# Talk:The Fires of Pompeii

Nothing will display after the first section. I've got to go out now, but could someone look at it... like the reflist, for example? Cheers! —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This happend to me once, not sure how I stopped it, sorry.--Wiggs (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed :) Will (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; out of interest, what was it? —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
See diff; an unterminated named ref tag.  — Edokter • Talk •  22:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Well-spotted ;-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 22:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The new picture is a lovely image of eruption of Pompeii, but it doesn't really illustrate the feel and look of the episode.--Wiggs (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite. It's crap and I've deleted it. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"A previous Big Finish audio storyline, The Fires of Vulcan (featuring the Seventh Doctor and Mel) shares the same historical setting and event, though the canocity of the audios is uncertain."
Two points to make, really: (1) It's pretty well established that the TV series doesn't assume any canonicity from non-TV media. (2) With the writing for Doctor Who being so poor (and the science so laughably bad) in the TV series, the question is probably more one of whether the TV series can be considered canon ;-).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.80.62 (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 
Personally I consider TV to take precedence over audios, and audios over the books and comics. If a novel shares its setting with a TV story (as Human Nature definitely does, and as you say The Fires of Vulcan/Fires of Pompeii) then the book is confirmed non-canonical. Contradictions are the reason that officially, canonicity for non-TV media is doubtful. Digifiend (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Edokter, but where exactly in The Runaway Bride did Donna witness the creation of Earth? RTD says in the current edition of DWM (just issued) that 'here is a girl who has witnessed the creation of Earth so we needed to show her an alien planet' (I paraphrase - it's in another room). Now given that she didn't witness it in The Runaway Bride (unless it somehow escaped my notice!) and not in Partners In Crime, it must be in The Fires Of Pompeii that she sees this (OK I suppose he could be referring to a book). DavidFarmbrough (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It was in The Runaway Bride, The Doctor and Donna travel back in time to witness the birth of Earth and how the Racnoss hid somthing in the centre of the earth, they find that a Racnoss vessel started a gravity pull of all the rocks around it, practically becomin the centre of the earth.E-flah (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was in The Runaway Bride. It was a rather big scene too, about two or three minutes long. Sceptre (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...maybe I will have to watch it for a third time - perhaps I was looking at Catherine Tate when that happened! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No offence but you're not that attentive, are you? 82.12.88.229 (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

After I edited this section:
The Doctor uses the phrase "It's volcano day!", a phrase he used in "The Empty Child", based on something Captain Jack Harkness had said about Pompeii.
I had it removed completely, it's now back in an altered form... I don't understand what the problem was. cyclosarin (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The word "Volcano Day doesn't turn up until "The Doctor Dances" E-flah (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Should The Plot section and the Symopsis setion be merged or keep them seperate entities?
--Hegan (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep them separated at the moment--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's being pointed out elsewhere (a blog, so I can't cite it) that FoP shares character names from the Cambridge Latin Course. 213.218.199.52 (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It was explicitly stated by RTD on tonights' Confidential. -- Arwel (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
As a seperate point, there are several historical innacuracies relating to Lucius_Caecilius_Iucundus (the main roman), and would a section about that  be relevant? 79.78.84.47 (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just remember that this is a work of fiction.  The pyroviles themselves are historically inaccurate.  Just chalk it up to "not the same history as our universe". DonQuixote (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added it in the references section  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalking kills (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC) 

THERE WERE LOTS OF THEM! PUT THEM IN THE ARTICEL! NOW! 86.147.104.80 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

please be civil--Lerdthenerd (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't notice any, and if they were any, it's probably Original Research, which isn't allowed. Digifiend (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
When the earthquakes strike, The father yells "places" or "positions" and the family all runs to stabilize different items which are about to fall, topple, or otherwise break.  This is a reference to Mary Poppins, in which the main family's neighbor is a former naval officer who fires off a cannon several times over the course of the movie, causing items in the family's house to nearly topple.  The father in Mary Poppins also yells "places" 69.133.98.143 (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, more specificity and some corrections.  The father, George Banks remains oblivious to efforts to counter the destruction and continues speaking through the chaos.   There are no less than three events and the warning each time is given by either the head housekeeper or Mrs. Banks.  The call to arms was "POSTS!" This episode replicated more than just the base outline of the trope... the different characters actually mimicked the poses taken by the Mary Poppins characters and guarded items similar to those guarded in Mary Poppins. Thistledowne (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Did anyone else think that the actor playing Dextrus was imitating Brutus from the Rome TV series? It was funny...--Lizzard (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm  when Lucius tells the Doctor that "she will return", and Donna has "something on [her] back"....shouldnt we mention that Rose is (most probably meant by this? Does anyone know what Donna's prophesy refers to? --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
i added this and it was removed, sadly my primary source for it was nothing more then the previous episode which proved she had returned. Martha on the other hand to which the line could also entail has NOT made an appearance, so at this point it remains speculation. however i fail to see how this is different from when we labeled the slow return of the master last season in the same manner. (Nickcirc (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC))
but ultimately leaving it how it is just mentioned is probably better and safer (Nickcirc (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

??? Speculation is speculation. Just because speculation got in under the radar on another episode's article does not mean it should stay in this (or another) article. Lots42 (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Doctor stated that he was partly resposible for the great fires of Rome - the fact file on the BBC confirms this as a reference to The Romans (First Doctor story). 86.131.234.234 (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone has added the {{WikiProject Italy}} template, putting this article under the scope of that project. I don't feel this is appropriate; while there are no clearly defined rules for what comes within the scope of a country-related WikiProject, I don't think merely being set in that country qualifies. (Should The Girl in the Fireplace be in WikiProject France? Should The Shakespeare Code be in WikiProject England? No, in both cases.) As far as I can tell, WikiProject Italy is for TV shows and films made in Italy (like La Dolce Vita), but not those that were just set there. I'm removing the template. Terraxos (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"TV shows and films made in Italy" - it was filmed in the Cinecittà. Sceptre (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever did the rewrite on the Volcano day reference needs to check their DVD. The world "Volcano day" isn't muttered by anyone until "The Doctor Dances", I specifically rewatched my DVD of Series 1 to make sure of that. It never showed up anywhere in "The Empty Child."E-flah (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
it's been changed it was said by chris ecclestons doctor just not in that specific wording and it was in response to something jack harkness said

Just to say, I removed the NFCC-image of the volcano errupting since it's irrelevant and can be easily visualised... everyone knows how volcanoes erupt. If we could find a picture of the production, maybe scanned in from the Radio Times, it would pass the criteria? —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I liked the picture of the pyrovile chasing after The Doctor and Donna, put that one back--Lerdthenerd (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem was, it was so small as to make nothing distinguishable, and therefore served little purpose :-( —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
how about a close up of a pyrovile's face then write 'RAAAWWWRR' as a caption!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
How about "no"? :D —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that the copyright-holders of the image have actually given permission for its use on Wikipedia, so it oughtn't to be covered by the non-free content guidelines... but the uploader hasn't followed the correct procedure for registering the permission, so I guess until then, we need to treat it the same as anything else. Of course, even if we had carte blanche to use it, I still don't think it should go in since it's scarcely relevant. —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The image is actually free - the guy who sent the email worked for the Foundation, so we can trust him. Sceptre (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm - in that case, we need to address the issue of whether it should be there, artistically... I don't think it adds anything. I'm sure we can find an appropriate screenshot from the episode to use, if we put our minds to it. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You'll get people whining about "decorative fair use" as we don't really discuss the Pyrovile more than saying "rock-like". We discuss Vesuvius 79AD more in the article, and we have a free image for the article, so why not? Sceptre (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I take the point, but it's just not necessary... everyone knows what an erupting volcano looks like. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The point I'm making is that the eruption in the image is the same eruption in the episode. Just different special effects.  Sceptre (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The new one isn't really much better... see my concerns above and here. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the Pyrovile can be easily explained in four words: "rock-like creatues resembling golems" (which was my first impression of them), so fair-use warriors (not legitimate ones like FutPerf who actually help) will be more disruptive here than normal. Sceptre (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Daleks in Manhattan? I know that no members of the cast travelled to New York, but some filming DID take place there.Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The RT said (correctly) that it is the first time cast has been taken abroad - I'll just go and make sure the article says that. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
To the best of my K, old-Who only went abroad twice -- Paris for City of Death, and the infamous bikini & volcano scenes for Planet of Fire.  Unless you count the Welsh Slate Quarry as being in another country (since I don't believe it ever played itself). -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You forget The Two Doctors.  Understandable :) Stephenb (Talk) 14:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
They also went to Amsterdam to film Arc of Infinity 86.157.161.55 (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Where have those sections gone? They were good... —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've actually replaced, but massively trimmed, them... now they only contain sourced references, like the Spartacus! one, and the John Cleese-modern art one, and the Fawlty Towers one. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have changed 'Sybil' to 'Basil' - I think Sybil may have used the "He's from Barcelona" line on occasion, but it is most certainly more readily identified with Basil Fawlty. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we get rid of all of this trivia? The fact the Doctor said "San Francisco" is of little relevance. Stuff like "volcano day" (TEC, DD, DWM394), the Medusa Cascade and the Shadow Proclamation are more encyclopedic because they're relevant and the writers make a point of it. Seriously, I'm trying to get this article to GA, and people who want stuff like this are only impeding it. Sceptre (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got rid of the trivia from it now, Will, as I said above! There was some stuff in the sections which were deleted, which wasn't trivia, so I temporarily restored them so as to salvage it... as I said above :D —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Can I remind people that only the last instance of a source should be cited in each section/paragraph (WP:MoS)... curretnly, there are [10] and [11] throughout the whole article, whereas there should only be one at the end of each relevant section. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinions differ on how citations are formatted. When writing articles, if it's "Sentence supported by A. Sentence supported by B. Sentence supported by A.", I cite each sentence, so there's no confusion on where the citation came from. If it's "Sentence supported by A. Sentence supported by A.", I only cite the last. Quotes also need to be cited too. Sceptre (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the Big Finish audio story, The Fires of Vulcan has been removed twice with no explanation.  I understand the desire to keep the article devoid of trivia, but a reference to a 7th Doctor audio adventure would seem to justify itself.  Is there a reason this keeps being removed? Iarann (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... unless there's a reliable source that there's a connection, I think the general view is that trivia is to be avoided. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So you need a reliable source that they deal with the same event?  I'm not following your train of thought here.  They are two Doctor who stories with different Doctor's dealing with the same event, that seems to be a legitimate connection rather then trivia. Iarann (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC).
Devil's Advocate (pun intended): Is the audio story canon? Many non-TV Who stories are not. Lots42 (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget the novel The Algebra of Ice now!!! [User: Stripey].

Actually in the show he's called "Lobus", and not Lucius. Also check http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/episodes/?episode=S4_02&character=&action=videostream&playlist=/doctorwho/playlists/s4_02/video/s4_02_bts_03.xml even though it says "Lobus Caecili", here. I'm not that good in Latin, so I'm not sure what to do here. In the episode anyway he does say "Lobus" when he introduces himself to the Doctor. Laz (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My knowledge of Doctor Who history is pretty rusty, but as far as I can tell, this is the first story (on TV, at least) that's set somewhere on Earth where English is not the primary language.  Is this true?  And if it is, do you think it's worth a comment? --BlueResistance (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not true; The Massacre of St Bartholomew's Eve. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
City of Death (Paris), The Two Doctors (Spain), and The Girl in the Fireplace (Versailles) also (from memory alone) Sceptre (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Marco Polo  too Stephenb (Talk) 19:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we really want the first, we have to go all the way back to An Unearthly Child... somehow, I doubt the cavemen spoke English. -- SonicAD (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This section is confusing. The TARDIS has far-reaching Translation programs; Donna really did not know the ancient language of Pompeii. The TARDIS just made it seem like she did. Lots42 (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Synopsis reads all weird and jarring. The chronology and the grammar is way off. It needs a rewrite from the ground up, preferably by one person. Lots42 (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

From Alan Sepinwall of New Jersey's The Star-Ledger.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! The article has passed. The links check out fine, the prose is excellent, I hope it can become a featured article soon! Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 22:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Although this review is very short, and doesn't focus on the six GA criteria, I do find that this article does meet them. The prose is good, the lead section is a good summary. While I was a bit concerned about what appears to be reference citations to other wikipedia articles, I see that they are actually citing the Doctor Who episode, and just linking to the article on that episode, so that's fine. Other citations are fine. It appears to meet broadness criteria, I cannot find any major evidence of WP:NPOV or edit warring, and the images all are tagged with appropriate copyright tags. Good work! Dr. Cash (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The six months later scene described in the article doesn't appear in my recording (Which goes up to the next-episode preview) from the USA airing on the Scifi channel. Can anyone corroborate this, and should it be mentioned in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.43.60 (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 

Truncating is a common practice in US syndication (see Star Trek, Simpsons, etc.) and it would be pointless to list every instance and every scene. DonQuixote (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This question seems to come up every new season. DonQuixote is correct. The Sci Fi channel edits out approx 3 minutes or more depending on the length of the episode. The situation does not change much when the episodes are shown on BBC America. They edit out a minute or so less, but, sometimes they edit out different scenes. It is pointless to list them. First it is minutae better suited for fan pages or the Doctor Who wikia. Second, once the series comes out on DVD we get to see any missing footage. Actually this always gives us something to look forward to beyond the episodes initial airing.  MarnetteD | Talk 16:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In the synopsis, it says the Pyrovile's home plant was destroyed. Wasn't it "lost"? Zoanthrope (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Yaya!! Go Pompeii!
But I can't find any answers to my question :(
I'm oh so sad :'(  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.50.16 (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC) 

If this edit war persists, I will bring in the people who can do the bannings. So help me. Lots42 (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there, the "people who can do the bannings" won't be banning anyone unless there's good reason - trust me, I'm one of them ;). This isn't an edit war as such, so much as one anon. user trying to push their edit through regardless of the fact that consensus is clearly against it. They're violating 3RR, and may well get blocked for it, but as it's just the one user, there's no point in chastising all on the article's talk page. Now, word of advice: screaming at everyone on the talk page ain't gonna do anything but fan the flames... TalkIslander 21:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The capital letters were uninentional but you still make good points. Lots42 (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I've now blocked the anon. editor in question for (gross) violation of 3RR. TalkIslander 08:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that we need to keep uncited material out of the article, especially since it's a GA with possible FA ambitions.  So I was wondering whether someone with access to the Series 4 Companion could check to see if Pixley mentions The Fires of Vulcan in his overview of The Fires of Pompeii?  (I can't seem to find my copy of the Companion to check myself.)  The only online references I can find mentioning both stories which even approach reliability are the Doctor Who Reference Guide and Stuart Ian Burns' review at Behind the Sofa, either of which would is questionable on the grounds of WP:RS. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

From page 39: "The disaster at Pompeii had already formed the basis of The Fires of Vulcan, a Doctor Who audio drama written by Steve Lyons and released by Big Finish Productions in September 2000". It is not mentioned as an inspiration for this story or anything like that.
I also notice that Pixley uses the terms "filming" and "recording" correctly in that "recording" is used in all instances where they record footage on videotape and "filming" used only when there's actual film involved. Shouldn't Wikipedia be doing the same? Davhorn (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Should the fact that the actress who played the Soothsayer has been rehired to play the new companion be mentioned in this article? It's as relevant as the fact Freema Agyeman was in Army of Ghosts. Digifiend (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It is a relevant fact... somebody has edited the article to point this out.  For shame, I did not notice Gillan when I first watched this episode (in 2015), but I did notice Capaldi.  Anyway, they are both mentioned in the current wiki-page. Hydradix (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel there should be some mention in the episode of the TARDIS translating meaning that when Donna speaks Latin it sounds to the Pompeiians as if she's speaking some other language. But I haven't seen the episode for a while, and can't remember much about it. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The natives think she's speaking Welsh (well, Celtic). Throw-away joke. Sceptre (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This section does not have any cites to independent reliable secondary sources. Do any secondary sources give this material significant discussion? If not, the subsection should be removed. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Citing primary sources for fictional event is entirely legit. There is not reason to remove it.  — Edokter • Talk •  21:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope. It's undue weight, and unencyclopedic. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it's neither. The material is clearly relevant. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 21:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Show me where this has gotten significant discussion in secondary sources independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody added a comment to the effect that the statement that "there is something on [Donna's] back" foreshadows events in Turn Left. It was removed with the explanation that we cannot refer to events in the future. This doesn't make much sense to me--it is in the nature of the dramatic technique that foreshadowing refers to events that unfold later in the plot. Do we have a particular convention on Wikipedia that forbids articles on dramatic arcs to refer to such foreshadowing? Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Lots42 (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
When this topic was last replied to above, it was May 2008. It wasn't until June 2008 that the "Turn Left" episode aired. So, the comment in the prophesy was definitely foreshadowing and should be mentioned within the article, in my opinion. Instances of foreshadowing in literature and visual media are always addressed. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen almost every Doctor Who episode ever made (going way back) and I'm having trouble believing that the criticism was mixed or even negative as we're told in the lead and the body.  My guess is that an editor or two have skewed this in a way that they think creates balance, while ignoring that the episode received mostly positive reviews. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That immediately struck me, too. This article seems to imply that besides Tate's portrayal of Donna Noble in this episode, there was nothing else good to say about it by critics. Surely that can't be true. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There was a template at the top of this page notifying about a link for which there no longer seems to be a problem. Template removed: "Links from this article with broken # section links (check): Mount Vesuvius#Eruption of 79|eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79" Wordreader  (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a diehard Doctor Who fan, but the errors they made in linguistics in this episode kind of irked me. Why did she use the Italianate pronunciation instead of the classical pronunciation? And why did that guy think she was speaking Celtic instead of Germanic? English is a Germanic language! 64.90.28.18 (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

For the same reason that they violate the conservation of energy in just about every episode: it's a work of fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
They were practicing an ancient and ritualised form of speech known on Earth as "humour".Mezigue (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
If we were allowed talk here about something without explaining how it might improve our article when it appears to have nothing to do with improving the article, then I would have said that, besides the little matter of humour, Germanic was also irrelevant, as the TARDIS was translating English into Latin, but it then had to decide how to translate (non-English, and non-Germanic) Latin phrases like 'Caveat emptor', which it presumably had to translate into a pre-Latin pan-European lingua franca, which some kind of 'Celtic' (arguably) was. But as I am not allowed say any of that here, I obviously won't say any of it. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course if anybody can find a review of the episode that does discuss that issue, then we would presumably be allowed discuss here whether or not mentioning that review would improve the article. And if anybody thinks the article might eventually be improved by asking people here to search for such a review, then that too is presumably allowed (a formula which can presumably be used with minor modifications to justify almost any discussion on these talk pages, as in "I think this article would be improved if somebody could find a review which argued that ...", with anybody denouncing this as a dishonest way of getting round the rules presumably being in danger of a ban for uncivilly violating WP:AGF).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Page 2 of Alan Stanley Blair's review is missing, as only Page 1 seems to have been archived, making it impossible to check whether our summary correctly reflects the review. So it might be helpful if anybody has some way of retrieving that second page. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)