Talk:The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use images

For a previous discussion of the use of Fair Use images see Talk:Planet_of_the_Dead#Fair_use_image? Edgepedia (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded a JPG version of the screenshot used on this page, because at 65k the scaled PNG currently being used is a waste of bandwidth - but when scaled, it does come out overly sharp, and this caused such consternation over at the page for John Locke (Lost) that I'd wait and discuss before changing over. Here's a comparison (PNG - JPG):

275px 275px

65k v. 13k... think of the tubes! David (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(Non-free images Images cannot be used on talk pages) --MASEM (t) 22:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Face tendril

I have read somewhere that the main villain for this episode is called a "Face tendril", but I can't find that anywhere. Could someone help me with a source ? Thanks. Hektor (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the interview with Matt Smith and Karen Gillan in Doctor Who Magazine #417. 86.170.161.222 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

April 3rd?

The trailer states "Easter 2010", nothing is said about a day. Easter is a weekend long holiday stretching from Good Friday through to Easter Monday, four possible days to choose from. Although it is likely that Saturday is the target day, we cannot assume that they will choose this day, as episodes have aired on days other than that, especially over national holidays. Unless some has a RELIABLE source for the 4th, we must use "Easter 2010" until further information is released by the BBC. magnius (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Have a look. Hektor (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is being discussed here List_of_Doctor_Who_serials#April_3rd.3F. Edgepedia (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Caitlin Blackwood?

This actress is credited as 'Young Amy' in the article, with DWM 418 as the reference. I can't seem to find her listed in there; she's certainly not mentioned in the article on page 5 with the other actor names and episode names.

Could someone clarify, as this may count as unreferenced otherwise... Radagast (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In Confidential, the two actresses explain that they are cousins, although they had never met until they took part in the production. --TS 04:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

BBC air date

The March 14 2010 edition of the Daily Star Sunday features an article at the base of the left-hand column of page 4 discussing the new series, claiming it starts airing on April 3. Is said newspaper a reliable source? If so, this information concerns this article and also Doctor Who (2010 series) and List of Doctor Who serials. Sadly, I have not yet found an online copy of this article.90.206.183.236 (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not a reliable source. What bugs me though is why the wikipedia community still denies doctor who will premier april 3 2010 at 6:25. The BBC have even shown it to be that date. A refference from the BBC site even showed it was that time! WHAT MORE DO THEY WANT? Goku1st (talk • contribs) 21:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link now? If it was only shown briefly and then taken down perhaps it's all been changed? Edgepedia (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Radio Times

The radio times has released some of the cast list, and with Radio Times being close to Doctor Who, its a reliable source.

http://www.radiotimes.com/ListingsServlet?event=10&channelId=92&programmeId=113233811&jspLocation=/jsp/prog_details_fullpage.jsp

Could somebody add these? 89.241.86.17 (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Errors section?

In the casting section Olivia Colman's name is incorrectly spelt as Coleman, could we add an errors section with this info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepmix (talk • contribs) 23:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that the BBC mis-spelt it in the programme, or an editor mis-spelt it on Wikipedia? Because the former may warrant a mention (though not a section of its own!); the latter definitely does not. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 14:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, her name was clearly misspelt in the castlist on the programme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepmix (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hospital

Talking of similarities, the hospital has (has for me) a similarity with the hospital the third doctor is taken in in Spearheads from space. Does anybody agree? Or disagree? Well, I know it#s not the same, and maybe it#s not important or even interesting at all, but I want to mention it.--92.227.40.87 (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC) (sry, no account)

It's a british hospital, they all look the same inside! GedUK  09:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

From the outside, not from the inside :-)--92.227.40.87 (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. It made me look it up, they are definitely not the same building, but it is interesting that there was a similar hospital involved in the first episode of the 3rd doctor. 173.172.249.194 (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the 3rd doctor stole his outfit from that hospital, and I thought I saw his velvet coat in the pile of clothes the 11th doctor was going through. It may be worth mentioning in the continuity section. 173.172.249.194 (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Shadow Proclamation

In the article we have "mentioned in series four". In fact it was first mentioned in the first episode of the ninth doctor's era. Should this be changed to something like: "Mentioned since series one and first seen in series four" (or along those lines)?

Regards,
Thetictocmonkey 12:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to U-Mos for making the edit! Thetictocmonkey 12:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Silence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've only just watched this, so perhaps I am imagining things here. Prisoner Zero says, "the silence will fall" and I remember that Stephen Moffat also did the Silence in the Library episode from the last series. Could this possibly be related? Does the phrase "the silence will fall", or something similar, appear in that episode? Whether it is related or not, I'm guessing that 'the silence' will be a theme through this series. Jrmh (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No such line was used in Silence in the Library. It would appear that this is some form of arc or foreshadowing of a future story, but we cannot say that in the article until there is proof. U-Mos (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wiki page on River Song from "Silence in the Library" says she will be returning for two episodes, "The Time of Angels" and "Flesh and Stone" in 2010, so Who knows. I guess we'll have to wait & see. Swampy 138.130.158.92 (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 16:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Information references

Are all the references for the cast, writers and episode name still needed now the episode has aired? Removing them would surely make the article tidier, and all the info can be found in the episode and credits. Shokuwarrior (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. U-Mos (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought so, but the last time I removed them, someone put them back up, which was annoying Shokuwarrior (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't half as annoying as you uploading over 20 copyright images and not even apologising – if I may say so. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

nah, go for it, I am stupid, but I cant see what the difference is between the screenshots I'm uploading and, for example, the one currently in use in the article. so i am sorry, but back on topic to this article...Shokuwarrior (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Credits have been updated as per the episode. Peter Moyles as "Patient" was not credited if he did appear, so has been left out. U-Mos (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Foreshadowing

A plot arc is being set up. When "the pandoracle is opened", "silence will fall." This should be covered. --TS 22:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Off you go, then. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 22:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Pandorica, not the pandoracle. Hektor (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hektor.

Thanks, TreasuryTag. I'd be bold if I knew what to write.

I suppose I'd add a bit somewhere (probably not in Plot, most likely in Continuity), about Prisoner Zero's final words. --TS 22:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

also the crack in the wall. the same line pattern was seen on one of the screen on the tardis control pane before the Dr changed the reading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.197.41 (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My daughter pointed that out to me, too. She has an excellent eye for detail.

This strikes me as one instance where images would help. Can somebody with good video software capture both images? One image, a crack in the wall, occurs in the first few minutes, after the breakfast scene. The other is in the final TARDIS scene, on a video screen of some sort. --TS 01:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Confidential

In the Doctor Who Confidential associated with this episode, Moffat explains that the aftermath of her first encounter with The Doctor has made Amy very sceptical and untrusting. I've paraphrased Moffat a bit on this. Do please, if you're going to watch Confidential, look out for this and fill on the details. --TS 00:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Moore

Patrick Moore is an amateur astronomer. In many fields, the word "amateur" means "not very good" or "unprofessional". Not so in astronomy. Amateur astronomers have discovered many important astronomical features, and Moore himself is considered a world expert on the moon. I have restored the designation which somebody had removed. --TS 03:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible continuity error - date of episode setting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Assuming Amy's wedding day is set in current day (i.e 2010) then the Doctor crashed the Tardis 14 years previously - 1996. If the main bulk of the story is set in 2010 (cf mobile phones, laptops, Patrick Moore) then Amy's wedding date is set in 2012, and the Tardis crashed in 1998.

However, in the shots of the Tardis crashing over London, we see the London Eye, clearly dating the crash post 1999.

82.0.90.78 (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)CM

On the assumption that this is intended as a work of fantasy fiction rather than documentary, I don't see how that matters. I seem to recall that Rose managed to mislay an entire year, and Tony Blair has made intermittent appearances as Prime Minister. Also, there are no flying aircraft carriers. Any resemblance between the world of Doctor Who and reality can be taken as coincidental. TS 11:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't a fan-site. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 11:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

More interesting is the badge of Rory, shown in close up, which has been created in 1990... He looks pretty young for a guy who got his nurse badge in 1990. Hektor (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There's actually a discussion about this on GB. The technology is definitely standard for 2008, save for Rory's badge. DWA apparently confirms the bulk of the episode to take place in 2008 too. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the inconsistencies I think we can assume that the writers and director did not intend the dating of this episode to be important. If they had they could easil;y have taken the care to avoid errors like the London eye. It think we should not worry about it. Although, we may have seen him go by the London eye when he was crashing but who says the TARDIS crashed only in space and not in time? He could have passed the London eye in space AND time. Thetictocmonkey 15:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This is true, and indeed the materialisation sound effect was heard before the crash in Amelia's garden. But it's all OR, and we're not a forum or a fan page, so let's leave that here. U-Mos (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well said!(Sorry to edit after the achiving) Thetictocmonkey 16:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:OR issues in continuity section

If user Demarz or anyone else has any questions about this, ask them here. Any further edit warring will be reported. U-Mos (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm very confused... I spotted a line in Eleventh Hour which was a direct quote from Castrovalva. I was pretty pleased to have spotted this, and thought I'd add it to the Wiki page for Eleventh Hour. I'd never actually added anything to Wiki before, and tried to write carefully, and worked out how to tag certain words too. I was very disappointed to re-visit the page the following day to find that my submission had been removed. As yet, I'm still not entirely sure why, as it is similar in nature to other posts. The reason given was simply 'original research' - which appears no different to people spotting something in Forest of the Dead for example - how is that not original research also?

I personally believe that my submission is highly relevant, and I know for a fact that it is accurate. It's appears that the writer has deliberately written certain lines and scenes into the episode as a nod to the 'classic series'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demarz (talk • contribs) 16:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've already been directed to our policy on original research, and if you read it, it's very clear.

Basically, in order to say that the writer was deliberately referencing the line in "Castrovalva" would require a reliable source. If you're not asserting a deliberate reference, then the point is irrelevant (the word "the" was also used in New Earth, but we don't point that out, because they're entirely coincidental). ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've just deleted a bunch of unsourced crap from the main page, which really falls into the same OR bracket as what Demarz is talking about. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 16:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel I should point out Demarz had violated WP:3RR here, I see no need to report you but be careful in future. U-Mos (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, he hasn't broken it (yet). He only reverted – as opposed to inserting information initially – three times. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 16:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually he had, the first was a revert of a paragraph I removed. But anyway. I've re-added a few of the parts you removed with improvements as they weren't ambiguous, although the finger snapping may be a bit iffy in terms of warranting a mention so I wouldn't argue that being removed again. U-Mos (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a little vague now - either it's all OR or none of it is, right? No offense intended whatsoever here, but is it really fair that your interpretation of OR is ok, but mine isn't? Seriously, I've checked the Castrovalva thing with the DVD. It is exactly the same quote. This is all becoming very subjective... Treasury - your thoughts on the re-introduction of the "unsourced cr*p"..? Demarz (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Treasury Tag... I came here with very good intentions - not sure I appreciate the perceived sarcasm about the word "the". In my opinion, it is deliberate as there were so many other references to previous stories - including a Tom Baker quote, but as I don't have the exact quote, or a means to verify it, I haven't added it. I see you've now deleted the other questionable observations. I think they were all interesting points - any chance it could be put under a section other than continuity?

On another note, I didn't actually write that it was "deliberating referencing" anything. It was intended as an interesting (in my opinion) observation. And despite me saying it was my first wiki submission you've not actually offered me a word of thanks or encouragement - I genuinely thought I was making a helpful addition. Remember: assume good faith / be welcoming. Saying that you've removed "unsourced cr*p" is very poor manners in my opinion - remember, these are people who love Doctor Who who have added things they've spotted with good intentions of sharing their knowledge.

U-Mos - many thanks for your patience... no offence taken, tried to contact you directly, but couldn't work out how to, which is why I ended up generating messages in the history section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demarz (talk • contribs) 16:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't sarcasm about the word "the", it was a simple example. Try assuming that not everyone's out to get you next time. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 22:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In most cases I agree that continuity strays too far into OR. I have removed the finger snapping paragraph on second thoughts, as it is not relevant to this article. Ditto TARDIS key glowing, that wasn't a direct enough reference. As for the others, I will try and clarify why I think they're good enough. The flashbacks are just flashbacks, there's no ambiguity of a reference or anything, they're literally images from previous episodes. IIRC this is done in other articles, such as The Next Doctor and The Mind of Evil. "Wibbly wobbly timey wimey" is a direct reference to an earlier line, for instance the "perfect impersonation of yourself" line is not at all clear as a reference, and nor is the use of the words "fantastic", "what" or "you've had some cowboys in here" as were previously in the article. They would need a source to be included. And the shadow proclomation is specifically mentioned by name, there's no ambiguity in that reference. U-Mos (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there not another section we could add for the more ambiguous comments? I also found the stuff you've now deleted about the key etc to be relevant and interesting. Does it even matter if it's deliberate? I personally don't see the point in editing other people's contributions unless they are 1) Factually incorrect, 2) suffer from poor spelling or grammar, 3) are very obviously subjective or one's own interpretation. (ps - I'm a very nice person and am typing this with a friendly tone in my head!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demarz (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, it's not about the section but what can be included in wikipedia. Personally I agree with you, these things are the most interesting things that could be in the article and if they are true (as indeed the TARDIS glowing, and the regeneration effects, and stealing clothes from a hospital are) I don't see why they shouldn't be there. But it's against WP:SYNTHESIS. There were big discussions of this during series 4 of Doctor Who, most memorably here [1], and it is a very difficult one. U-Mos (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the explanation - must drive you mad if this is a regular problem! I'm glad to know now that the issue is a matter of following the Wiki rules, rather than a matter of it being your/my interpretation. In all honesty, I believed you were being rather arrogant by deleting my little observation, but I can now see where you were coming from. As you say, it is a shame that this sort of stuff is considered to contradict the OR rules... seems crazy when a person can know they are right about something (ie having evidence) and yet it can't be added. Apparently there's a direct quote from Robot (I assume you would know this is Tom's first story, just as Castrovalva was PD's..!) coincidence...? I think not! LOL! All the best to you anyway...! Demarz (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I was watching the first episode of the ninth Doctor and noticed that it starts with a pan from the moon to the Earth, zooming into England. This also occurs with David Tennant's first episode and now Matt Smith's, all looking very similar. Just wondering if it should be mentioned.--Nikki2434 (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wibbly Wobbly

ISTR the wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey line was also used in the special where 10 meets 5. Is that correct ? Salsa man (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

New TARDIS design

Contrary to this repeated edit, the new exterior design was seen throughout the episode, not just at the end. Also, this is not a "new TARDIS", but the same TARDIS, remodelled. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

But surely the new exterior design is worthy of mention regardless of how often it is seen in this episode. It is seen for the first time in this episode. That is a continuity point of interest in the same way that the new interior is. - Thetictocmonkey 12:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It may well be worthy of mention; but to say "the end of the episode also marks the first appearance of the new TARDIS' … exterior design" is a double lie. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

True, it is not a new TARDIS. Someone snuck an incorrect apostrophe in there. I will fix that now. Otherwise the current revision is fine, as per above it is the fact that the new desgins debut in this episode that is important. To explain my earlier reversion, the new exterior is first seen at the end of the episode, specifically just after the Atraxi leaves Earth and the Doctor is alerted to the TARDIS' completion by the glowing key. Please check your facts before acting in such an adamant way. U-Mos (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There was no "stray apostrophe". Here's the edit where you changed the meaning. The exterior is not first seen at the end of the episode. What do you think is in the opening credits? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, right you are. But what exactly are you trying to prove by pointing out a grammatical error that no longer exists in the article, that you could easily have fixed yourself? I won't respond to your other point because it is clear you will only use it as a springboard to a totally pointless argument. Good day. U-Mos (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Lean

I like the new lean continuity section. That was a good call. How about slimming down the plot, too? The basic elements are easily covered: a regenerated Time Lord eats fish custard, keeps turning up late, saves the world with a mobile phone and a laptop, dresses up like Bamber Gascoigne and elopes with a pretty redhead.

Seriously, though, I do think it could do with a trimming. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we might reasonably expect an influx of, er, less well-directed edits within a few days of the episode being aired, and once this has died down, editors with more experience of our policies and guidelines might step in and turn the shed into a mansion. Rodhullandemu 00:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"And look at me, I'm wearing a vegetable!" (Brave choice, celery....) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Worryingly, the plot seems to be getting longer and longer. Before long we could sell it as a novel version of the episode!!!! Thetictocmonkey 09:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

MOS:TV recommends 200 to 500 words for the plot summary of a single episode. Not sure how many we have here, but I would say too many. anemoneprojectors talk 12:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

At the moment it's close to 1200 words. It could do with being half of that length. Edgepedia (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How many poles?

"Lots of Plantes have a north" (The ninth doctor in "Rose") and now, #11, "A planet, two poles...". I wonder if there will be someday an explanation, e.g. are there some planets without a north or with more or less than two poles?--78.52.59.148 (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Greetings MR

North and South poles are somewhat variable anyway, and it is important to distinguish between magnetic and geographical poles at least. Last I read, Earth has about eight possible "poles". Planets without a metallic core will not possess magnetic poles, only geographical poles, and even they are somewhat relative in definition. However, expecting scientific rigour in a sci-fi programme is perhaps expecting too much. Rodhullandemu 23:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the details, but I don't wanted to find something to criticise, but to ask. Yes, it's obviously, that you can define two poles at the "end" of the rotating axis, but what makes #9 say:"Lots of plantes..." and not "every planet" and #11 "planet this size, two poles...20 minutes"? Just a confuse-a-cat (with thanks to Monty Python)? MR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.59.148 (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot 2.0

Here's a new start on the plot.

I'm talking about the style, and the intention is to get away from the "blow by blow" account.

Newly regenerated, his TARDIS damaged, the Doctor falls to earth in the garden of a young orphan girl called Amelia. After a comic introduction to the two characters, the Doctor investigates a mysterious crack in Amelia's bedroom wall, which he deduces is a fissure in time and space, on the other side of which is a prison. Voices from the crack refer to an escaped "Prisoner Zero"...

And so on. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Noticing something strange in the corner of his eye, the Doctor is about to say something when the TARDIS rings the Cloister Bell to signal that its engines arid overheating, and he has to take it on a short trip to dissipate the heat, "just five minutes", he promises the little girl.

When the Doctor returns, unknown to him, fully twelve years have passed, and he is caught and handcuffed by a now grown up Amelia (Amy) who uses her kissogram outfit to pose as a real police officer.

Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's good, please go on. As I've pointed out in another talk page, sometimes you just feel that the only way to trim/copyedit plots is to force a rewrite. DonQuixote (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Homage to previous regenerations

I just saw the episode (we Americans are on a delay through BBC America, at least for broadcast). In addition to the golden exhalations of "The Christmas Invasion", I spotted two further moments that pay homage to previous rengerations, which I have added to the article. (1) The TARDIS lands on its side, as in "Castrovalva", (2) The Doctor steals his new outfit from a hospital, as in "Spearhead from Space". Steven Moffat, being the great writer and fan that he is, could very well have intentionally referenced every regeneration story subtly. However, I can't spot any additional moments that so clearly make reference. I could say that the Doctor is "shabby" like Patrick Troughton in "Power of the Daleks", or "the Doctor bumps his head, there are weird eyes, someone in disguise, and a perky redhead" like "Time and the Rani", but I think that's a bit of a stretch. I'm not sure I'd count the cricket bat either. Are there other clear references to previous regeneration stories in the episode? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

ABC two week delay

The show is being broadcast only two weeks after it airs in Britain, due to the fact it is one of the ABC's most successful shows. I wouldn't attribute cause without citing a source. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile in the TARDIS

The series 5 DVD box set (region 1, but I assume other regions as well) includes a "Meanwhile in the TARDIS" scene that occurs between this episode and "The Beast Below". Has there been any discussion of how this scene (and a similar one for "Flesh and Stone") should be documented on WP? EJSawyer (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

SEP field reference

Do I get it wrong or this episode has a reference to hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, relating to somebody else's problem field. They try to surprise the field by looking with corners of their eye. Check the following quote:

An SEP is something we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let us see, because we think that it's somebody else's problem.... The brain just edits it out, it's like a blind spot. If you look at it directly you won't see it unless you know precisely what it is. Your only hope is to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye.

The technology required to actually make something invisible is so complex and unreliable that it isn't worth the bother. The "Somebody Else's Problem field" is much simpler and more effective, and "can be run for over a hundred years on a single torch battery."

Shouldn't this be in outside references section?

Cemkalyoncu (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? Otherwise, we can't add it to the article. Regards SoWhy 20:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I couldnt find any reliable source. May be confidentials have something in it. However, connection is very obvious. Cemkalyoncu (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the Doctor says that the room was protected by a Perception filter. This is a technology referred to on several occasions in Doctor Who; although it shares many of the same qualities as (and may well have been inspired by) the SEP, you can't really call it a direct reference. EJSawyer (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)