Talk:Astrid Peth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Astrid Peth has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Doctor Who WikiProject
Doctor Who Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Kylie Minogue, an attempt to improve and expand coverage of Kylie Minogue and related topics.

Talk to us. Kylie Minogue-related Articles in need of attention.

Contents

[edit] Beginning page as per Martha Jones

  • Martha's page was created 7 months ahead of her screen debut, so I think introducing a new companion page now especially with the publicity in gear - she has been seen in trailer form on TV now - is not a bad idea.Wolf of Fenric (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anagramme

Is there any need to mention that ASTTRID is an anagramme of TARDIS? Yes, it's true - but why mention it? StuartDD contributions 12:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose because it continues in the whole Torchwood/Doctor Who vein, although we don't know how significant it is yet. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to have it. I can see quite clearly that Astrid is an anagramme of Tardis - but why have it in? Does it tell us anything about the character? I can't see how it does. The only reason I can see for having it is for speculative purposes - which is not encylopedic, so should not be in. StuartDD contributions 11:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, know we know how important it was! - where shall we put it? StuartDD contributions 20:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, calm down. It was an honest mistake. The rumour spread far and wide and with RTD's track record of anagrams it was an easy rumour to believe. The note had already been removed prior to broadcast as the other editors including myself had agreed with you that we could not note speculation. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't having a go at anyone - I myself thought there was something in it. StuartDD contributions 16:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
peth is welsh (according tom someonw online) for part of - and this, with tardis anagram...

now, [SPOILER WARNING]

with her becoming stardust* and the tardis so close - clutching at straws - just wanting to see kylie again?

"Peth" is not Welsh for "part of". Its not in the Welsh dictionary, just like "gullible" is not in the English dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.15.111 (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think for some reason, other characetrs may be returning from this episode though... Crescent (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Spy story

A journalist who's seen the special has this to say: "As we all know, Kylie plays 'Astrid Peth'... Don't read as much into her name as some of you have been doing, though."[1] --Tom Tresser (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neil gaiman referencing

anyone else thining about Neil Gaiman in last few minutes of this episode? Flying not falling, stardust...??? just me being a fan of both rtd and NG then huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crescent (talk • contribs) 04:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why a Companion?

Why is this character being listed as a 'companion'? She was a guest star in one story, who never even got inside the TARDIS. She doesn't travel with the Doctor. Professor Travers shows up in more stories, but he's not referenced as a companion.

The makers of the show count and describe her as a companion, and there are sources backing that up.  Paul  730 18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Most people consider that a companion is a companion when they are accepted by The Doctor. She was accepted as a companion - so she therefore makes that one. plus the reasons above. StuartDD contributions 11:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. :) Nicholas 14:08, 3 January 2008 (EST)
The above seems reasonable, is she the first companion to never enter the TARDIS, or travel in time(beyond the normal way)? Fasach Nua (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I think so - the only other possible one is Sara kingdom, but I think she did travel in the Tardis in Master Plan. StuartDD contributions 19:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe Liz Shaw never travels in the TARDIS, as she's a companion during the time the Third Doctor is trapped on Earth. --Brian Olsen (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Forgot about her - I think you're right. StuartDD contributions 08:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review

I read the notes in the failed FAC, and I also see some prose issues that should be ironed out to make this article a GA. I'll do the review over a few days, but I'll leave the notes here so that you can fix them while I am continuing my review. The references and the image Fair use already pass.

  • "Martha Jones, (played by Freema Agyeman), on August 14, 2007" - either go with the brackets or the commas; doing both is completely redundant
  • "she is alongside the Doctor to discover" - why not shorten to "She and the Doctor discover"?
  • "Astrid grows increasingly fond of the Doctor kissing him as part of what she assures him is an "old tradition" on Sto" - cumbersome grammar
  • "he attempts to recall her atoms" - who is "he"
  • "Astrid is only the second Doctor Who companion who does not travel in the TARDIS at any point during their time with the Doctor, the first being Liz Shaw" - suggest to put the last part first: "After Liz Shaw, Astrid is..."
  • "and later sees from a distance the TARDIS adrift in space" - the phrase "from a distance" makes this subsentence very awkward to read
  • "It was officially announced that Kylie Minogue was to feature as Astrid in the episode "Voyage of the Damned" by the BBC on July 3, 2007." -> the BBC officially..." Also, I very strongly suggest to move this sentence to the place in the paragraph where it should be in the chronological order.
  • (Out of interest, not part of the review: I noticed that the starship is sometimes mentioned as "Titanic" and at other times as "the Titanic". My maternal language always requires the definite article for ship names, but this doesn't seem to be the case in the English language. What is used more often then?)

(more to come for "Publicity", "Reception" and "Possible return" later) – sgeureka t•c 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • "To promote "Voyage of the Damned" Minogue..." - very awkward sentence structure. I suggest to split it into two sentences (there should also be a comma before "Minogue" I think)
  • 4 sentences in teh Publicity section, and each sentence mentions the name of the episode -> variety helps
  • Suggestion: merge the sections of Casting and Publicity - there seems to be a quite a bit of overlap
  • "The episode was seen by 12.2 million viewers" - add "the original broadcast on the BBC" somewhere
  • Swap the sentences "The ratings success of..." and "The episode was seen by 12.2 million viewers..."
  • The quote by Gareth McLean is simply too long. (I once heard the rule of thumb that a quote on wikipedia should never be longer than 3 sentences at most.) Please paraphrase and quote only the very noteworthy bits.
  • Strong suggestion: move the last paragraph of "Reception" to the second position and reword slightly. The current layout is "Although there were positive reviews there were many bad reviews like [examples]. And these were the good ones [examples]."
  • "didn't" -> "did not"

I have thus put this article on hold. Please address the points above within the next seven days. This page is on my watchlist, so you can contact me here anytime (or you can contact me on my talkpage.) – sgeureka t•c 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done the top list already. Will (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your suggestions. I've done the second half of the list. I do not think Casting and Publicity need merging and I haven't rearranged the sections. Here is my rationale: Conception - creating the character; Character history - what Astrid does; Casting - behind the scenes, how and why Kylie Minogue was cast; Publicity - behind the scenes, episode promotion directly linked to Minogue playing Astrid; Reception; behind the scenes, how Minogue's appearance as Astrid was received; Possible return; behind the scenes, although speculative it is based on sources and I think it is important this information is given here to avoid unfounded speculation being included in the article. Thus, moving 'Reception' earlier would disrupt the flow of sections specifically relating to Astrid the character with a section describing relevent behind the scenes and reactionary information. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The quote box is as per those on the Jack Harkness article which I think has already achieved Good Article status. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I did two more grammar tweaks (please check whether I didn't accidently change the meaning of the sentences). I am pretty sure that I once read in an FAC that {{Quotation}} should only be used when it is a quote box in parallel of the text, not as "inline" text. I think <blockquote> should be used instead, but this is too minor a change to not promote now. Thank you for your work. – sgeureka t•c 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

As I see it, the characteris not notable. Please see my rationale here. I have some further points: the sources appear to confer notability either to the casting (which is true for any character in television or film, I guess) or the episode. They don't seem to confer notability to Astrid's character/personality which is what the article is mainly about; her conceptual history can be discussed - if needed! - at Voyage of the Damned. I see no reason why she deserves her own article - she didn't even play that huge a role in the story. Everything listed in the article as it stands is either moveable into the episode article, or unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TreasuryTag (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) is big enough already (also already a good article nominee). And since the episode and actress have proven notability, that automatically extends to the character being portrayed. The episode article deals with the episode, this article mainly deals with the character and how it was received. I think it warrants a seperate article. — Edokter • Talk • 20:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that Peter Kay playing the Absorbaloff had equal notability, as did the episode. Does that mean he gets his own article too? —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with Edokter's reasoning, but agree with his conclusion. This character is very much notable, the information included in this article is all relevent; merging would make the target article far too big, and/or mean we have to lose valuable information. For what it's worth, I'm not a Doctor Who fan, and generally do not support loads of information on fictional characters. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Major one-off characters are allowed and there are several examples of this related to Doctor Who including Sara Kingdom and Grace Holloway. 23skidoo (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose per previous merge proposal only ending two or three weeks ago. Will (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for all the same reasons I gave last time and because a recent attempt to delete the article was failed by admin.. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as well. I supported merging when the article was first created, but enough work has been done on it that I think it's in good shape, has demonstrated notability, and would be difficult to cram back into the parent article. --Brian Olsen (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Due to the fact the artical is now of a good standard and would take up a hefty part of the VotD artical.--Wiggs (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added to Fictional Murderer list?

Well, technically when sacrificing herself she killed Max Capricorn, who as nasty a character he was, was still killed by the hands of Astrid, so I was just wondering if you could add her to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo2505 (talk • contribs)

Don't want to be nitpicky, but I think, in all fairness, that this category is supposed to be about characters in crime fiction or characters who are characteristically villlainous. That is, people like Tom Ripley or The Master. In the spirit of things, Astrid is more a heroine, who are people who may kill people in their line of work but aren't necessarily murderers. DonQuixote (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Plus, she only kills in self-defence and defence of the Doctor. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)