Talk:Astrid Peth

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Merge it or ditch it or something

Look, I know we've been down this road before. But the character was in one (1) episode. She wasn't especially notable. Had she not been played by someone famous outside the series, she wouldn't have a page. She wasn't a companion despite what the BBC says and the fact that other "one off" companions have pages isn't a good reason to keep hers, it's a good reason to get rid of theirs, too. Discuss. :) Wilybadger (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The press certainly think the character is notable, given the number of sources; that is what establishes notability. Add to that that the article currently hold Good article status, chances of merging are nil. — Edokter (talk) — 23:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of the word Peth

There is supposed to be a policy on no personal attacks here but someone has effectively told me that I am illiterate in the language of my homeland. I altered the incorrect Welsh translation from "part" to "thing" . I am a fluent Welsh speaker. I live in Wales and I use the language every day. My change was reverted by someone who clearly does not speak the language despite that fact that it actually agreed with most of the sources if the changer had bothered to look. And I said I spoke the language. The word for "thing" is pretty basic in any language. :-) And why? Because s/he had read something in the Sun newspaper! This is a tabloid that has the reputation for being bought by people who want to look at the pictures. (It has a topless woman on page 3 every day.) (This is meant to be read in a humorous tone, just in case it sounds angry.) Please don't revert this change.Neilj (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of it being correct, everyone was commenting on it being "part". We're quoting them, so we can't correct them. DonQuixote (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Look at the refs properly. Regardless of what a newspaper may say, the meaning is STILL incorrect. I speak this language. It is a FACT what the word means. This means that stating the wrong meaning is incorrect and therefore should not be in Wikipedia because it is INCORRECT. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. Neilj (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. In short, we put information in that other sources can provide us, wether it is true or not. — Edokter (talk) — 22:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This is argument from authority of a rule. It is established by good research that it is inherently and systematically cognitively deficient to argue from a rule rather than from facts. It also leads, the research says, to a lack of vision of the abstract and posibilities .

As it happens the Oxford English Dictionary defines To verify as "To show to be true by demonstration or evidence; to confirm the truth or authenticity of; to substantiate:"

The purpose of verification is to establish what is true. If the rules allow untrue information to be put in and not corrected then the rules are not correct and need modifying. It would have been better to actually check the refs before reverting my change because one of them supported what I said. The one from the newspaper with the more educated readership that will complain about inaccuracies and therefore probably checks things more. The reason this is important (the consequence that comes from proper cognition) is it is exactly the kind of thing that a journalist hostile to wikipedia could use against us. It is clearly wrong. It has been corrected before and the wrong information reinstated. I have modified the article again to include both versions and provided a reference to a university run dictionary that luckily allows direct linking to a word meaning. I would suggest discussing it before reverting it again. Neilj (talk)

That is not good enough; You need to provide a source that uses the word "peth" in relation to the statement you inserted. Citing a dictionary doesn't cut it. Find a source that discusses the episode which states that "part" is wrong. That we can include. Including sources that merely confirm the meaning of the word without providing context ammounts to original research. Remember that the section reports on how the media was speculating on Astrid's name. Wether the word "peth" is used correctly or not, is simply not relevant in that context. — Edokter (talk) — 14:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The translation given for "peth" in the Guardian article is "thing," though the translation given in the Digital Spy discussion is "part." Precedent should be given to the Guardian article as the the correct English meaning is "thing." Now, the word 'peth' can also be used to attribute qualities such as "quite" "somewhat" "like a" etc etc. This, combined with Astrid (an anagram of Tardis) implies that she is "somewhat a tardis" or "part tardis." There are arguments for both, but if we are going along the actual translation, it should be noted in the article that "Peth" means "thing" but can, in some circumstances, mean 'part.' Leaving the wording as it currently is is misleading. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 17:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see, Peth can also refer to an embedded subject in a sentence, ie. "it". But the point is: We cannot admonish a source for the wrong translation and then correct them, unless another source does so. Such a source must name Digital Spy explicitly. If we simply say "part" is wrong, we lose our neutrality and engage in original research. At most we could label it [sic]. — Edokter (talk) — 15:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never come across 'peth' being used in such a way. Can you point me to an example? We can't admonish them, you're correct - so take it out and tag it with a "needs reference". Or, why can't the Guardian be the primary source? Or, word it such as, "Blah blah blah gives the translation of the Welsh peth as meaning "part" though the correct translation is "thing."" This way, we are acknowledging their source, but giving the correct translation. -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 21:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Examples of "it". Your suggestion of putting in though the correct translation is "thing" is exactly what I am trying to warn you about; We cannot "correct" our sources. That is why I suggest putting in [sic] instead, so people that know the source may be wrong.

That page shows some really loose translations. You are confusing differences in idiomatic translations with real differences in meaning. Anghofiwch y peth actually means "Forget the thing" . It is just that this is not the words normally used in English. I don't think it is sensible for you to argue about the meaning of words in a language that you do not speak.

Page 394 of this part of Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru ( The University of Wales Dictionary) which is the definitive source for Welsh translations is informative.[2]

Just remove The Digital Spy thing, which is actually The Sun newspaper, as a source. I don't think you really realise how bad a source The Sun is .Firstly it and its readers are constantly used as an example of stupidity by comedians. Here is an example: [3] It apparently has the reading age of a primary school child.

Secondly the article is full of mistakes. It actually has perth not peth which is a hedge! I do wonder if they looked up parth which does mean part.

Lose The Sun as a reference and use The Guardian which gives the correct translation and then Wikipedia loses a stupid looking error.Neilj (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't clear to me that the ref was actualy a forum post linking to The Sun. Forums are bad sources anyway. I've removed it. — Edokter (talk) — 01:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This source doesn't really mean "it;" 'Anghofiwch y peth' and 'Meddyliwch am y peth!' etc mean "Forget about the thing/it" and "Think about the thing/it" but it doesn't mean 'it' on its own. I'd agree with putting sic in, but if we miss out the source in question, this whole problem is solved. But reading down, it seems as it has been removed, which begs the question why have you been arguing to keep it in when you clearly haven't read it?! -- Xxglennxx (talk • cont.) 20:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Astrid Peth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071231200210/http://www.mirror.co.uk:80/news/topstories/2007/12/27/eastenders-saves-the-day-89520-20266441/ to http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2007/12/27/eastenders-saves-the-day-89520-20266441/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Astrid Peth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090630144348/http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk:80/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=191711&command=displayContent&sourceNode=191710&contentPK=19352915&folderPk=112383&pNodeId=191800 to http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=191711&command=displayContent&sourceNode=191710&contentPK=19352915&folderPk=112383&pNodeId=191800

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astrid Peth. 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/20160303165905/http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=191711&command=displayContent&sourceNode=191710&contentPK=19352915&folderPk=112383&pNodeId=191800 to http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=191711&command=displayContent&sourceNode=191710&contentPK=19352915&folderPk=112383&pNodeId=191800

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) 22:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Astrid Peth. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/a82142/im-903-years-old.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gallifreyone.com/news-archives.php?id=4-2007
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071229231855/http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C22978043-2%2C00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C22978043-2%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/a82103/david-tennant-discusses-kylie-kiss.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080101115607/http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C22977010-2%2C00.html?from=mostpop to http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C22977010-2%2C00.html?from=mostpop
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2007/12/27/eastenders-saves-the-day-89520-20266441/

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) 05:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Astrid Peth. 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/20080101100102/http://www2.skynews.com.au/showbiz/article.aspx?id=209029 to http://www2.skynews.com.au/showbiz/article.aspx?id=209029
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080101100102/http://www2.skynews.com.au/showbiz/article.aspx?id=209029 to http://www2.skynews.com.au/showbiz/article.aspx?id=209029

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) 02:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astrid Peth. 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/20071229081809/http://www.mirror.co.uk/showbiz/tv/todaystv/2007/12/24/doctor-who-89520-20265290/ to http://www.mirror.co.uk/showbiz/tv/todaystv/2007/12/24/doctor-who-89520-20265290/

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) 01:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Who Here?

Who here thinks Astrid Peth is more an allies charater then a companion?

"Nuff Said." 198.217.122.254 (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)