t) 19:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I utterly disagree with your assessment, Masem, and believe you are misapprehending the nature of our synthesis policy. The very fact that you stated that those "skilled int he art" might be able to identify those faces appearing in less than a second, while the ordinary reader cannot only bolsters my argument. It is further accentuated by your following edits to the section, wherein you ascribe titles to the different faces (Second Doctor, Third Doctor, etc.). The only person to whom this would be "obvious" is someone with specialized knowledge, which we do not give a free pass to here in Wikipedia. We work on citations, and citations alone, to define what goes into an article.
As well, since it blatantly clear form multiple sources that the BBC doesn't consider anything to be Doctor Who "canon" (1), we cannot be concerned with that, since you or I are not citable as editors. It is indeed synthesis to define flashing faces on the screen as being those of Doctor Number Three and so on, so you have done in your most recent edits. You might wish to consult with other experienced editors on this, as I am fairly certain I am correct on this point, and am not likely to be swayed by any argument to the contrary. I am reverting the changes. I would urge you to consider discussion to be a better way to resolve the matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Jack: you seem to favour a version of the article which states that previous Doctors are seen. How do you know they are previous Doctors? That version also states that Craig's fridge has a postcard advertising the vanGogh exhibition. How do you know what it's advertising? That version also states that the Doctor played cricket in Black Orchid – but how can you be absolutely sure that it was the Doctor and not some lookalike? It is also noted that at some point, Sophie arrives and is lured upstairs. But unless you're skilled in the art of recognising faces, it might not be Sophie! It could be Anne Robinson or Daniel Radcliffe. So how can we be positive that it's Sophie? (And you do seem to be positive, since you accepted that material in your reverts.)Answer: common sense. And that applies to recognising actors as well as to plot details. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 20:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
TT, I favor no particular version. And please, if you want to engage in semantical games, we can do that (elsewhere), but be warned that I'm going to be better at it than you are. Let's instead focus the main point:  recognizing actors isn't the same as filling in details about those characters/actors or plot points. For those, you need citations. Anything likely to be challenged needs to be cited. It should be apparent at this juncture that I am challenging the inclusion. Find a citation, and we can talk further. Until then, you haven't a leg to stand on. After that citation, you then hav e to prove how naming them is intrinsic to an understanding of the episode. If it isn't, its cruft/useless info/dead weight/bloat that is unnecessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I've never read such bollocks. Let's take it bit by bit. I favor no particular version – so edit-warring repeatedly to to one particular version was merely a coincidence, then, was it? And please, if you want to engage in semantical games, we can do that (elsewhere), but be warned that I'm going to be better at it than you are – unconstructive drivel which you shouldn't have bothered typing. Anything likely to be challenged needs to be cited – just to be clear, are you disputing that those particular Doctors were shown? Or not? ...you haven't a leg to stand on – please explain how this passage was in any way helpful to the discussion. ...you then hav e [sic] to prove how naming them is intrinsic to an understanding of the episode – it happened in the episode. As part of the plot. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 21:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
This will be my last reply to you on this subject, TT. You keep suggesting information that isn't explicitly cited. You favor including information that only someone intimately familiar with DW would know and ask the rest of us to accept that familiarity without citation. Sorry - we don't work like that here. Find a citation that explicitly says what you seem to tink it does, and we are golden - aside from the whole 'unnecessary bits of information' problem. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The version you reverted to more than once includes a statement that Sophie did such-and-such. Do you have an explicit citation to state that it was Sophie? ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 22:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
What part of 'this will be my last reply to you' was unclear, precisely, TT? For the purposes of discussion, Sophie was named within the episode, the names (or the numbering) of the faces appearing were not. To identify them, it relied on your knowledge of the subject. Clear enough? No, don't bother replying; I think you and I are done talking for now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
What part of 'this will be my last reply to you' was unclear, precisely, TT? I understand completely. I am, however, allowed to leave comments on Wikipedia talk-pages even if I know that they will not receive a reply from your good self, as I'm sure you would agree if you weren't attempting to be deliberately disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 07:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It is still not synthesis. Or, to be more accurate, it is not the type of synthesis that we discourage. There is a thinking step needed to connect "image in montage" to "specific Doctor", but it is a highly obvious step for anyone that has seen most of the show; from that aspect, it is an allowable type of synthesis.  The fact that it's not intuitive to someone that is only watching this episode does not change that fact.  Also, where synthesis is to be avoided is when it is creation a new viewpoint or the like that is not supported by sources. Clearly we know the Doctor is transmitting his background to Craig during the headbutt (if not obvious from the story, any one of several reliable recaps could be used to state that this is happening).  Thus, stating they are old incarnations of the Doctor is within that aspect.  This is why I do agree that mention of the absent Doctors is a problem only that it leaves to question if it implies anything.
I also point out that this practice is done for most other articles where older Doctors are only shown but not otherwise mentioned.  Vincent and the Doctor, Human Nature (Doctor Who episode), The Vampires of Venice, and The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who) as examples.  Now, if you're looking for something that sources that, I've found [5] this that does it, but again, it really isn't synthesis that we discourage.  --MASEM (t) 20:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, wrong. Focus on what you are saying, Masem:
"'...it is a highly obvious step for anyone that has seen most of the show..."
We do not write for the people who watch or like the show, any more than we write for people who think the show is completely childish bullocks. We write for the everyday reader - our target audience. For the more intimately-involved of Who fans, we have external links for them to explore/revel in Who-related minutiae to their delight. While I am delighted that you decided to actually go out and seek a source - after your second revert - you are missing the point: it isn't necessary to the article that we identify these chaps. As well, identifying them by their position in the Doctor chain is ABSOLUTELY synthesis - I haven't the foggiest how you can even defend a point of view that suggests otherwise.
If you feel we are at loggerheads at this juncture, please feel free to suggest dispute resolution avenues we can pursue. I have no herd convincing arguments as to why we would allow synthesized cruft into our articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 And let's be clear, the edit that TT reverted adds in information that was not explicitly stated in either the episode or via citation. Adding the names of the actors was bad enough; adding in their position within the Doctor Chain is wholly unacceptable. It is synthesis, ladies/gentlemen - both of you should know this by now.
As well, the edit by Masem wherein he writes that "The Doctor wears the number 11 football jersey as an allusion to him being the Eleventh Doctor, as well as referencing "The Lodger" as the eleventh episode of the series." is synthesis in that it is defining the wearing of a number eleven jersey to be an allusion as well as referencing the episode as the 11th of the season. Perhaps you two gents are too close to this to see it as I am. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I seriously think you're misinterpreting WP's policy on synthesis.  To that end, I've sought to gain more input specifically on whether mentioning who the actors/Doctors are in the montage is OR, at thei OR/N , [6] here.
The reason I source the 11 jersey is that I do believe that without the official mention, it is synthesis to connect 11 to the Eleventh Doctor; that type of fact if it had remained unsourced would have fallen into a fan guide, obviously. But the BBC themselves confirmed it is a double nod to Doctor and episode number , so there is no OR connection needed there.  The identification of the Doctor's faces to his former selves or the other actors is vastly different because there is no room for misinterpretation of what those faces are, in context of everything else around the show.  Even if I take your view that they're not obvious to the viewer of the episode, the montage establishes several shots from other episodes in this and earlier seasons, and clearly all part of the Doctor's history (thus explaining why Craig suddenly is aware of most everything about the Doctor). There is no doubt the Doctor is sharing his memories with Craig, and part of those memories would be his former selves. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Respectfully, my view of synthesis is pretty spot on and reinforced by years of precendent, Masem; I do appreciate your providing a link to the OR/N (I'll be replying there shortly). You stated in your post: "But the BBC themselves confirmed it is a double nod to Doctor and episode number , so there is no OR connection needed". Look at the source you contend supports your position - it says nothing of the kind.
Additionally, you are again missing the point: your knowledge of the show cannot be utilized as substantive proof of anything, Masem; I am unsure of how to express it any clearer without using hand-puppets. We write or the ordinary user, not the fans of the series. We do not need to identify these prior faces, as the info isn't vital to an understanding of the episode. For those Whovians who want more detailed info, we have lots of external sources for them to explore on their own. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Let me put it this way then, as a thought experiment.  We take a person, who has absolutely zero knowledge of DW, and sit him down to watch The Lodger. At this point, the montage of faces is literally just that. But then we provide that user with all the episodes of the old shows.  We're not asking him to become a Whovian, write a novel or thesis on the issue, or the like, but instead ask him "do you recognize these faces?" and give him enough time to figure this out.  I cannot envision a case where that person will not be able to make that identification.  This is because it is a fact plainly obvious from the whole of the primary source: this episode and the older episodes taken as a whole.
Furthermore, it is a fallacy that all information on a page needs to be written on the presumption of no knowledge of the overarching topic.  There's a reason we use wikilinks for nearly every article on a topic to set basic terms, concepts, and the like that someone coming completely blind into the article can backup and read - otherwise, we should be spending most of the article talking about who the Doctor is, what the TARDIS is , what the show "Doctor Who" is, what a television show , what a television is, etc... As TT states, there's a level of common sense that comes into play where we assume a person reading the article has. For this, we can assume a person knows what a TV show is, but not who Doctor Who is (maybe they came from the James Corden article).  Well, one of the first links explains the concept of "Doctor Who" and one early link in the plot explains who the Doctor is.  Because we have provided those links, by the time we hit continuity, it should be expected that the reader has reasonable knowledge to understand these aspects. But we still provide wikilinks as well to fill those out.
It's also a fallacy that we should only have information of use to the general reader on the page.  Now, I'm 100% aware of the issue of making episode pages like fanguides, and I know we don't want to go there, but at the same time, some acknowledgement of the show continuity is perfectly inline with a encyclopedic level approach. This may not be useful for that reader coming from the Corden article, but is quite approach for someone that's a fan of Doctor Who.  The use of "advanced" information that requires more knowledge of a topic than what the article provides is commonplace, as long as it is placed logically, well after the gentler introduction to the topic has been made.  --MASEM (t) 22:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
In re your thought experiment, I think that the person would figure it out, on their own, by utilizing the external links, where the criteria for inclusion of all the excess, trivial information is far less stringent than ours.
Furthermore, we provide links for those who want to expand their knowledge of a subject beyond that given by the article. If someone wants to know all about the Doctor, we have a link to that article in the episodic one; as you noted, we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. However, this is where your logic falls down. You think it is reasonable that a casual reader is going to stop and start in their reading of the article to follow a link. Speaking as the son of two Luddites, as well as net-savvy friends who think my participation (as a published author) is tantamount to charity or masochism (or both), I can speak from some experience when i say that the average person will typically read the article until it gets boring, and maybe follow a link, if its interesting. What they don't want is someone telling them what is important, which is the sort o nonsense that we see in Conservapedia and its ilk all the time. We tender neutral, cited work to the reader, and they make their own choices as to how deep into the subject they want to go. We don't get to make connections based on our familiarity of a subject. Not without explicit, non-synthetic references speaking specifically about the episode. Got one of those? Great. Problem solved. If you don't (and the one you inserted into the article doesn't fit the bill at all), then we cannot use it. It is that simple. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
How does this statement from the linked source: DID YOU SPOT 2? William blooming Hartnell – again! That’s his fourth appearance this season! And Patrick Troughton’s third. Also seen in the info flashes that the Doctor nuts into Craig’s head: Eccleston, Tennant (we think from “Human Nature”), McGann, Tom Baker (we think from “The Deadly Assassin”), Pertwee, plus a Reaper from “Father’s Day”, two Oods and Amy floating outside the TARDIS in “The Beast Below”. It mustn’t have been deemed important enough for Craig to know about the Sixth or Seventh Doctors… not fit the bill as a source?  Mind you, as the OR/N discussion seems to be heading, this assumes the primary source of the series as a whole (including actors) is implicitly given. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's the source you seem to think is the magic bullet here. Could you take a moment and point out where they identify the Doctors by order of incarnation? Because - and this is key - if it isn't given, you cannot fill in the blanks. It's as easy as that. Additionally, could you point out where the importance of this information is intrinsic to an understanding of the article. As you've been told repeatedly, the reader, desiring more information, is free to follow the links. We do not chew the food for them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, saying that you can't identify Tom Baker as the 4th doctor just because the source doesn't phrase it that way is heading beyond useful discussion into tendentious territory.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Seconded. And I agree with Sarek so rarely that this must be right ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 21:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Respectfully, you haven't really shown yourself a neutral party here, SoV. Had you been reading neutrally, you'd know that the Baker mention was an example, used to illustrate a point. Since the flash didn't show all the incarnations of the Doctor (excluding, for instance, Sylvester), we cannot infer anything from that. A source must be explicit; it keeps us honest and our speculative impulses at bay. Maybe you could assume a bit more good faith. Or better yet, use your time to explore a problem from all sides, and not just a preferred one. Thanks in advance,. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Its true that we cannot infer why and reincarnatioins were absent, but we can list those that were.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
So long as they are cited, and it's vital to an understanding of the article (ie. the episode's plot). If it isn't, its unnecessary bloat. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Why does the material about Mr Smith and his thworing of balls keep getting delted? On what grounds should it not be there? Its one sentance (soe hardley over burdens the artciel with text) that relates to all the previous material in that paragraph.
Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between throwing a ball with accuracy, and participating in an athletic competition, which is what the statement on the page is about. In Human Nature, it didn't have to be a cricket ball at all, it could have been a piece of fruit (just like in the first Christmas special), so that's nothing attributing to the Doctor's athletic skill. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think your objection is better to its exclusion then too much detail.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
What happens with this continuity sections (and what happened before on this article) is that if you don't use some type of discrimination, they will become bloated.  Either the fact must be sourced, or blazingly obvious to anyone with access to the primary source. The statement that the Doctor is a skilled athletic player is obvious from this episode or Black Orchid. But not standalone from Human Nature.  --MASEM (t) 17:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
LOL that should have read EXCLUSION, sorry.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

On 14:39, 11 July 2010, Masem added text to this entry stating that the mystery time engine crashed three days earlier. What is the source of this information? As we now know, the design of the mystery time engine's interior is strikingly similar to that discovered in use by the Silence in 2011's episode  "Day of the Moon". Even the Doctor remarked on this. All we know from "The Lodger" is that the emergency hologram states, "The ship has crashed. The crew are dead. A pilot is required." I suggest a revision to the text stating, "The crashed ship, possibly abandoned by  the Silence, has been using a perception filter to disguise itself as part of Craig's house." MrPsion (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think in all the timey-wimey babble of the episode, it is stated (but exactly to what degree I'd need to rewatch) that the TARDIS lands and a blast of air caused by the "crashing" of this ship sends the Doctor off his feet and forces the TARDIS to the time vortex.
But to immediately connect it to the Silence is not proper.  Moffat's said they've reused the set because it was cool looking. Now I grant that in the future (possible the episode where the guest pops up again) revisits that set and we all realize it WAS a Silence ship that crashed, but at this time, we have two locations that are very similar but not logically connected by the fiction itself. So no, we can't add that it was a Silence ship, even the possibility of that. We can talk about its reuse in continuity but that's it. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the ship didn't crash in the episode.  The time ship being activated is what caused the TARDIS to go flying off. DonQuixote (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I just checked, and yeah, the only evidence of time the machine's been there is that it consumed 17 people before the finale. That's not sufficient so I'll fix the time. We still can't mention the silence, of course...--MASEM (t) 02:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Lodger (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 00:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Will get to this review soon. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 00:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
I'm not sure how needed the ref ([1]) is in the main plot section. See Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Citations for more info on this
That's really it. Images and links check out. Great job with the article! Ruby 2010/2013 04:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Craig isn't a companion on this page. How! Surely he classes as a companion in this episode? Especially as he's classed as a companion in "Closing Time". Bestbaggiesfan ✉ 21:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Lodger (Doctor Who). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123194928/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/theatre/article-23482551-details/That%2Bface%2Bto%2Bwatch/article.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/theatre/article-23482551-details/That%2Bface%2Bto%2Bwatch/article.do
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)