Talk:The Girl in the Fireplace

Autons or not?

Better see if we can nip this in the bud a bit. For the Auton theory, we have: (i) doll-like masks, robotic movements and guns, (ii) one holding his/its arm out in a manner similar to an Auton about to fire. That's pretty much it.

On the other hand, (i) it's the bleeding 17th century... I don't think there was any plastic around, (ii) SFX magazine doesn't say Autons, but "elegant androids". That's pretty much it, too.

They could be Autons, I suppose, and if so there's probably a reasonable explanation why they're in the 17th century, but at the moment the probabilities are on the side of "RTD is playing with our minds". :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The Killer Santas in The Christmas Invasion also looked quite auton-like, but weren't. Tim! (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

DWM Christmas Edition says that "tick tock" is connected w/ episode, possibly they're clockwork robots, a la The Clockwise Man.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what the Radio Times cover calls them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What a terrific cover. I'm buying one today! —Whouk (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not buy the rest of the magazine with it :-) --Keycard ^(talk) 07:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Autons were made of animated plastic and not robots of any kind. 76.11.221.55 (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Preview

I added a note to the effect that there was a preview of this episode in Doctor Who Confidential showing the Doctor kissing Madame Pompadour. I apoligise if there was one already. Farewell. MorwenofLossarnarch 15:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Abroad

This is probably one of the very few Doctor Who episodes where the Doctor is on Earth, but not in the UK. Should a note to this effect go in the notes section ? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. How many others are there? Off the top of my head, Dalek (Doctor Who episode), and City of Death were both set abroad. Morwen - Talk 22:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Lots. Marco Polo, The Aztecs, The Reign of Terror, The Romans, The Crusade, The Chase, The Myth Makers, The Massacre of St Bartholomew's Eve, The Gunfighters, The Tenth Planet, The Underwater Menace, The Abominable Snowmen, The Ice Warriors, The Enemy of the World (possibly), The Seeds of Doom, The Masque of Mandragora, City of Death, Arc of Infinity, Warriors of the Deep, Planet of Fire, The Two Doctors, Doctor Who (the television movie), Dalek. To date. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

More than I thought then. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

But still nothing compared to the number of other episodes/serials, even those set on earth. 24.218.198.104 06:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head also:

The Daleks' Master Plan (aren't the Earth scenes in episodes 4 & 5 set in the Americas?; Eqypt)

The Faceless Ones has some scenes in international airspace

(The Ice Warriors is set in the UK isn't it, possibly Scotland)

The Enemy of the World definitely is set outside the UK - in both Australia and central Europe

The Time Monster - Atlantis on Crete

Plus a bundle of stories set on Earth with no clear country specified (100,000 BC, The Seeds of Death, maybe Paradise Towers if it's set on Earth at all). Timrollpickering 22:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Notes

Sophia Myles, who plays Madame de Pompadour, also happens to be Tennant's girlfriend; is this worth mentioning in the notes? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And they're both kids of Scottish clergymen!--Keycard ^(talk) 07:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Reinette

Does the publicity for the episode specfically call Madame De Pompadour "Reinette", since this is a nickname meaning "Little Queen", given to her after becoming the mistress of Louis, rather than her real name, so phrases such as "Young Reinette" are incorrect (as she is a child actor, I'm assuming this is before she became Louis's mistress). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

:Maybe I've misunderstood something here, but she's being played by Sophia Myles isn't she? 26 years old, Tennant's girlfriend. Not a child actor. --DudeGalea 22:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. You're referring to the fact that there's a "Young Reinette" in the cast list. I missed that. I'll get my coat. --DudeGalea 22:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; it seems I got my history a little confused; she got the name at the age of 9, when a fortune teller predicted that she would one day become queen. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter - she calls herself "Reinette" in 1727 (from Madame de Pompadour, she was born on 29 December 1721) early in the episode... Still a screwup if what you say is true.- SoM 00:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Plot Now Completed In Full

Exactly what it says in the title. Took me nearly 3 hours, but I did it. It's probably not the best grammatically and semantic-wise, so it could probably do with other Wikipedians checking it over to make sure it makes sense and is encyclopedic. I would appreciate it if it wasn't completely overhauled though :) -UK-Logician-2006 23:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work. I'm sure a copyedit sweep will be done at some point. Haven't read it in detail yet (waiting to watch the episode myself), but at the moment the only nitpick I have is that you shouldn't use contractions (isn't, can't, etc.) in formal writing. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to ask - do you think it's worth pointing out that the name of the spaceship appears to be the reason the Clockwork Robots wanted Reinette's (and speficially her) brain, or is it safe to say the reader can make that assumption? The_B 13:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd leave it up to the reader. It's pretty obvious anyway. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Doctor Who?"

When Reinette used the phrase "Doctor Who" during the telepathic scan, did she say it as a question or a name? --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 00:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself (BTW - it was after the link was broken). In the episode itself, it's ambigous at best (I thought it was a name too) - but in the readthrough shown on the accompanying Doctor Who Confidential, she says it clearly as a question, so I presume that it was meant as a question in the episode itself as well. - SoM 00:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 01:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Torchwood?

Is this the first episode this season without a Torchwood reference? Or wasn't I paying attention? -- Chuq 04:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice one, except you could say that the burning logs in the fireplace were torched-wood, but it'd be a bit weak. New Earth had no reference, either.--Keycard ^(talk) 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This episode is set before Queen Victoria established the Torchwood Instutute, so that could be the reason for the lack of reference --Jawr256 08:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It could still have been done. Someone could have talked about a visit to Scotland where they stayed with the MacLeishes. "Sir Edward is very proud of Torchwood House but, of course, it's nothing compared to Versailles." Daibhid C 14:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple reason, really - Davies forgot to tell Moffat to stick a reference in until it was too late. Oh, and the ship is from the 51st century, so there could have been a reference from there. Making it up as I go along here. Phil 01:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably unintended visual pun - as there was no punning bi-lingual "Bad Wolf" reference in The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances - and can I make a reference to the Doctor Dances "double entendre" from the talk page for the latter here?

Jackiespeel 21:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Note 15

Is Note #15 (In The Deadly Assassin, the Doctor had a vison of the President of the High Council's death. The Doctor mentioned that Time Lords are telepathic and the Master could have sent him this vision.) relevant to this story? --Jawr256 08:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It was intended to show other examples of Time Lords showing psychic abilities— It should have been combined with note 13, along with 16. I did that, as well as adding Susan's display in The Sensorites.--Sean Black ^(talk) 08:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cast list

Am I correct in thinking that conventionally, we're showing cast credits exactly as on screen? They've always seemed precise to me in the other episodes I've checked. If so, this one needs tweaking. I'll do it. --KJBracey 09:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think's that right - it's certainly been my policy when amending the other episodes of this series. —Whouk (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Note 13

As far as I am aware, Sophia Myles was going out with David Tennant before getting involved with this episode. Can someone verify that they were either going out before making this episode, or started dating as a result of it, after filming? — FireFox (υ|τ) 09:41, 07 May 2006

I added this note. It was discussed in an interview on GMTV. --RichardEast 12:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there an online source to confirm? — FireFox (U T C) 14:03, 07 May '06

The commentary hints at this - Noel Clarke says "look at her eyes : it's almost as if they are actually falling in love here".  :) Morwen - Talk 19:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So, we don't think Noel Clarke was talking about the characters and the quality of the acting here? I was under the same impression as Firefox - that when Sophia Myles was cast, she was already David Tennant's girlfriend. PaulHammond 22:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Another hint comes in Moffat's interview in DWM, he says he planned to charm her with his wit, but made the mistake of giving all his witty lines to Tennant... Daibhid C 20:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Which commentary has Noel Clarke? The DVD commentary is done by Tennant, Myles and Phil Collinson. During this, Tennant stated that he had been introduced briefly to Myles on the set of Foyle's War. She blanked him. She doesn't remember this, but Tennant had not formed a particularly favourable impression of her, so was wary when he heard she had been cast in this episode. Met again just prior to filming one of the scenes in this. However, the Doctor Who Confidential episode shows them together at the script read-through. They must have started dating after shooting this episode. On a completely irrelevant note, I was re-watching some Foyle's War: episode 3. Tennant's role is not very Doctor-like, but he twice had the line "I'm so sorry". Delivery almost identical to that line in this series. Gwinva 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Image choice

While I like the choice of using an image from the Doctor's "mind-meld" with Reinette, I'm not sure about the actual frame that we've got on the page now. To me, Sophia Myles looks a bit like she's about to corpse (i.e., start laughing uncontrollably). Does anyone else agree that the image is slightly odd, or is it just me? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Might have a point - I was trying to get an image of her smiling with her eyes still shut, but I was having problems so I took what I could get at the time. I'll take another pass tomorrow if no-one beats me to it. - SoM 01:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version which to my mind looks more natural, for what it's worth. If it isn't, feel free to revert. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it — nice smile. Good job, Terence. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

so....

any particular reason he didn't just take the TARDIS back to 18th century france? It is a time machine, certianly it's no more of a paradox than him being there in the first place--172.164.110.200 01:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• second thought, probably overthinking this, but some sort of predestination thing? If you go back remove Madame de Pompadour from history, then there is no SS Madame de Pompadour, then there's no 18th century fireplace on a spaceship 2 and half galaxies from earth, no time window, and the doctor never meets her in the first place, and so on--172.165.100.98 02:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be. When they were trying to get through the blocked glass into Versailles, Rose suggested using the TARDIS but the Doctor replied, "We can't use the TARDIS! We're part of events, now!" I have no real idea what that means, though. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The notion that the Doctor (usually) can't use the TARDIS to go back and change an event he's already participating in isn't new to Doctor Who — it at least seems consistent with the presentation of things like the Blinovitch Limitation Effect from the classic series. I had no problem with the notion that once they were interacting with the clockwork robots and trying to stop them from damaging the timeline, the Doctor had to keep "playing by their rules", so to speak. However, I don't entirely see why, once the threat of the robots is resolved, the Doctor can't take the TARDIS back to Versailles at some point between his last meeting with Reinette and her death. As long as he took her back afterwards, and instructed her not to let Louis know anything, and leave the letter for him, I don't see how it would damage the timeline. But maybe that's too many variables to worry about, and it's too risky — after all, travel with the Doctor can be dangerous, and we wouldn't want Madame de P. disappearing before her recorded death. I guess the suggestion is that once the Doctor has met Louis again, after Reinette's death, time "crystallizes" around him and he can't go back to change it. The following scenes certainly seemed to be played as if he wouldn't ever see her again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that sounds about right. The thing with time-travel in drama is that you always need to come up with some reason why you can't just pop back and change stuff, otherwise the whole concept of plot just disappears. Either you invent some rules about where you can and can't go, or you have the time-travel device under the control of some other agency, so the protagonists don't get to choose how it's used (as in Babylon 5). Let's face it, if time travel turns out to be really physically possible, there is simply no way that physics will impose restrictions that work on the level that drama deals with, unless the universe works in a fundamentally totally different way to what we've established so far. I'm happy to accept that the Doctor doesn't live in our world, and the Whoniverse operates under different rules which the Doctor understands. If he says he can't go back in the TARDIS, then he must have a good reason. --DudeGalea 06:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My belief is that the Doctor isn't meant to go back in time to change events in the specific timeline he has already become part of. Mirroring the conversation in TGITF, there is a similar one in Parting of the Ways - ROSE: No, I was just thinking... I mean, obviously you can't, but... you've got a time machine. Why can't you just go back to last week and warn them? DOCTOR [not looking up, and speaking in an absent manner as if the answer were obvious]: Soon as the TARDIS lands, in that second I become part of events. Stuck in the timeline. ROSE: Yeah, thought it'd be something like that... I'd love to hear a coherent explanation of these time travel 'rules' from the writers. On the surface though I agree with DudeGalea that its a plot device to prevent easy fixes to difficult situations, such as rescuing characters who have been written out - didn't Peter Davison's Doctor angrily tell Nyssa and Tegan that he couldn't go back in time and rescue Adric? Yet it was OK for Eccleston's Doctor to rescue Captain Jack from a similar situation, as his death had not already occurred in the Doctor's present timeline. Presumably this was why the same Doctor was pissed off with Rose for rescuing her dad, whose death they had already witnessed in their current timeline, and why the Doctor said in the same episode "My entire planet died. My whole family. Do you think it never occurred to me to go back and save them?" These rules seem to be able to be flaunted when it is really important for the survival of the universe itself or its sentient lifeforms, e.g. the whole Genesis of the Daleks story, witnessing 'Future Earth' in Pyramids of Mars and then going back in time to make sure it didn't happen, and of course in the Three Doctors. It would also explain why the Doctor usually turns up and tries to solve problems as they are when he arrives, rather than taking the easy option and just going back in time to before the problem ever arose, and preventing it occurring in the first place (although we can of course blame the TARDIS's dodgy steering for that too!)--86.27.60.124 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Couple of things

I'm not sure about these two things, so I'm throwing it up here. One note which I'd love to include but not sure that (a) it's encyclopedic and (b) how to include it is Moffat's priceless comment in Doctor Who Confidential that Doctor Who fans will have no problem with this episode but Madame de Pompadour fans will probably regard this story as non-canonical.

The second idea is whether or not indicating the dates of the time windows is at all useful (or non-OR), but we can figure it out from the context of the story: the first window opens in 1727, when Reinette is about 6 years old. The second time the Doctor visits, it is some months later. The third visit is uncertain, but she seems to be in her late teens. The fourth window, in the park, would be just before December 1744, as Madame de Châteauroux is on the verge of death (probably a few months, given the sunny atmosphere). Louis first met Reinette at a dance in 1745 (she was 23), so that's the next window. Rose visits Reinette in 1753, five years before her 37th birthday. The Doctor rides to her rescue on or around that day, in 1758, and he arrives too late to see her before she dies, in 1764.

Anyway, here it is, if anyone wants to take a stab at it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, it's awfully convenient that the Doctor found each of those time windows in exactly the right order. It would have been awfully confusing if, say, he had gone to the 1730s first, been snogged by this woman he's never seen before, then gone through the fireplace to meet her as a little girl. That probably would have been too complex for the 45-minute format, and even more similar to The Time-Traveler's Wife — but interesting! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

well, it could be the androids were opening them one at a time, in order.. of course if you go by that logic, then it's awfully convenient that he got there exactly as they were starting to create the time windows, which, come to think of it, considering how big space is, it's awfully convenient that the TARDIS didn't just materialize in deep space ;)172.144.226.24 02:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Burnt flesh

"They also burnt flesh for heat" No they didn't, why would droids need heat ? The barbecue smell is just because they wired organs into machinery with electric current running through it.

AM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.22.6 (talk • contribs) 04:59, May 11, 2006

That's correct. By the way, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes, like so: ~~~~. The system will automatically turn that into a signature and timestamp, like so: —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about that, actually. I realise androids don't need heat but, by the logic displayed, they may have thought they needed to maintain a comfortable environment for the crew, even as they slaughtered them... Daibhid C 21:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the ship's engines possessed enough energy to punch a hole in the universe. raptor 02:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

'Fantastic'

Is this the first time we have heard the Tenth Doctor say this? I thought we heard it before. It seems he also likes the word. Damiancorrigan 11:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

He said it to Rose at the end of the christmas invasion

Right, so I don't think it is a noteworthy, erm, note. Damiancorrigan 15:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

'Well-meaning' Robots

Are they? Killing people to make their machine work? They are certainly mistaken, but not 'well meaning'.Damiancorrigan 11:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why the whole sentence is "well-meaning but mistaken". Their intentions were to repair the ship (well-meaning), but the way they did it was a mistake (killing people for spare parts). Like the nanogenes: their purpose was to heal people (well-meaning) but the way they did it was a mistake (gas masks and injuries are normal parts of human makeup). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... you know, I think Damian has a point. The nanogenes knew nothing at all about humans, so they used the only data they had and extrapolated (mistakenly) from that. The clockies OTOH clearly knew something of humans, for otherwise they'd have been unable to even start the search for Reinette. It's not really established in the episode exactly how much understanding (factual or moral) they have, but I think it's enough to cast doubt over the use of "well-meaning". I'll have a ponder for a better way of phrasing it, unless someone comes up with a better one first. --DudeGalea 16:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I look at it this way - they may know of humans, but they don't know that harvesting them for spare parts is wrong. It's pretty obvious in their interactions with Reinette, the Doctor, et al. that their prime directive is simply to get spare parts. "There were no parts." "You are compatible." "We are the same." Morality doesn't enter into it. We need spare parts to repair the ship. There are no mechanical spare parts, so, grab the humans', because they work, too. There's no indication they follow the First Law of Robotics or anything. So it still comes down to: good intentions (repair ship), bad implementation (kill for parts). I think the difficulty only comes if you assume that "killing humans as an incidental side-effect of getting the parts is forbbiden" is something that is in their progamming. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

To be well meaning, you need to have morality - these robots are amoral. Machines fixing machines are outside the realm of morality. Damiancorrigan 17:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between a goal that happens to be good and having morality - morality requires the ability to distinguish good from evil. An amoral person can still do something that happens to be good. But we're picking nits here, really; the more important issue is that the two types of machines, nanogenes or clockwork robots, act similarly in both stories in terms of good goals but bad execution. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Tardisode

I've not been keeping track of what people are doing about the tardisodes. Are they to be mentioned with their relevant episode? Its just that I noticed this one is the first one to feature actors who aren't in the episode.Damiancorrigan 11:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

They're detailed at length in TARDISODE. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 11:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't the TARDISODE for Tooth and Claw have an old man in it (albeit briefly) who wasn't in the main episode? --DudeGalea 14:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes - he's mentioned in the precis on TARDISODE. —Whouk (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Who copied whom?

Did David Tennant's website copy wikipedia without crediting us, or did someone lift the episode summary from there and put it here? PaulHammond 19:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

http://tennant05.tripod.com/main/id72.html

They lifted. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It'd be nice if they credited Wikipedia - I noticed all the plot summaries on that site are lifts from here, and I *know* Tooth_and_Claw was re-written by you, because I logged on here while you were doing the re-write. I guess, this is a site created by a David Tennant fan rather than his official information site. PaulHammond 09:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Under the terms of the GFDL they are obliged to, but it's really one of those things... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it does look like his agents, not some fan. Despite being on Tripod. But here is the standard GFDL violation letter for any authors who care to notify them of their non-compliance. --Dhartung | Talk 17:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This message in particular is very useful if someone who actually contributed to the article wants to complain. It's worth doing it, the GDFL is all we have at the moment to protect our contributions. --Kwekubo 19:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've sent that particular letter off. Let's see if it does anything. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the webmasters replied - apparently some fan sent the synopses in to them, and they were unaware of their provenance. They have since removed them (the synopsis for The Girl in the Fireplace has been replaced by the OG version, with an acknowledgement to them). Sorted, I guess, although I wonder why they didn't just use ours and acknowledge Wikipedia. Ah well. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

August 1727

In the first scene where the Doctor meets Reinette, he says that August 1727 wasn't very good and she should stay indoors. Anyone have any ideas whether he's talking about anything in particular? --Harris 16:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that anyone can figure out so far. People have been talking about this on OG but as far as I can tell, nothing happened in August 1727. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine it's any more intended to be a particular event than the bit in the TV movie when the Doctor tells Chang Lee not to be in San Francisco the following Christmas. —Whouk (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Played the harp

My note was merely the fact he played a harp and the last time he was seen doing so was in The Five Doctors. Is my persistant source of this information being just too pushy on me then? :p Phil 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know - the way the note was phrased seemed to imply it was deliberate (which it didn't seem to be). Besides, even Moffat said that it was something only sad fans like himself would notice - and for the record, I thought the exact same thing, so that's me too! - and so it seems to me that it's a bit too trivial. It's like saying, "The last time the TARDIS materialised inside a spaceship was in The Parting of the Ways." It's not that remarkable. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who can walk past a harp without twanging a few strings, probably has no soul. --Ndaisley (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

External links

If anyone's been watching the other pages, I've been going through the serials rearranging the External links in order to make them more orderly or otherwise include the appropriate usual (Outpost Gallifrey/DWRG reviews, &c) when originally there was non.

I'm simply wondering what would be the case for this one since it seems to deviate from the lists encountered (aside from Tooth and Claw) since it seems more akin to some of the References segments I've met with elsewhere. Input? DrWho42 06:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm, I'll just do what I did unto the Tooth and Claw (Doctor Who) article. DrWho42 02:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikification

OK, first off: absolutely no offence is meant by this post, and I hope I'm not angering anybody. Honest. Right then: It's pretty clear that a dedicated Wikipedian known as Khaosworks is a guardian of all these Doctor Who pages, but I just wanted to question the wholesale undoing of my edits on this article. Most of the reversions (dates, for instance) are fair enough, but it feels a bit like a knee-jerk reaction and not really in the contributory spirit of Wikipedia, so I'm seeking comments on a couple of these edits.

1. The reason why is poor grammar. The correct phrasing is reason that. Hence my edit.

2. They may not be described as androids on screen, but they are androids. Restricting the article to specific words used on screen only seems restrictive and results in repetitive sentences (only 'clockwork creatures' and the gender-biased 'clockwork men').

3. There's no need to link anything from anywhere, but linking 'common words' (such as France) enriches the article in my view, providing more opportunity to investigate the text. No problem with removing links to 'clock' or 'fireplace' if we must, but I feel that links to some of these - galaxy, hearse, courtesan, France and Royal Court as a specific link to explain 'court' - are helpful (especially the last) in setting the narrative in context. Not everything in the article is familiar to all its readers. Many, if not all, of these links would have conformed to WP:CONTEXT. See the notes on 'price' and 'goods' [[1]].

4. Verbatim quotes aren't needed, but I felt that they give a more dynamic feel to a potential dense synopsis, particularly when the text is virtually word-for-word anyway.

5. I don't believe that the phrase set foot is any less valid than step foot, which I have never come across. Step foot may well be a perfectly good idiom, but I feel as though I've been flamed - I don't understand the reason for reverting this at all, unless it's just some kind of protective overreaction.

I fully respect anybody's right to revert my changes. But I do feel that many of these warrant a bit of acceptance or at least discussion before simply being reverted as though I've vandalised an article, when I heartily meant to improve it (and, in my view, did so, modestly). I love Doctor Who, and hoped to make the article more accessible, but I feel as though I've trespassed on somebody else's fiercely-guarded territory. Any thoughts? Or should I just tend to my user page and leave the real Wikipedians to it? Peeper 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I grant that much of this is a question of taste - the problem I basically have with overlinking is that it also makes the reader look like an idiot, and many of them are not contextual but actually tantamount to dictionary definitions rather than specific links in context. You don't need galaxy explained. You don't need hearse explained. At the very least, the links don't really go any much further in clarifying the article. You'll note that I retained some of those edits where they were (in my view, of course) actually relevant, like 18th century France, and in one case you reverted "ion storm" when the link I piped it to ("solar wind") was actually more specific.

Also, in formal writing I was always taught to avoid verbatim quoting when it's not necessary because it makes it look more, well, formal. The "It's so realistic!" line is a throwaway gag which is supposed to highlight Mickey's naivete and add to the "Mickey the idiot" image, so it's not particularly necessary nor does it make sense in the summary given the lack of context (and explaining the joke would take the wind out of its sails), so there's very little use for it in the end. As for "pick a star — any star" as opposed to "pick a star", it's superfluous. The summaries in general are long enough as they are without the need to pad it out further.

The androids are referred to as clockwork androids in the synopsis but I avoid that in the summary: this is again a matter of taste; I was attempting to hew to on-screen as much as possible without sacrificing clarity. That being said, this is not something I feel particularly strongly about.

"Set foot" and "reason that" in specific are one of those edits that got lost in the shuffle, I think. I have no real problems with those two in specific (and in any case, to remove the problem, I'm rephrasing them, especially since "reason why" is sort of redundant). Sorry about that. But it wasn't a blind revert, despite what you may think. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Great. Fair enough,and thanks for a measured response. Since you agree that it is a matter of taste, I'm going to make some of the edits again, bearing in mind what you say. I agree with you on some points (ion storm, of course, sorry I didn't finish the job there) but I'm afraid I respectfully disagree with you on others. Principally I have a problem with your assumptions about the readership: Wikipedia must be inclusive (we must assume that the reader is unfamiliar with the subject - not, of course, that they are 'an idiot') and I am going to reinstate some of the links which I think will aid context. I'm also not clear what you mean about verbatim quoting and formality; I don't see a relationship. I disagree about what Mickey's comment says about him (any interpretation is a matter of individual perception, but a quote is a quote is a quote) and I also felt it helped the tone to make 'pick a star' into a quote - the phrase 'to pick a star' sits quite badly with the tone of the rest of the text on its own, but as a quotation it fits right in. (Besides, these were the Doctor's last words to Mme de Pompadour, so I think it's a nice moment to include.) Similarly, if style is important, then reinstating 'androids' to remove repetition is certainly an improvement. You get the idea - feel free to edit again but I would appreciate it if edits were reverted for well-thought-out, substantive reasons rather than things you don't feel strongly about. Wikipedia remains a joint effort. Peeper 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Some is a matter of taste; some I do feel something about (strongly is too harsh a word - let's just say I have a difficulty with it). And pretty much everything I edit has a reason which I place in the edit summary unless it's obvious why I'm doing it. As to the wikifying: I do have a problem with overlinking, especially when it comes down to providing what essentially are dictionary definitions rather than things that make sense in context. One of the things that WP:CONTEXT talks about is "plain English words", of which clock, hearse, galaxy and so on are (they aren't technical terms). Also, note that it goes on to talk about "Major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully", so there should at least be some link. Also, a quote without context is meaningless. What does it all mean? What's the quote for, what does information does it add to Mickey's statement there? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've left out Mickey's quote. I included links to what I think are less everyday words, which may enlighten the reader to the significance of what is being written about. Her particular relationship with Louis is important as it is referred to in the plot; similarly,the fact that the carriage carrying her to Versailles is in fact a hearse and not an ordinary carriage brings with it a realisation that she is dead. This is why I have included these. Nebula I have added because not everybody is an astrophysicist or a sci-fi fan. Please don't assume that anything you do is 'obvious': the world is a very diverse place.

Regarding quotes, in some instances the text already mirrored the episode dialogue so all I've done is added quotation marks which give the text more immediacy, reducing the feeling of a long, narrative description.

Lastly, the point on which I feel most strongly is your persistent use of the term 'clockwork men' as a collective noun. No gender is ascribed to the androids themselves; some of them are disguised as women, and you describe one as such, so it is clearly inappropriate to describe them collectively as 'men'. As I've said before, I believe in inclusivity. If a change is minor, let it stand. This is not a way to encourage contributors to Wikipedia. This is a community; please remember this.Peeper 16:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Awards section?

I thought it could be a good idea to put in a section for awards, since it was nominated for a Nebula and won a Hugo. Those are pretty major awards, but they're hidden away in the prodution notes. I'll let someone who knows something about formatting it properly do it though. --KatjaKat 20:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. DonQuixote 03:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary glosses over important details, and has at least one factual error

Why need we keep the word count down to 500? The style guide says 15 words per minute which would be more like 675 words. I really think that leaving out any mention of the broken clock is a big mistake. They almost named the episode "the Broken Clock." Not only does the broken clock help set the mood of dread, but it also showcases the Doctor using deduction rather than luck. The summary as-is doesn't give you any impression that the Doctor had any reason to be searching the room. In fact, the Doctor finds a ticking humanoid under the bed because he is looking for one--he deduces that there is a man-sized ticking something in the room from the broken clock and the resonance of the ticking.

Also, the phrase "the Doctor pursues the creature back through the time window" is simply incorrect. By no stretch could the creature be construed as running away from the Doctor. He was attacking the Doctor. I have corrected this without adding to the word count, replacing "pursues" with "tricks." Please do not revert this, the previous version is just plain erroneous.

While I'm sure that my re-write was too wordy, the current version does not give the reader any clue why anything happens. Why does the creature teleport away? The Doctor has frozen him with the ship's fire-extenguisher and is threatening to disassemble him--but the reader is given no clue. Can we give some thought to finding middle ground? A version less wordy than mine, but that does not gloss over details that are vital to understanding the story?

75.73.17.57 (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Sergei

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 21, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Not completely; e.g. the first sentence does not even mention the number of the episode.

2. Factually accurate?: Fail; The Plot section has no references at all (please note that I recognize the difficulty of finding resources for this section)

3. Broad in coverage?: Questionable; e.g. The episode must relate more to other the Doctor Who episodes.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Fail, one image only used with the infobox

A bit of working is required to get this article into shape.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 15:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:GAR

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was listed. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 19:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Character Self-Awareness

I just read a little snippit in the Reception section of the article: "The review was not without criticism, however, with the writer annoyed by the "self-awareness" of the characters to the fact that they are in a TV show." When do the characters ever say or demonstrate their awareness that they are characters in a TV show??? Did I miss something? If they did make reference to themselves being on TV, it would COMPLETELY destroy my enjoyment of the show. ~BRENT NOT MEMBER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.121.93 (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh what nonsense. I've watched the Terry Wogan comedies for years, and in my experience what makes this comic creation work so well is his awareness that he is a character on TV played by an only slightly qualified amateur actor of the same name. --TS 02:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Music

I had assumed that the sad piano dirge that plays during the death scene was a Murray Gold composition, but watching the Jean-Pierre Jeunet film Amélie just now I heard what I fancied was the same piece (at around 30-40 minutes). --TS 02:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Girl in the Fireplace. 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/20070322221159/http://www.sfwa.org/awards/2007/NebFinal2006.html to http://www.sfwa.org/awards/2007/NebFinal2006.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Girl in the Fireplace. 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/20080307181620/http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/fireplace-commentary.mp3 to http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/fireplace-commentary.mp3

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Arthur

Did The Doctor find Arthur on the ship? I had the impression he rescued him from a cruel human in eighteenth century France. Qlangley (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)