Talk:Catherine Tate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Characters[edit]

A short description of the sketches (Characters) on the catherine tate show would be handy. if anyone knows enough about The Catherine Tate show please would they help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badgercurry (talk • contribs) 21:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would know enough about The Catherine Tate Show, but it's been agreed that this page is about Catherine Tate and not her show. We have some information about the show, which should be sufficient, otherwise the reader can click on the link to the show, to find out a range of information. If your still not satisfied, discuss further. Eagle Owl 16:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Eagle Owl[reply]

Lock this article?[edit]

This article is going to be subject to vandalism by disgruntled Doctor Who fans. I suggest that this article be locked.

The article will only be locked if there is a lot of heavy vandalism which may be the case in time to come. If that time dose arise, then I will put in an application for the article to become semi-protected. Eagle Owl 15:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get this quote?[edit]

"Doctor Who viewers added, "We are NOT delighted that Catherine Tate is returning to Doctor Who, she'll be even worse than Bonnie Langford!" "

There's no source and I just wondered where this came from? I thought it would have been broadcast quickly since bad news travels fast. Please reply on my talk page since I can never remember the talk pages I type on. Thanks St91 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously vandalism.Number36 01:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name change; Ford to Tate?[edit]

The article describe Tate as "Catherine Tate (née Ford..."; "née" is used to indicate a maiden name - has Catherine Tate married someone called Ford? If not, then should it not be Catherine Tate (born Catherine Ford)? Apepper 08:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Née is often used to indicate a maiden name, but the word is simply French for "born". It indicates somebody's birth name. --Jenny 13:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd companion to be older than the Doctor?[edit]

I don't think the claim that Tate will be the second companion to be older then the doctor is true. She would technically be the first, as John Barrowman is also older then the Tennant, but that was after Tate's appearance in Runaway Bride. Actually Flood was much older then Davison when he played the doctor, so I don't know where this came from. TheBigBlueBox 05:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

How about the image on the Donna Noble page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.225.123 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content, I'm afraid. --Jenny 13:27, 3 July 2008 (ETC)

Leaving Doctor Who?[edit]

Has it been confirmed that Tate is not returning next season? Type 40 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next season is in 2010. To my knowledge, only pennant is confirmed for the 2009 specials. --Jenny 13:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I assume you were referring to Doctor Who and have added the name of that programme to the section heading. --Jenny 13:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the article it says Tate would like to have returned for a second series, but there's no reference. Is this true? If so, it should have a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.95.73 (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Noble[edit]

I've removed an extended reference to Donna Noble. We have an article for that character. Catherine Tate's performance in the series has been impressive, so I'd be surprised if that's the last we've seen of Donna, but don't tell anybody I said that. --Jenny 20:47, 6 July 2008 (ETC)

I've restored this:

At the end of the run in which she played a starring role, her character, Donna Noble, was written out of the series.

CKatz removed it saying "this is sci-fi". So it is. Writing out of a character isn't always permanent even in soap operas (Bobby Ewing in Dallas, Dirty Den in east enders) but when a character leaves a series in a fairly conclusive manner we refer to this as "written out". At this stage, Donna is about as conclusively written out as was Rose at the end of Season Two of Doctor Who. She may be back. --Jenny 22:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Blue Sky[edit]

Under the Blue Sky seems to have ended its run (the theatre's website doesn't mention it), so what's she doing currently? Incidentally I came across a couple of reviews of the play while searching - she was either one of the best things in it or the worst, depending on who you read. Reviews, eh? Totnesmartin (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will she be seen again?[edit]

catherine tate drew in quite a few viewers on her doctor who appearence some of you have been wondering if she`ll appear in anything else well i dont know to much but there is something you can do log on to youtube.co.uk and type in catherine tate it comes up with all sorts of her scetches and films shes appeared in and theres a jonathon ross show interview with catherine tate and david tennant and there arew many laughs abroad it so take a look! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.58.131 (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Going Out[edit]

Hi there

Earlier today I wrote about Catherine appearing in the unaired pilot episode of Not Going Out. Someone added a citation needed sign. I don't actually know how to cite information, but all the information about that can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/shows/andrew_collins/blog_20051006.shtml

If someone could cite that for me, it would be a great help. Thank you. George.millman (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Andrew Collins is a reliable source as anyone, although we do tend to shy away from blogs as sources, and I will add that. However, I see someone else has added who eventually played the role, which is irrelevant to Catherine Tate, so I've deleted it. This: "Lee Mack Interview - Not Going Out - British Comedy Guide". www.comedy.org.uk. is actually a much clearer source, so I'll go with that. Rodhullandemu 22:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partner?[edit]

In the Bio Box, she has a "Partner" listed. What the heck does that mean? Is that a term trying to be equated with Spouse? Or is it, more appropriately, her business partner? 66.9.167.110 (talk) 25 January 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I think it means partner as in "significant other whom she lives with but to whom she is not married", as descibed in the body of the article. – ukexpat (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it means cohabitee. Jim Michael (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It only lists one partner, but I found this article which suggests she is/was dating Adrian Chiles 79.79.96.151 (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was three years ago? Adrian Chiles has no mention of Tate. And he is now apparently a very devout Catholic? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this, from 2012? https://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/201209279457/adrian-chiles-catherine-tate/ 2.31.166.237 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's a word for this. Boyfriend. This isn't elementary school; no one needs to be embarassed. --74.72.155.252 (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If they really are engaged to be married the "proper" term would be fiancé? Note the infobox can't use the term "boyfriend" (or fiancé) which in any case implies they may not be co-habiting (and we don't now for sure either way). But the source for the engagement claim is NZ Herald which cites the good old Daily Mail. So it can't be used here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

Are there any reliable sources? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb has 12 May 1968, as does empireonlione.com. The Independent also says 1968. So what is in the article here currently may be wrong. But existing sources do give 1969. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I type anything in the wrong way, I'm new here. I believe the birth date of 12 May 1968 is the correct date. The Guardian [1] interviewed Catherine and, at the time, said she was 39. The article is dated 5 April 2008, so that is consistent with the 1968 date. Also, the article states that Catherine called the interviewer a few times to make sure the facts were correct. Secondly, by typing in Catherine Ford on Genes Reunited [2] (which shows all dates of birth in the UK), it shows that no one with her name was born in London in 1969 or in December, but there is one that was born in the second quarter (April, May, June) in 1968 who's mother's maiden name is also Ford. I think IMDB is a very reliable source and is correct. Also, on David Tennant Does A Podcast with Olivia Colman [3], they discussed Wikipedia and David said that Catherine always said she was a year older than what her Wiki page currently says. Dwhofan (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that info. Views vary on the reliability of IMDb. I often see it used as an External link, even when it has been banished as a source in the article main body. This seems somewhat inconsistent. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion started last year because Catherine turned 50 and every time she was asked about it or congratulated, she'd jokingly say they got the date wrong somehow - something that many women hitting milestone birthdays tend to do. Dwhofan (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe. Except that the article currently has not just a different year, but a totally different date. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for the current sources:
  • The Times is pay-walled so I can't see it. [it says "born in December 1969" Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)][reply]
  • Good Morning Britain in this interview (on 6 April 2018) Kate Garraway (who was born on 4 May 1967) says she thought her birthday was "very similar" to Tate's and so thought Tate was a year older. But Tate says that she did not have "a big birthday coming up". Not sure what this supports. No actual dates are ever mentioned. Tate says "No, it's always wrong on ...." (leaving the viewer to fill in the blank). So I have removed it as an unreliable source or at best WP:OR.
  • The Guardian Q&A just says 1969.
  • The Guardian Profile just says 1969.
Not really the best sources are they. Any suggestions? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The verified twitter for Doctor Who at least congratulates her on 12 May in both 2017 and 2018. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note we have this hidden note after the birth date in the first sentence: "In 2018, Catherine Tate confirmed in her interviews for Good Morning Britain and Breakfast With Em, Grant & Ed that she was born on 5 December 1969. Also The Times mentioned this date in 2010. 12 May 1968 is the wrong date. Day and month were mistakenly reversed. The year is not right too." Martinevans123 (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was added here on 19 June 2018 by 9-edits editor DrCathTennant. I'd suggest it should be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just consulted the Civil Registration Birth Index via Ancestry.co.uk and found an entry for "Catherine Jane Ford" registered in St Pancras district during the quarter July-September 1968, mother's maiden name "Ford". Curiously, there's also an identical entry for the the previous quarter which is a handwritten addition to the typescript page. I suspect this is the same birth registered twice. This is the only match for "Catherine Ford", mother's maiden name "Ford", born 1968-1970. I doubt we can use this as a source in the article as it's probably "original research", but it's enough (along with the other evidence) to convince me that 12 May 1968 is the correct date of the two. -- Dr Greg  talk  11:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that. I guess St Pancras (now subsumed into Camden) is the registration district for Bloomsbury. A May birth could well have been registered in July-September. The handwritten note suggests that the office was informed in the previous quarter (April-June) but, for whatever reason, did not formally enter it until the following quarter. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except I'm not seeing any actual source for Bloomsbury as place of birth - only for her primary school and place where her mother was a florist Brunswick Centre. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tim1965 has now kindly added some very clear sources from WP:RS sources. I can't see there is now much doubt over the date of birth. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of repeated mindless vandalism, from IP and SPAs, protection now requested at WP:RFPP. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The FreeBMD entry seems to be this one for second quarter 1968, District = St. Pancras (although there is also a duplicate entry for the following quarter). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate[edit]

Her birthday is actually the fifth of December not the twelfth of May. TheYoungDoctor (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable published source that states this and also explain why there are reliable sources that disagree. See section above for discussion. -- Dr Greg  talk  12:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is Hello! magazine considered reliable? It also has 12 May 1968. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it most certainly is not. Jarlsbergthursdays (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? It does not appear at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. What are your alternative sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello is a gossip rag magazine and can’t be used to support a birth date, both these Guardian sources. Tate herself has said the 12 May 1968 date is wrong for starts Good Morning Britain in this interview, and these Guardian refs (a proved reliable source) listed her year of birth as 1969 [4]
I see. And how do you explain the official record at the Register of Births, St Pancras District, Volume 5D (1968), pages 1565 and S'68? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that's correct, it cannot be included because it doesn't give the exact date of birth. You should know this.Jarlsbergthursdays (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggesting that the General Register Office, where it's listed twice, is wrong? What is your proposed alternative date of birth? You have added no sources to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General Register Office doesn't list her full date of birth, and even then there's not concrete proof to say it's her. Especially when numerous other reliable sources have reported 5 December 1969, including Tate herself.Jarlsbergthursdays (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So where has Tate "said herself" that her date of birth is 5 December 1969? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her record at Companies House is here. The date of birth is given as May 1968. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tim1965 added two good sources, for the date of 12 May 1968, on 12 May 2020, here? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't give the exact date and official documents aren't allowed because they're a primary source. Jarlsbergthursdays (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that, to avoid any further censure, you revert your last edit and restore the information that you've now deleted five times today. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be doing that, as re introducing a birthdate supported by Hello Magazine would be a violation of WP:RS. Until an agreement is reached and a reliable source is introduced it should be left blank.Jarlsbergthursdays (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! magazine is considered a reliable source. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, The Guardian is generally considered a WP:RS. But I have to conclude that the statements in the two sources you provide: "Catherine Tate was born in 1969" (2006) and "Born 1969" (2005), cannot be correct. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources added by User:Tim1965 are:
Thompson, Dave (2013). Doctor Who FAQ: All That's Left to Know About the Most Famous Time Lord in the Universe. Montclair, N.J.: Applause Theatre and Cinema Books. p. 100. ISBN 9781480342958 and
Scott, Cavan; Wright, Mark (2018). Who-ology: Doctor Who: The Official Miscellany. London: BBC Books. p. 119. ISBN 9781785943027.
Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's yet another RS source, empireonline.com: [6] which says 12 May 1968. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the few seconds of cryptic banter between Tate and Kate Garraway, on Good Morning Britain (on 6 April 2018), can be used as a source for anything? Tate says: "No, it's always wrong on ...." (leaving the viewer to fill in the blank). What is that supposed to mean? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the correct date is 12 May 1968, per the GRO and Companies House information - see also birthday greetings giving that date. But I'm surprised that, given there is some argument over this, no-one has added a footnote, or a hidden note, explaining that some sources give the December 1969 date and that Tate herself has alluded to it, presumably as an attempt to deliberately mislead people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a footnote, in addition to two hidden notes. Some of what Tate has said in interview seems to have been sarcasm at the expense of Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Jarlsbergthursdays has now been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of ZestyLemonz. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Cell[edit]

Tate's latest project Hard Cell, has no article and the first episode has been released tonight, 12 April. Writing for The Guardian, Rachel Aroesti says: "Tate might be a veteran character comedian but Hard Cell is her first attempt at a sitcom – and thanks to a lacklustre narrative and an abundance of one-dimensional characters, it really shows." Why is it in the lead section? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone suggest why it belongs in the lead section? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Ozzzz[edit]

With negative comments and dropping viewing figures, this "funny" show has escape. Sorry, I know comment is not in line with the rules - but when was Q of O ever funny or in keeping with the rules of comedy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.22.214 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catherine_Tate&oldid=1210634203"