Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)

Jackie Tyler added as a companion?

Just wanted to ask everyones opinion on potentially adding Jackie Tyler to the list of the Tenth Doctor's companions? I think because she was featured in multiple episodes and did travel in the Tardis which is a main characteristic of a companion in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRani1999 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You would need to cite a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The source is Doctor Who. It happened on the show. Jackie was a traveling companion several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"Several" is, in my opinion, an overstatement. Generally when she appears, it's because the Doctor (and Rose) have come to present day London (plus in Father's Day, in which they meet a younger Jackie) and she either provides exposition or is involved in her capacity as a very concerned Rose's mum - not as a companion (this could be compared to, say, Rory, who is a very concerned Amy's husband, but also travels with the Doctor and Amy). Only on a couple of occasions does Jackie actually travel "with" the Doctor and Rose, and even on these occasions it would be a stretch to say she travels with them as such. Anditres (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Your assessment of Jackie's role is completely correct, however I think there are far weaker candidates already in the list. For instance Astrid, Rosita and Jackson didn't travel in the TARDIS at all.

Though Jackie is never an enthusiastic participant in the doctor's adventures she still travelled with the doctor in the TARDIS in three separate adventures (Christmas Invasion, Army of Ghost and Journey's End.)

It should be noted that prior to 2005 run the motivations for the doctor's companions weren't particularly uniform .

Barbara and Ian were essentially abducted, Tegan joined to avenge her aunt (and was anxious to return). Whilst Romana I, Liz (and arguably Jo) were fulfilling their professional obligations. Consequently I'm not sure that Jackie's role as a mum rather an diehard adventurer invalidates her being considered companion. 2A00:23C7:FE26:1201:BCDF:D04F:7F5E:6BE2 (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Take it from someone who had this same discussion years ago over the same issue, let me spell this out, since others may not be willing: The fact that she traveled with the Doctor is not in question, it's the label "companion" being applied as a result of that fact. If that were spoken directly in the programme (e.g. "The Doctor: Meet my new companion, her name's Jackie"), then it would be from the primary source, but it's rare (if ever) that they use this label in dialogue. For any of us to take "traveled with" (established fact from primary source) and therefore apply "companion" (interpretation) is considered "original research" (WP:OR) or synthesis, etc. (that is, things that require your personal interpretation). Regardless of how "obvious" that interpretation may seem or how many people might agree with you, it's not sufficient to justify inclusion in the article until a reliable source has the same position. It doesn't mean you're wrong… keep looking for a source. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 02:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure who you're arguing with. The previous comment that I responded to made two points. A: that frequency of travel was pertinent to Jackie's status as a companion, B that her particular role in the story arc also had bearing on being considered a companion. I'm merely offering an alternative perspective which is perfectly appropriate to do within this context. I'm not trying to justify an edit, I'm just trying to add a perspective to a discussion and point to features in source material that may better inform it.

As to personal interpretation vs referenced fact, Doctor Who is a work of fiction there are no settled statuses only coherent or incoherent interpretations of the source. Which is why we discuss and test them in forums like this. An official sounding reference maybe compelling but it not dispositive. For instance if (in a fit of eccentricity) the BBC pronounced that 'Rose' wasn't a real companion a good proportion of Whovians would ignore it and argue that BBC was wrong pointing to extant features of the source material. 2A00:23C7:FE26:1201:C8B9:E420:FE22:1E64 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

As a relatively new Wikipedian I have a genuine question: if something blatantly happened in the show (or any similar media for that matter) and isn't a matter of opinion or in any way subjective, does it really still need to be specified in a secondary source? It seems to me that this would make detailing the most basic aspects of a show, especially a well known one like Doctor Who, pretty difficult as they likely aren't explicitly detailed in many (if any) secondary sources as it would be assumed that the reader is already aware of those things. So while secondary sources about the show during the First Doctor's run may include such details, by the time we're at the Thirteenth Doctor's run, things will have changed but secondary sources - mainly aimed at the general British public - would assume a degree of awareness of Doctor Who, even with respect to things that have changed since the beginning - or especially, in some cases, as I imagine could be the case with some of the functions of the TARDIS and those of the sonic screwdriver, and also the exact (i.e. explosive, in the revival) nature of regeneration.

If you can point me towards where to read about Wikipedia's policies on these things that would also be appreciated. Anditres (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You can use primary sources to summarise the primary sources themselves (works of fiction in this case), but you can't add your own interpretations. Any interpretations, analyses, etc. needs to be mentioned by secondary sources (journals, magazines, interviews, etc.). A rule of thumb is to start with a direct quote (or for visual media, bare-bones descriptions). DonQuixote (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I will have a look for one then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRani1999 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Is all this ridiculousness, semantics over the word "companion?" The definition? Can we just have a page called - "List of characters who travelled with the Doctor over multiple episodes". Define that as you will, but I call it a "companion." It's clear cut, the only source we need is the show, and then completely ridiculous contributions here like "Rosita" and "Adelaide" won't be included in that useful list. 69.9.133.169 (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by citing and summarising what reliable sources have to say. If reliable sources aren't talking about it, then it's probably not going to be mentioned here. If you want to do something other than that, there's always tardis wiki or you can start your own fan page. DonQuixote (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work. Many "reliable sources" refer to the lead character as "Doctor Who." As just one example of how worthless they are.

Fine, enjoy your reign over a nebulous page that can't define a very simple concept. 69.9.133.169 (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

First appearance dif from first companion appearance?

So in the list Rory's first episode is listed as Vampires of Venice, while Amy's is listed as The Eleventh Hour. Both characters made their first appearance in the Eleventh Hour acting as an ally of the Doctor. Its not due to the credit as Arthur Darville isnt a regular until The Impossible Astronaut, and it cant be due to traveling in the TARDIS as neither Rory nor Amy travel with the Doctor in the Eleventh Hour. While this is about Rory specifically this does extend to a few other characters. I checked the archives last time something like this was discussed would be this Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)/Archive 3#Rory's Position which was 13 years ago, and before series 6.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, that was a side-discussion that got nipped in the bud. The full and extremely long discussion is at Talk:The Vampires of Venice#Rory = companion ? DonQuixote (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Cruft!

This article is 90% primary sourced, there's a ton of original research, and the last third of it degenerates into a bunch of crufty lists as if the original editors just gave up. This would be a great candidate for WP:TNT, but I doubt the Whovian fanboys would let me get away with it.

Anybody want to have a say before I start hacking away at it? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If you'd like to discuss this civilly, I'd recommend starting there. Ta. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Like many articles on Wikipedia, this one is valuable because of contributors who are passionate about the topic, and rolling in with uncivil threats to blow up those contributions will not be productive in the end. Call them "fanboys" if that helps you reconcile your uncivil attitude, but it makes little difference. I'm sure this article could be improved, but I doubt the approach you're taking here will accomplish that. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do I feel like I'm breaking into someone's private clubhouse? It doesn't matter how passionate someone is about a topic; WP has rules and policies about what and does WP:NOT constitute reliable sourcing. Passion is often a detriment to impartial reporting of encyclopedic content.

This article is sourced by citing individual episodes, BBC press releases, and other officially licensed content. As such, it does not meet WP standards for reliable sourcing. There's also an excessive amount of detail and original research, but I think most of that could be dealt with by improving the state of sourcing. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

None of us are responsible for how you feel. Improve the article. Or don't. But be civil. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The deliberate restoration of the bad-faith title of this discussion clearly indicates WP:NOTHERE. Nobody's telling you what you can and can't do, but we can definitely tell the lack of collaboration and civilness. "Hack" away at it as you see fit; don't expect other editors to necessarily agree with all of your edits, however. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that if disruption was my goal, I would've come to the talk page first and listed my issues with the article? Believe it or not, I'd like to be collaborative. You may feel I'm WP:NOTHERE, but I'm feeling WP:OWNBEHAVIOR from you. FFS, if people are offended enough to edit my talk page title, how much worse would it be when editing the actual article? Can people not distance themselves from their fandom long enough to fix a flawed article? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Again with the lack of civility. Don't expect to throw a tantrum and then expect everyone to follow you accordingly. All I'm seeing is talk - do you actually intend to make any edits, or are you just here to chat? When you do, and another editors reverts any of your edits here because they disagree with it, will you throw OWN accusations and call them offended? -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, nobody's daring you to do anything. You said you needed to fix the article - so do it, instead of just talking about it. I can talk about having my morning coffee all day long; I won't get it unless I actually go make it. And as always, us "Whovian fanboys" are always here to help; you'll likely consider this as ownership as well, but what we're saying is as a newer account, we recommend you (at the very least) listen to the advice of editors who have been here for a decade plus (not saying you have to, not telling you what to do or how to do it, just making civil recommendations). -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a big difference between improving an article, and just deleting huge sections of it. For example: if something is unnecessarily wordy, edit it. If something needs better sources, either add them, or tag that they're needed. There's a balance to be found, but this isn't it. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

First off, I don't appreciate the tone policing of my section title. I think that ticks me off more than anything else.

The problem is not that this is unnecessarily wordy or badly sourced; it's that this whole article is an extended fan tribute with little interest to anyone who isn't already a Whovian. There are entire paragraphs of original research and "sources" consisting of the episodes themselves or of BBC-licensed material. Those are primary sources and as such as not proper for WP. I suppose a search for proper sources could be performed, but I doubt it would bear fruit.

If topics like "The Life, Upbringing, and Death of Every Single Companion on Dr. Who" have been discussed in any credible sources which meet WP:RS, I'd love to see them. Please, prove me wrong. Otherwise, I maintain that this article belongs on a fan wiki, not here on WP, and should be radically cut down. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Shubopshadangalang concerning the mass deletions; if you want to improve the article, then improve it by following the above recommendation. You took this discussion to an admin's talk page, and were recommend to follow BRD twice; instead, once you were reverted, you restored your edits and contributed to edit-warring instead of waiting for a clearer consensus. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I made bold edits, you reverted them, and now we're discussing it. That's exactly what BRD is. I'm following the cycle and you're accusing me of edit-warring because you don't like the result.

Any comments on the sourcing issue? I keep bringing it up, but nobody seems to want to address it. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

We have commented on it. Add sources, find better sources, tag what needs better or new sourcing. Mass deletion is not a fix: tag, source, and copyedit/crop the material. The tags at the top of the article - great. You've given other editors five days since you first started this discussion to make any edits, before you've repeatedly mass-deleted material. Remember: There is no deadline. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Alex 21. Also: It's not "your" section title. Be offended if you like. Also, you absolutely are edit warring by reverting the reverted edits… that's… that's what that means. It's "BRD" not "BRRRRRRDRRRDRR." I get how it's frustrating to have your edits undone by someone else. Now imagine how the editors who contributed the material react to your edits. Improving the article - if that's what you're really here to do - will take more work than a mass deletion. You're right about the sourcing issue… of course it needs help in that area. You're right that the article is too wordy… of course it is. Everything here is a work in progress, and in some places more than others. So… make progress. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I think further discussion is useless and I'll be taking this to the appropriate noticeboard. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask why? We've provided you with further advice, agreed with you on the sourcing issue, but you seem rather inclined not to discuss any further, and show intention to only mass-delete. Is there a reason these edits must be performed immediately? -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Just make constructive edits as described above, or… don't. This is not a "dispute." —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

We have different definitions of what makes an edit "constructive." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I used to "have a different definition" for the word "inflammable". Then I learned that I was wrong. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate, this is constructive: "if something is unnecessarily wordy, edit it. If something needs better sources, either add them, or tag that they're needed" -- —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

For anyone interested, there is a moderated discussion on the Dispute resolution noticeboard that continues from here. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Now that that process has been closed, it's worth mentioning that improvements to the article might include either deletion of some content, or the addition of some content (e.g. "insight" - provided it's well-sourced and valuable to the article). The big question now seems to be whether the individual companion articles are each worth having on their own, or whether some of them should be folded into this article. I imagine the answer to that will vary from article-to-article. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It's worthy to note that, unfortunately, the editor who initialized this discussion still has no intention to collaborate. Personally, I would definitely agree with folding some of the individual articles into this one. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

That is clear, yes. However, in another day's light, I don't know that I entirely agree with deleting another user's talk page entry. It was anything but constructive, sure, but… could the main offensive/insulting part have been removed/edited instead? —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 12:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Some trims

I've just made some trims to the page, and I want to clarify my intentions because I know this has been contentious lately. :) I've come to this article from the current AfD discussion, where I voted "keep". It's obvious that this subject is notable, and is covered extensively in reliable sources.

That being said, there was (and still is) a lot of fiddly detail that simply distracts from the main points that the article is making — like a long list of "exceptions" to a brief, general statement. So I've trimmed some of those down. I hope that's helpful. Toughpigs (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to piggyback onto this to explain my recent edit, as it is fairly extensive. If an editor disagrees or is unhappy with the bulk of the changes, please feel free to revert and come here so we can discuss how to go about it. The sections I've changed could still do with some work but I feel are improved in the edited state. The changes are as follows:

• Merging Loss of a companion with Deaths. Deaths feels like a natural subcategory of Loss [...] , so having both as separate headings feels redundant. I was unsure whether these should go in the position in the article where Loss [...] or Deaths had been. I elected for the former so that it was not buried beneath the list of companions, but I can see arguments for both.
• Similarly, I have trimmed a lot of repetition in these sections. Most notably, leading paragraphs that state, eg. examples of deaths, have been removed/changed where there is then a list of those same deaths, particularly if the paragraph does not add any extra detail or encyclopaedic value. I have also removed a lot of original research and content written with in-universe perspective, and replaced it with briefer real-world perspective content, with references.
• General copyedit changes - typos, changed "[episode]" to [episode] as per MOS:ITALICTITLE.

I hope these changes are helpful. Irltoad (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Please note that per MOS:QUOTETITLE, we use quotation marks for Single episodes or plot arcs of a television series, and per WP:WHO/MOS#Terminology, that includes quotation marks for singular episodes (all of post-2005) and italics for serials (pre-1989). For example, The Waters of Mars should absolutely be using quotation marks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the correction. I misconstrued 'Television and radio programs, specials, shows, series and serials' to include single episodes but that makes sense. Irltoad (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Irltoad: See also WP:WHO/MOS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Madge Arwell

@Joshdoubleu1: This is a polite encouragement to discuss Madge's potential status as a companion rather than further edit warring upon the expiry of your block. Be aware that this was previously discussed at Talk:The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe#Claire Skinner companion, but as this was nine years ago you are welcome to reopen the conversation and state your case. U-Mos (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The Doctor is a minor character, apparently

An editor reverted a change which had included the Doctor as one of the primary protagonists, preferring two teachers who appeared early in the history of the series as the only protagonists mentioned in the article. This, apparently, mattered less to the reverter than the anomaly.

Although the series title is Doctor Who, the esteemed editor did not consider that he was the, or even a, protagonist in the series.

Perhaps the editor would have preferred a different series title that didn't mention the Doctor? E.g. The Two Schoolteachers, and a doctor

Rather than wielding the Sonic Screwdriver of Reversion Power, the self-appointed (as we all are) editor could've left his metaphorical weapon in his metaphorical pocket and improved the article by considering the Doctor as a / the protagonist of the series and amending the article accordingly.

It is ego-driven petty power play such as this that makes Wikipedia fail to be a consistently good quality resource compared with real encyclopaedias with real, competent editors. 86.172.155.158 (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, your edit obscured the meaning of the sentence. I don't have access to the cited source, but it's not unheard of for secondary material to consider Ian and Barbara as akin to the "main characters" of the show's early years, e.g. Matthew Sweet describes Ian as such in his interview with Russell last year. U-Mos (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It is so laborious trying to explain what a bright young pre-teen would be able easily to understand but, such is the problem with some 'editors'.

Here goes:

1) your comment, which you reference, and the original form of the article before the Doctor was added as a protagonist, do not mention the Doctor as a protagonist, which is questionable even from the start of the series as the series is named after him but, leaving aside the questionable decision to omit the series' title character from the protagonists in the early part of the history,

2) the rest of article also does not mention the Doctor as a protagonist

3) thus, the editor is happy, apparently, that nowhere in the whole history of the series is the Doctor a protagonist.

Is this correct? Sensible? Intelligent? I would suggest not. Furthermore, it would seem to be an example of weaknesses in the structure and processes of Wikipedia, which one might be forgiven for concluding are more influenced by the minor egos of minor jobsworth editors than by a desire to build a repository of knowledge. Many editors are somewhat more adult than this, but it is the ones who aren't that are responsbible for one of the glaring weeaknesses of Wikipedia. 86.172.155.158 (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@86.172.155.158 Here's an idea then: why don't you fix that in a way that doesn't misrepresent the source? U-Mos (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be futile.

You (i) needn't have created a problem in the first place if you'd taken the trouble properly to understand the term, 'protagonist' and could even have spent a few minutes using search engines; (ii) could have resolved it once you understood, if you were really interested in making Wikipedia a better resource. Instead, you took the stance that you'd had your mini-power-kick and others who might be more interested in good quality information could pick up the pieces.

Unless Wikipedia is able to resolve such fundamental problems it would just be poking around the edges to do what you could have done rather than obstructed. Amateur editors who, it appears, do not understand that they are a major part of the problem, get kicks by wielding their limited understanding and power. You have exemplified this. I'll leave you to your amusement if that's how you choose to spend your time. I have better ways to spend mine. 86.172.155.158 (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@86.172.155.158 Okay, you do that. I've edited the article to directly mention that the Doctor is also a lead character. U-Mos (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

David Whitaker devised the balance of the four main characters...Hero of the series would be Ian Chesterton, an everyday individual catapulted, like Richard Hannay in The Thirty Nine Steps, from suburban normality into a fight for survival.... — Doctor Who: The Early Years by Jeremy Bentham, p66 DonQuixote (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)