Talk:The Girl in the Fireplace

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

text: That's exactly what the Radio Times cover calls them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a terrific cover. I'm buying one today! —Whouk (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not buy the rest of the magazine with it :-) --Keycard (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Autons or not?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Preview 

message: 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)
replies: text: And they're both kids of Scottish clergymen!--Keycard (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reinette

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Personally, I'd leave it up to the reader. It's pretty obvious anyway. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot Now Completed In Full

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification! --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 01:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Doctor Who?" 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Note 15 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cast list 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  so.... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Couple of things

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: They're detailed at length in TARDISODE. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 11:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  August 1727 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. DonQuixote 03:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards section? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plot Summary glosses over important details, and has at least one factual error 

message: 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)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: 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)
thread_title: WP:GAR

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Character Self-Awareness 

message: 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)
thread_title: Music

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arthur