Talk:Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)#Removal of Kylie and David image

So is this based, or at least influenced, by the Douglas Adams book/game? Kuralyov (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

:We don't know until it airs. — Edokter • Talk • 12:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

::Somehow, I really doubt that it will be. StuartDD _{contributions} 12:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Oh, it was definitely inspired by Starship Titanic, though the plot and execution were somewhat different. --Veratien (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that it had to have at least been inspired by the book/game. There was also some obvious inspiration from The Posiedon Adventure too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.140.119 (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

:If there was inspiration taken from Starship Titanic, you'd figure they'd have inserted at least one Douglas Adams in-joke. Did anyone spot one? I didn't. --Nomad Of Norad (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

:: Among the numbers the Doctor uses to try to trigger the Hosts' override protocol is "42." Pat Payne (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

:::The override code for the angels was 'One', which was also the super secret access code for the Starship Titanic website a while back. Not to mention the ship crashing into the TARDIS, which is essentially The Doctor's 'house'. --71.226.104.94 (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any information on a Canadian broadcast? The past two years have seen the Christmas special aired by the CBC on Boxing Day, but there's nothing on the CBC Website's schedule for the day. Is CBC even going to be airing it, or are us Canucks out of luck? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.26.95 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

the episode has ended over here in europe, can we add the plot now?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

:Yes you can add the plot. Also, does anyone know when the semi pretection ends? StuartDD _{contributions} 20:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

till tommorow? we could still gain massive vandalism if we end it now.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not merged; perfect 50-50 split in opinions, defaults to status quo. Will ^(talk) 23:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

{{discussion top}}

Astrid Peth → Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)

My reasons for this merge proposals are to lessen the amount of redundancy between the articles; I doubt there will be that much unique information between the two. While there is precedent for companions to have their own pages, this has been questioned recently. Merging (and actually merging) would likely save this from deletion down the road. Will ^(talk) 20:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

:I don't really think that's necessary - if anything, I suggest the creation of a new page, entitled List of Doctor Who minor characters (2005-present) should be created, and Astrid should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.132 (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

:Merging Astrid with Voyage makes sense for the reasons given; failing that, creating a Minor Characters page and putting Astrid on that would work just as well. Charles RB 20:47, 25 December 2007 (GMT)

:Her entire characters is summarised within the plot points of this episode. What's there to be made seaparate? Any real-world information belongs in a "casting" section, here.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

::Keep as it is and expand it further. I'm suprised the articles haven't been updated yet. Asrid is an important companion and RTD states she is a full companion not a minor character. She is a Rose-like companion and unlike his relationship with Martha he does fall for her. This goes to character development and makes her as important as any companion.84.92.120.61 (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

::: But it can only be expanded so much because she's dead and will never appear again. The Doctor's falling for her should be in his profile, surely. Charles RB 21:46, 25 December 2007 (GMT)

:::Personally, I don't believe "full companion" and "minor character" are necessarily atonyms, and can't believe there's a page for Grace Holloway. But since there is, I can't see any argument against a page for Astrid (unless, of course, Grace's page is also merged with Doctor Who (1996 film)). Daibhid C (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

::::I would oppose the merer to this article. Perhaps a List of Companions in Doctor Who page would be appropriate for lesss significant companions. StuartDD _{contributions} 22:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::Opposed - Keep the article; It's well made and relevant. - Goldenboy (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::Oppose merge - RTD said in Dr Who Confidential that he considers Astrid to be a full companion, and keeping Astrid's article would therefore be in keeping with the articles on all other companions. Other characters such as Grace Holloway and Sara Kingdom have their own pages despite only having an on-screen role in one story. Poker Flunky (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::Oppose merge/Keep article - per other one-off companions Sara Kingdom, Grace Holloway and the Donna Noble article before the announcement that she would become a full-time companion. As it turns out, Astrid did little more than a guest character and arguably the historian was more of a companion, but Russell T. Davies wrote Astrid as the companion of the story and hence Astrid gains significance in obtaining this status. As the article cites real world sources, I think it is fine as it is. And Kylie has hinted she would like to return some day and as Astrid was not killed entirely, anything is possible - after all, Rose is to be seen again which we didn't think possible after "Doomsday" - so we cannot dismiss the article on grounds that she may never return. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::Oppose merge/Keep article - as above. Jonesy702 (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

:Merge. There's nothing in the Astrid Peth article that doesn't belong on this page, making it redundant. Astrid's status as a companion and importance to the episode don't justify having an article that simply repeats parts of a single other article. If the character becomes important in later episodes or spin-off media in a way that allows for significant out-of-universe statements, then a separate article can be restored. EALacey (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

:: Response - I think there is sufficient real-world sourced information on the Astrid Peth article that does not appear in the VOTD article to warrant its keepinmg. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Merge - Character is entirely contained within the episode "Voyage of the Damned" so any relevant information on characterisation, conception, casting, reception, etc etc can be covered nicely on that article and will probably make that article better as a result. Being an actual companion doesn't automatically entitle her to an individual article, this isn't just a Doctor Who site. If there's sooooooooooo much reliable sourced information about her that we need to branch out and give her own article, then maybe, but until then she doesn't deserve an article on companion status alone.  Paul  730 10:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

::::Merge/Delete - Unless she miraculously reappears, she's not notable enough for her own page. GracieLizzie (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::Response - I know this isn't just a Doctor Who site. However, the article is doing no harm to anyone and indeed when lists of companions are compiled and Astrid's name is on it, is it not possible that someone may seek information about her. All the other companions have articles - so why not Astrid? If Astrid is merged, will you be going after Sara Kingdom, Grace Holloway and the Celestial Toymaker next? Donna Noble was not merged initially when she was a one-off companion... Why is everyone so keen to reduce the presence of Doctor Who on Wikipedia? If articles are interesting and cite real-world sources, what's wrong with them? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::In short, yes. Also, see WP:NOHARM.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

:: Don't merge - "...unless she miraculously reappears...": she may well do, as we said our final goodbyes to Rose Tyler as well, and yet now it is confirmed she will return. Speculation, I grant you, but then again, her character was important enough to earn her a page in Wikipedia.George Adam Horváth (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Response - does the fact that around 25 editors so far have found interest enough in this article to edit it count for anything? More editors may well choose to contribute to the article. It's not just me. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

::::Also, does the fact that this episode was marketed around Kylie Minogue appearing as Astrid - a likely contributing factor for the high ratings - also lend some credibility to the article? Astrid featured in the most watched episode since 1979, so it's not unreasonable to assume there's some overlap between the audience and Wikipedia users who may search for or click a link to the Astrid article. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::It all constitutes real-world information for the promotional aspect of the single episode in which she appears.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

:Merge. There's really only one paragraph - "Conception and behind the scenes" - that's unique, and it'll make the VotD article stronger. Make Astrid Peth a redirect --Brian Olsen (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

::Response - I'm not familiar with the characters/articles that you linked to, but if they have no information outside of the episode/film they appeared in, then they probably should be merged. In a list of companions, simply put Astrid Peth, and any relevant information about the character will be on that page. If she "miraculously reappears" then fine, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. We shouldn't have an article for a character based on the vaque hope that they might actually reappear one day. If the episode was marketed around Kylie... well there you go then, the episode's main notability comes from the character and the character has no information outside of the episode. A single episode article seems quite sufficient, no point in diluting what could make a good article by splitting it up just to give Astrid her own page for the sake of it. This isn't some vendetta against DW, or any series, but we shouldn't have articles just because some fans of the show find it "interesting". There is a Doctor Who Wikia for fans, after all.  Paul  730 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

:Merge Regardless of being an official companion, Astrid has no existence beyond this single episode, and the entirety of any article written about her would belong in the article on the episode. It might make sense for that article to contain a distinct section on Astrid, and obviously it would be appropriate to revisit this issue and consider creating this article anew if Astrid becomes significant again at some future point, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so such an article need not exist only on the basis that such a future possibility is not impossible. --DavidK93 (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

::Update - I have just extensively edited the article to include much more real-world information regarding the significance of Astrid, (in that she is played by Kylie Minogue). I now think that merging this article into the "Voyage of the Damned" article would either a) make the "Voyage of the Damned" article too long and/or b) lose much significant information that is only present on Astrid's individual article. I would urge you all to review the article and reconsider your stance on the merger issue. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

:::First, great work. Second, I'm afraid I'm even more convinced by this that they should be merged. The Astrid article is looking good, but the VotD article is suffering. All of the Astrid info can be contained within VotD, but not vice versa. We don't need to lose any info by merging, and I really don't think it would make VotD too long. VotD is the parent article, we shouldn't split until we have to. --Brian Olsen (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

::::With 21 pages references so far, I hardly think the VOTD article is "suffering". Secondly, is it not reasonable to assume people may search for Astrid - why make them pick the information out of the lengthy VOTD article? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::Well done, WOF, the article is certainly better. However, I can't help but think it still belongs on the VOTD article... all the info is about VOTD, and it would make that article great. I'll admit I'm less opposed to the Astrid article after your additions, but I'm still not convinced she really needs her own page. It isn't that the page is bad, just kind of unnecessary.  Paul  730 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::It fits into the wider context of companion articles - each has their own article, irrespective of the number of episodes they appear in. Precedent has been set. Why go after Astrid and not Sara and Grace? In the context of Doctor Who - the companion is a key aspect of the show. That's why Russell T. Davies designated Astrid as a companion as oppose to a mere guest star. The Deadly Assassin and Time Crash aside, the Doctor has always had a companion. Companions or assistants are known of by and referred to within fandom, casual viewers and the press. If you Google 'Astrid Peth' at the moment, the Wikipedia article which did come up as first on the list has been knocked off the top spot by a news article about Kylie as Astrid. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

: I looked at this the other day, and the impression I got was that, while it seemed at first glance to have lots of "real world" information, on closer examination much of this was about fan speculation and the like. For instance the "TARDIS/THING" red herring, and some references to stories in the Sun, which in my opinion amounts to show-biz gossip and should not be cited. I would be happy with a merge, or at least a quite severe trimming of the gossip and speculation from the article. On the face of it, the much-awaited appearance of Kylie Minogue in a special with David Tennant (both magnetic personalities in their own right) does deserve an article, but perhaps the information is best kept together in the article about the program. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

::I've just noticed Astrid has her own page on the official Doctor Who website - which someone has linked to at the bottom of the Astrid article. Surely this is further vindication of her significance? Every character on that website that has their own page - from Martha Jones to Jackie Tyler to Harry Sullivan to Sergeant Benton - has an article on Wikipedia. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Makes a lot of sense for a Doctor Who Wikia, yes. For Wikipedia, and it's as-clear-as-day, the character is not uniquely notable outside the context of the episode in which she appears. In fact, the two are almost so intertwined you'll just have two crap split-apart articles instead of one GA one. You can devote a section to "Casting" or even "Astrid Peth" if that compromise will still permit anybody's GA ambissions for the episode page.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

::::Second update - following yet more press coverage regarding Kylie's appearance as Astrid, the Astrid article now contains more citations than the "Voyage of the Damned" article. I would suggest this cancels out arguments in this discussion that Astrid lacks notability. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::No one said that! She does not lack notability, only that independent of the episode. Merging the articles means that the Voyage article will be as much an Astrid article as an episode one and your hard work on it is by no means in vain. We have a wealth of citations about the casting and coneption Astrid which can contribute to making this episode article even better! Your points are entirely moot.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

: Keep unmerged. Astrid's article is comprehensive and well-referenced; that should be enough. Any subject about which you can create such a great article clearly deserves an article of its own. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

::Read all my points, and Paul730's. All the inclusionists are simply going from a "but she's important IN the show." It's a very interesting character, but all of that information belongs within the episode in which she appears. The End.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

:::The key to keeping this information separate is that there is a wealth of information contained on the Astrid Peth article that in its present state merits its stand-alone status, irrespective of whether it would make a nice addition to the "Voyage of the Damned" article. Yes, the "Voyage of the Damned" article would be strengthened further if all the citations from the Astrid page came flooding on to it. However, rather than creating some 'super article' this would become an overly long article with a lot of Astrid information crammed on to it. It will look odd and with the amount of citations for Astrid information it would prompt a split. The Astrid article is a strong one, in my opinion - with similar companion articles such as Susan Foreman that have been on Wikipedia for years having been recently tagged for not citing references, (I added some weak ones earlier to the Susan article and removed the tag) - I think it serves as a good example as to how we can improve other companion articles. Also, the "Voyage of the Damned" article is not particularly weak as it stands with plenty of real-world citations already. Why cull one good article to try and improve an already good article? The information is not all confined to the episode and events within, rather information is also included about the impact Kylie's appearing in Doctor Who had on the series as a whole and upon Minogue's career and its consequences, for example Dannii Minogue being tipped for Torchwood. The positive effects of the merge do not outway the negatives of losing a good article from Wikipedia. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::::Update for this discussion thread: At present the proposed merge has 9 supporters and 10 in opposition in this thread so far. (I also get the impression that the majority of editors to the Astrid Peth article who have not contributed their thoughts here would be in favour of keeping the article as why else help improve it?) Wolf of Fenric (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::All the information can be split between "Casting" and "Reception" for the episode. I've also been working on the Astrid article, and I'm certain that a merger would work wonderfully.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

::::::I wrote 'the majority of editors'. I cannot vouch for them all, but logic dictates that contributing to an article equates interest in it. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge. To be honest I haven't been to the Astrid article yet, but I'm generally of the opinion that even a one-off companion merits an article, especially when there is a lot of material that pertains more to the character/actor than to the story. --Karen | Talk | contribs 09:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, she's notable on her own. In fact WP:GA springs to mind. ^anemone|_projectors 14:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge, what else is there to say that can't be said in the VOTD article? --DeadlyAssassin (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why is this character listed as a companion?, This character never entered the TARDIS or traveled with the Doctor. Aside from the fact that the actress is somebody famous, why list her as a companion at all? Professor Travers was in more episodes as a recurring character. --NJC 13:21, January 2, 2008 (EST)

:Comment: The current producers of Doctor Who refer to Astrid as a companion, just as they did with Donna Noble before the Series Four announcement. It may be inconvenient for our rule of thumb definition, but RTD has thus established a new category, the one-off companion. Who are we to argue? --Karen | Talk | contribs 05:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:Comment: Fair enough. :) --NJC 14:03, January 3, 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.153.43 (talk) {{{2|}}}

• Merge Character only appears in one episode and does not meet wikipedias notability guidelines for fiction. Million_Moments (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• To Million Moments: I would argue that, as Kylie Minouge is a noteable character, and the fact that Kylie fans would have watched the episode due to their interest in the actress, not the tv show. Similarly, the fact that Astrid was a vehicle for Kylie, with a lot of press attention, interviews and photo shoots surrounded the character would give her more notability than, say, Clive Swift's Mr Copper. As others have noted, other one-off characters (including Catherine Tate's Donna before she was announced as the new assistant) have their own Wikipedia page due to the notability of the actor who portrays them. Therefore, I say it shouldn't be merged. --Billydeeuk (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge one-shot characters are not notable enough for an article. Should Astrid be resurrected as a regular or recurring role (as Donna Noble was), we can revisit the discussion. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:Merge I agree - Astrid's appearance was definitely not notable enough to warrant a seperate page. I'm in favour of either a list of minor characters page or incorporate Astrid into the VotD page. Just because The Doctor had an inexplicably fast-acting crush on her doesn't automatically raise her status. Does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GerardMcGarry (talk • contribs) 08:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.