Talk:Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)

Starship Titanic

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)

Canadian Airing?

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)

episode has aired

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)

Astrid

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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 [[Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)|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)

• 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.

Misinformation?

"This episode marks the first time in Doctor Who history that blood has been shown as a result of injury, after Frame was shot." - This isn't true. From what I recall there's blood on the Fifth Doctor before his regeneration into Sixth. Please check that and remove this if its true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.245.54 (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just dirt, I think, but there's a considerable amount of blood in State of Decay at least. I've changed the note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There's definitely blood in Torchwood (for example Jack being shot), and in past Doctor Who serials, not sure about the new series but I think in Empty CHild/Doctor Dances they have blood on one of the patients. Is it really a noteworthy piece of information though? It seems a bit pointless to me NIKKKIN (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's certainly notable if it's true. It's pretty incredible to think that the show, frequently criticized in the past for its violent and horrifying situations, has gone almost 45 years (minus the dry years) without showing a drop of blood until now. -Father Inire (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't 45 years, it's 3 years. They have shown blood in the old series NIKKKIN (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I misread. Also, the claim is not even true for the new series - blood was shown in "The Christmas Invasion". I've removed the whole item. -Father Inire (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely forgot about the Christmas Invasion, there was a large vat of blood featured. I was sitting here thinking if any episode had bllod in it, and that is probably the clearest example. At least we have resolved the issue NIKKKIN (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Pyramids of Mars. Dr Warlock gets shot and bleeds. Phillipmorantking (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Passenger 57

Anyone noticed the Doctor referring to himself as "Passenger 57" near 05:00? Should that go to Outside references? --Toredid (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing. I'd say it should certainly be added, it seemed to be quite an obvious reference the first time I heard it. DigitalAvatar (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Monetary confusion

At the end the Doctor tells Copper that a million pounds is equivalent to 50 million credits (actually 50,000,057). But earlier Foon tells her husband that she ran up 5000 credits on the phone bill, to which he says they will never be able to pay it off. But this figure is only a hundred quid (actually just under). Why can't they pay this off? They both have jobs. TharkunColl (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

They are very poor. Simple as that. LizzieHarrison 19:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So poor it'll take them 10 years to pay off 100 quid? I find it hard to believe they earn only 10 pounds a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the Doctor was able to convert pounds to credits, we must assume it was possible to do so. Otherwise the conversion would be pointless. Therefore this is a mistake. TharkunColl (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they are too poor to afford that much excess on top of what they need to survive each year —Preceding unsigned comment added by NIKKKIN (talk • contribs) 20:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

but she also adds, after her confession, that after spending this amount of money on the phone calls- she may as well have paid for the cruise. So does this mean that to fly on the Titanic cruise across space to visit Earth on Christmas day with unlimited shopping money is only just under £100? where can I book?. preceding comment was added by 88.97.17.31 (talk · contribs) at 00:24, December 27, 2007 (BST), but was signed with a wrong name

Yes it doesn't add up. The conversion factor is out by a factor of about 100 I would say, just at a guess. TharkunColl (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was simply a mistake made by the doctor, he isn't perfect, and perhaps he exaggerated slightly to cheer up Mr Cooper, we don't know NIKKKIN (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's possible to live quite well for months in some parts of the world on what would amount to a week's wages in Britain. There is no reason why hypothetical monetary systems should be the same as earth's, moreover the cost of basic living expenses, accommodation and so on, which could be very high, could be met by their employer, leaving them with a very low take-home wage with large fringe benefits. Thus there is nothing inconsistent about 5,000 credits being beyond the ability of poorly paid wage slaves to pay off. However the deeper point to be made about this observation is that it doesn't matter, because it's of only tangential relevance to the story. --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

BBC iPlayer

It is the third Christmas special of the revived Doctor Who series by Russell T. Davies, and the first episode to be made available for free on the internet by the BBC iPlayer service.

Where is a source for that? The BBC iPlayer has most BBC shows available after they've been broadcast, such as Doctor Who season 2 and 3 which I just watched the other week. To say this is the first one is incorrect. carocat (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly the first non-repeat to be made available on iPlayer. --Veratien (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Cast notes

What's the point of noting that Kylie Minogue performed alongside Tom Baker in a non-Who related production? Seems like 'one step removed' to me, and I think it should be deleted. Martpol (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I've removed it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

More cultural references

When the Doctor says, "I am the Doctor, from the planet Gallifrey, in the constellation of Kasterborous, and I'm going to save your lives and six billion people on earth", or whatever his exact words were, this is surely a nod to Highlander?

But, even more obviously, the whole plot was a clear nod to The Poseidon Adventure. Even down to some of the characters, like Foon, the apparently comical fat woman who later sacrifices herself to save others. TharkunColl (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis

Why does the Synopsis section keep being removed? All other story articles have one - why not "Voyage of the Damned"? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Aren't "Plot" and "Synopsis" the same thing? A brief overview should be in the lead, as a summary of the larger plot section in the body of the article, so another brief overview is redundant.  Paul  730 20:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mr. Copper...is left by the Doctor to live on Earth since the ensuing investigation is bound to reveal his fraudulent position." What fraudulent position? What's the antecedent for that reference?Jeff (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Story Arc

the story arc was mentioned somewhere in this episode reportedly did anyone spot it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.10.232 (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't. It's a bit pointless to speculate about what the arc is. StuartDD _{contributions} 22:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We won't know what it is until it's been in at least two episodes. ^anemone│_projectors 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We should probably not put any new arcs on pages until its confirmed what the arc is, though I believe it will be the Doctor being shown with a god-like status. Anyway, that theory is pure speculation so it should probably be left....for now. Xdt (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA

Sorry, but the prose is terrible.

For example:

• "only confessing his status as such to waitress Astrid Peth, who has a desire to travel the stars." as such?

• "Although the special takes place aboard an otherworldly namesake of the famed ocean liner, the RMS Titanic and its sinking was mentioned previously within the series in Robot,[3] The Robots of Death,[4] The Invasion of Time,[5] "Rose"[6] and "The End of the World"[7]. " Although? Why although? I'm not sure this is even relevant.

• "Kylie Minogue was initially reported by The News of the World in April 2007, indicating that she would be playing a "sexy Cyberwoman".[17]" I'm sure this doesn't need an explanation.

• "Filming took part summer of 2007, starting on the scene where the group are accosted by the Host on a bridge, referred internally to as the "strut", to differentiate it from the ship's command center.[16]" Filming occured in summer 2007, starting _with_

• "while Baker, a fan of the series, included aspects in Kylie's tours" Aspects ... of Doctor Who? 'Aspects' sounds funny anyway.

• You use semicolons way too often throughout when you should use colons.

• "Tim Teeman of The Times however, found that the episode "sucks", " - Sounds stupid, either rephrase it to something like "tim teeman of the times said that the episode 'sucks'" or take it out.

• "The chorus of the song "The Stowaway", which has a particular Celtic feeling." 'particular'?

• "The Mirror found the episode had" - I don't know what's with the overuse of 'found', but it sounds stupid. They haven't _discovered_ anything about the show.

• "The episode also received coverage in Minogue's native Australia, with The Daily Telegraph called the episode the "best ever" Doctor Who episode.[37]"

• composer Murray Gold and arranger Ben Foster make a cameo appearances,"

• Either reference everything in the lead, or nothing.

• There are a few MoS things that need to be fixed, specifically placing references outside of the periods. For example: "BBC soap EastEnders.[27]."

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

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 fail review was endorsed, and it was recommended that the article be copyedited. Please see the archived discussion for further information.

Further to this, if there were only a few sentences needing to be fixed, I would have done it myself, but there are actually many. One example of bad writing is "She saves the Doctor by ramming Capricorn with a forklift truck, both falling over a precipice to their deaths." So, what, or who fell over the precipice? The semantics make it clear, but the syntax doesn't.

I would be happy to help, and will keep this article on my watchlist for a while, but I'm only a moderately okay copyeditor myself, and you probably need to work with someone better to make this article really shine. I do apologize if this GAR has been a bad experience (particularly in view of my harsh comments!). I am sure it is not fun to be told your prose is weak, and editors of Doctor Who articles have created a lot of great content, that I am sure visitors to Wikipedia really appreciate. But you really need to team up with some editors with excellent writing skills to lift this article to GA and FA level. Try WP:LoCE, try WP:PR, try whatever you can. And really, good luck! Your contributions to Wikipedia are important and valued. Geometry guy 20:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the article have to comply with manual of style (MoS) before it is sent to WP:LoCE? If so than our only option is is WP:PR until the article complies with WP:MOS, anyway we're doing well with the typos at the moment 3 more have been corrected since the last edit.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Caption

Does the image caption really need to include Christain Voice's response to the imagery? That's covered in the article. The caption seems a little long. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The better the description, the less chance of getting deleted by copyright paranoia. Will ^(talk) 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both - it's too wordy, but the Christian Voice part is a good rationale for having the pic. I think the part about "after Astrid" is unnecessary, though - I'm going to remove it. --Brian Olsen (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's the other way round - the latter mentions the picture's place in the plot, while the latter merely notes that a bunch of loonies whinged about it. MartinMcCann (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It expresses the notability of the scene, though. It's good to have that. Will ^(talk) 22:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's my point - it's notable due to it's role in the plot. A bunch of nobodies whinging is barely a greater claim to notability than if I said I particularly liked that bit of the episode. MartinMcCann (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability in terms of Wikipedia. And I wouldn't call Christian Voice a "bunch of whinging nobodies" either - they did manage to get the Jerry Springer opera pulled. Will ^(talk) 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Stowaway speculation

I removed the following line from the Music section: "The song is loosely based on the episode, from the captain's point of view regarding the Doctor." This appeared to be a speculative, unsourced statement. I have not seen the episode so it's possible that the captain is a gay character with a romantic interest in the Doctor (wouldn't be the first captain we've seen with such intentions) but all the response I'm seeing regarding the song suggests it's from a female point of view, with additional speculation being that it's from Astrid's point of view or even Rose Tyler's. As I say, the episode might prove me wrong, but if it doesn't, then this statement needs to be sourced otherwise it's speculative even if here's a roaring love scene between the captain and the Doctor (which somehow I doubt). 23skidoo (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Murray indeed said it was from the Captain's POV in Confidential - and come on, Russell T Davies wrote the episode. Will ^(talk) 13:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I think the line should come out, we must have misunderstood it. The Captain never saw or met the Doctor; surely it means that in the song, a (female, hence the voice) captain falls for the Doctor... —TreasuryTag talk contribs 13:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, i'm going to remove it as doesn't make sense.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks ;)--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

“ The theme of it is very loosely based on "Voyage of the Damned", which has got a stowaway at its heart who is the Doctor, so the song's called "Stowaway", but its written from the captain's point of view. ” — Murray Gold, 12:54 to 13:05, "Confidential at Christmas"

Will ^(talk) 00:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the captain never meets The Doctor, he dies after meteors crash into the titanic, which captain do you mean? It can't be him because he is dead! Why has this been re added to the article?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Because Gold outright says "it's written from the captain's point of view". The plot can change between the time Gold wrote the song and when they started filming - Astrid wasn't supposed to die in the first draft. Will ^(talk) 19:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Useful citations?

These citations might be useful to use for the production section of the article:

[1]() and [2](). Eagle Owl (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Australian differences??

I read in the article (and the source attributed to it) that the episode may not be seen until 2009. I find this hard to believe. While negotiations may still be continuing with the BBC, I know we are not a season behind as is stated in the source. Not only has season 3 been broadcast on ABC in Australia, it has also now been released on DVD. I understand that the statement is sourced, however the article source isn't correct about where we are up to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.6.243 (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The episode was broadcast by the ABC in Australia on the 29th of June, with series four being aired from next Sunday onwards. The DVD for the episode has been available before this, and the episode had already been shown in ABC shops as a promotion for the DVD before the 29th as well. --Choc chik (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for the Lead

"Voyage of the Damned" is an episode of the British science fiction television series Doctor Who. First broadcast on 25 December 2007, it is 72 minutes long and the third Christmas special since the show’s revival in 2005.

The plot is loosely based on The Poseidon Adventure and the narrative continues from the final scene of Last of the Time Lords, when a luxury space cruiser called the Titanic breaches the walls of the TARDIS. The Titanic’s Captain, Hardaker (Geoffrey Palmer) sabotages his ship and The Doctor works with waitress Astrid Peth to prevent an imminent collision with Earth.

The role of Astrid Peth is played by Australian singer and actress Kylie Minogue and this is her only appearance in the series. Executive producer and writer Russell T. Davies described her casting as a "very exceptional case" because he had written the part of Astrid specifically for her.

On its original airdate, "Voyage of the Damned" was watched by 13.31 million viewers, the highest viewing figures for Doctor Who since the 1979 serial City of Death. It was the second most-watched programme of 2007, beaten only by the episode of EastEnders which aired immediately after the episode. Critics' opinions over the episode were divided; the writing and Minogue's performance were both praised and criticised.

GrahamColm^Talk 11:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Astrid pics

There's another Astrid pic in the actresses article and anoter in the character's article. I don't know if these should be added or not as this article was worked a lot to be a featured candidate and maybe they were here but removed, but should they be added? William Ortiz (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Each of those images have their own purposes; Astrid Peth shows the character; Kylie Minogue shows her together with David Tennant. And this article simply shows Kylie. We shouldn't interchange them. — Edokter • Talk • 10:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• "sabotages the ship shortly after the Titanic's collision with the TARDIS." --> "...shortly after its collision..." might read better.
• "beaten only by the episode of EastEnders which aired immediately after the episode" - repetition of "episode"... and does the EastEnders ep. have a name?
  • Same in Broadcast section.
• Showgirl (as in, the Kylie tour) shouldn't have italics.
• The stuff in quotation marks in the Writing section needs direct citation.
  • They are group-referenced at the end.
• Ref 25; reliable source?
• "The organisation Christian Voice expressed offence at the religious imagery of a scene in which the Doctor is lifted through the ship by robot angels;" - I had to check the ref to find why it pissed them off (messiah portrayal), so you probably should say so somewhere.

Rest looks good. Leave me a note when done. Cheers, giggy _(:O) 06:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• • With regards to ref 25; Yes, Outpost Gallifrey has a reliable reputation as a news aggregator in this field; they have press-access to various sources like BARB and the BBC. — Edokter • Talk • 13:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In order of points:

• Done.
• It has no name.
• I'm not sure that citing every quote after the quotation mark in that section would be helpful - it could make it rather unreadable.
• Ref 25 is a reliable source.
• Done.

Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 11:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Passed. giggy _(:O) 23:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Douglas Adams

I personally feel that this man has to be credited for providing much of the basic ideas of this episode (even if the show itself did not credit him). It seems like blatant plagerism in some ways. For those who arent familiar with douglas adams Starship titanic please check out the wiki page

--Reballare (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Douglas Adams used to write for Doctor Who, so if anything it's a nod as opposed to a plagarism 68.2.35.62 (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It really is borderline plagiarism, though a Wikipedia article is not the place to complain about it. However I have added a reference because really the whole idea comes from that game. Mezigue (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Should this be added?

Capricorn says the crash will wipe out the arth, but in turn left, only london is destroyed. 82.25.130.155 (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not noteworthy to state that Capricorn is horrible in arithmetic. DonQuixote (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Anagram

"Astrid" is an anagram of "Tardis" - surely no accident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.245.155 (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Take me t o your leader

The fourth doctor said this in The horns of Nimon, ep 2 17"20'And the fifth Doctor said that too in "Four to Doomsday" episode 2. So he actually said this before.193.48.172.106 (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And "Aliens in London". It's a throwaway gag which serves no relevance to the plot, though, so shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who). 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/20090605093843/http://www.channelcanada.com/Article2990.html to http://www.channelcanada.com/Article2990.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)