Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Companion (Doctor Who). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Roses first appearance with tenth doctor
Technically its not the Children in Need special.
Its Parting of the Ways, since he regenerates in that episode and is seen with rose in that episode. Goku1st (talk • contribs) 08:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- That isn't a Tenth Doctor episode. U-Mos (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Whats the definition of a 'Tenth Doctor episode'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladylovedisdain (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Doctor/Companion format
" in stories on other planets the Doctor and Jo became a two-person team with a close, personal bond. This pattern, the Doctor with a single female companion, became a template from which subsequent episodes of Doctor Who rarely diverged."
"Rarely" is subjective, but I'd say that this format didn't become the norm until the Sixth Doctor. Four travelled with both Harry and Sarah Jane for an entire season plus one serial and he usually had K-9 as a companion in addition to Leela or Romana. Five also frequently had more than one companion. In the new series, Nine travelled with Rose and Jack together for two episodes and Ten travelled with Rose and Mickey for a time. While Wikipedia seems to consider Rory's status as companion debatable, he is currently traveling with Eleven and Amy, making a three-person team.71.190.81.108 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, now source it and we are set. magnius (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
What are you asking me to source? I'm not suggesting any changes in the existing text, I'm saying there's a fundamental inaccuracy in what's there based on information that's already on Wikipedia, most of it on the page itself. Bringing it up here seemed like a better idea than removing the section and I don't know how I'd change it short of doing that. 71.190.81.108 (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The Current Doctor Who Website
At the official website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw - if you mouse over the section 'Characters' it states 'Read all about the Doctor and his companions' - if you click on it it then leads to information upon The Doctor, Amy, Churchill, River Song and Rory. This seems to me to be the equivalent of the companions tab on the prior site which was accepted as evidence for the BBC regarding somewhat contentious figures such as Lady Christina. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- But Churchill isn't a companion. Hopefully... Damn that BBC for making things so ambiguous--66.131.156.124 (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Rory's Position
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've closed this section to save repeating the same arguments because Rory's status as been and been discussed at Talk:The Vampires of Venice#Rory = companion ? Please read the arguments there and if you have a new source, please join the discussion. Edgepedia (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
So what is it exactly that is refraining Rory being in the lists of companions? Such characters as Micky and Captain Jack appeared in recent series for only a handful of episodes travelling with The Doctor yet are classed as companions. Emtythe1st 19:36 27 May 2010
- Lack of a reliable source. Have you bothered to read any of the discussion? magnius (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The Doctor Who website says he is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladylovedisdain (talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Where exactly? Please provide a link. Edgepedia (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
He has traveled with the doctor much longer than some other componions, like Adam in Series 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FJVGE (talk • contribs) 11:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- So? Still needs a reliable source or you can't add him. Adam is sourced, Rory, not. magnius (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Where is Adam sourced? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Does that mean I should not have added him to the list of dead companions? Sorry! Thetictocmonkey 19:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Rumour is that Rory re-appears in the finale, how the crack comes into things is somewhat different. hence a 'presumed death' is better [1]
Rory is sourced, look at the official website for a start. He was a companion and until this is acknowledged this list is inaccurate. I'm sorry, but it is. Look: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPatrickSpiller (talk • contribs) 22:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- This has been debated ad nauseum. The discussion always goes like this: Rory is a companion because: it is the consensus in fandom, it is abundantly clear in the primary source, articles mention him being a companion or an assistant (such as the daily star, which even though are rumours or spoilers, are in this particular case dead on), the BBC website lists him in characters and companions. On the other side we have Rory is not a companion because: the BBC hasn't released an article explicitly stating it (which is not surprising, Arthur Darvill is not Kylie Minogue. And this isn't a much awaited special either).
I believe that has gone beyond doubt. And at this rate you'll just keep getting bothered by the fandom because of your rigidity. I understand why such adherance to the rules is important in important or ambiguous articles, but in this case I feel it is unnecessary, especially considering the amount of evidence we have provided. Let us simply add him with a "citation needed" like you did Jackson Lake, or let us cite the BBC doctor who website.--66.131.156.124 (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Rory
I've closed this section to save repeating the same arguments because Rory's status as been and been discussed at Talk:The Vampires of Venice#Rory = companion ? Please read the arguments there and if you have a new source, please join the discussion. Edgepedia (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
should rory not be listed as a companion of the eleventh doctor? He has travelled in the tardis on more than one ocasion, I would say that that gives him companion status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.192.0 (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Read the discussion above. magnius (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Ummm.... the article itself defines a companion as "someone who travels in the TARDIS and shares in the Doctor's adventures". How does Rory not fit the criteria of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.65.106 (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
This is still a topic under debate. Cease your unilateral closing off of dicussion or you will be reported. 68.33.34.2 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
other non sourced
Added "cn" for Adam (no source at all), Mickey (who I think was added on the principle of being in the tardis), Jack (same pretty much) and re-appearances in Jounrey's End - which I actually remember for the discussion were only addeed because they appeared as companions before with no source that their reappearance made them a companion again in those episodes. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sourced all bar Jackson Lake, still looking. magnius (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- which I didn't add by the way (it was already there) - also there's still the thing about whether being a companion once automatically means you're one whenever you return (which is the only reason that those in Journey's End are counted as being one in that story) Eleventh Doctor (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I seem to remember a long winded debate about Lake at the time, consensus was reached I think, but I can't find a cast iron source. magnius (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is by no means the only reason those characters are listed as such in JE, that is due to their star billing in the episode, the myriad of sources describing the return of the doctor's companions at the time, and of course this and the other character pages, specifically calling them series 4 companions (as much as I was resentful of Mickey being called thus at the time). I will have a hunt for Jackson Lake sources, I have no doubt they exist somewhere. U-Mos (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sources provided for all but Mr Lake, largely due to the whole "next doctor" ruse pre-broadcast. I don't see the issue with including him though, after all if Rosita is then Morrissey (with star billing) surely is too. I know star billing can't be the be all and end all in light of the end of time, but if an assissting character is given star credit I say that's a strong indication of companion status. U-Mos (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, there is no pre-transmission announcement by the BBC because of the nature of the story. There was an RTD interview saying that there would be one-off companions for these specials. We need reviews, lists of companions etc. Edgepedia (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The only source I can find for Mr Morrissey as a companion is this, which unfortunately I doubt is reliable. I am surprised that there doesn't appear to have been a discussion on this at the time. It seems editors focused on sourcing his character name (then sourced as "The Doctor") rather than status before broadcast, and after focus was on Rosita's controversial status and then this episode was largely forgotten about with the understandable excitement around Matt Smith being annouced as the Eleventh Doctor. Of course, unless my memory betrays me very much there are numerous reports of David Tennant acting as Morrissey's "Doctor"'s companion at the start of the episode, but can that be enough to mean vice versa is true? U-Mos (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is this, which from RTD's keyboard reads: "The Doctor says, “Who are you?” The man says, “I'm the Doctor!” Good scene. The Doctor becomes his companion." Unfortunately that isn't clear who is becoming companion to who. Indeed in the episode itself Tennant's Doctor says "I'm your companion" to David M, albeit in a slightly throwaway manner. Tricky indeed. U-Mos (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- The only source I can find for Mr Morrissey as a companion is this, which unfortunately I doubt is reliable. I am surprised that there doesn't appear to have been a discussion on this at the time. It seems editors focused on sourcing his character name (then sourced as "The Doctor") rather than status before broadcast, and after focus was on Rosita's controversial status and then this episode was largely forgotten about with the understandable excitement around Matt Smith being annouced as the Eleventh Doctor. Of course, unless my memory betrays me very much there are numerous reports of David Tennant acting as Morrissey's "Doctor"'s companion at the start of the episode, but can that be enough to mean vice versa is true? U-Mos (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, there is no pre-transmission announcement by the BBC because of the nature of the story. There was an RTD interview saying that there would be one-off companions for these specials. We need reviews, lists of companions etc. Edgepedia (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sources provided for all but Mr Lake, largely due to the whole "next doctor" ruse pre-broadcast. I don't see the issue with including him though, after all if Rosita is then Morrissey (with star billing) surely is too. I know star billing can't be the be all and end all in light of the end of time, but if an assissting character is given star credit I say that's a strong indication of companion status. U-Mos (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- which I didn't add by the way (it was already there) - also there's still the thing about whether being a companion once automatically means you're one whenever you return (which is the only reason that those in Journey's End are counted as being one in that story) Eleventh Doctor (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a possible source for Jackson Lake as companion: [2] On the one hand, Wired is clearly an RS. On the other hand, he's not mentioned in the main text, only in the poll and the list of companions after it. That might be good enough, though the fact that it links back to Wikipedia makes it a bit recursive and possibly a self-reference. What do other folks think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Does seem quite recursive. Although to be honest, I should point out that I don't really think the case for listing him as a companion to begin with is particularly strong which may prejudice my views. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I actually quite like that source. The poll choices do not appear to have come from Wikipedia, especially as Rosita is ommitted, with the prose explaining they are there for reference only. It does appear to be an independent source of Lake as a companion to me (although he's only got a single vote, bless him). U-Mos (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Rory is a companion
By any definition, Rory is a companion. Yet a certain clique of editors insists on keeping the obvious out of the article out of spite. You people are the reason editing Wikipedia is so unsufferable. I don't have the time or the patience to deal with a group of pedants who continually act like children. 68.33.34.2 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, we're just following wikipedia guidelines. We need at least one reliable source that states that he is a companion, then all this warring and arguement can stop. Finally, we do seem to have a couple, just need a consensus and we can change the articles. magnius (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a wikipedia guideline: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Can you cease your childish behavior already? 68.33.34.2 (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree Rory is a companion. He has more right to be listed here than some of the 10th Doctors companions who only appear in one episode. By that definition there should be hundreds of characters who lend a hand to the Doctor. He has travelled in the Tardis for several episodes; are we not allowed to reference the programme content itself? Of course they don't call him a 'companion' in the show itself so you are looking for some print media in defiance of the obvious. Or has he been written out of existance here as well? Kayakboy (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The real problem is editors who get upset whenever someone who is not them start editing "their" pages. You can spot them by the way they launch into legalistic arguments about whether a source is "reliable" or not and ignore whether the actual argument is *true*. 68.33.34.2 (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree Rory is a companion. He has more right to be listed here than some of the 10th Doctors companions who only appear in one episode. By that definition there should be hundreds of characters who lend a hand to the Doctor. He has travelled in the Tardis for several episodes; are we not allowed to reference the programme content itself? Of course they don't call him a 'companion' in the show itself so you are looking for some print media in defiance of the obvious. Or has he been written out of existance here as well? Kayakboy (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a wikipedia guideline: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Can you cease your childish behavior already? 68.33.34.2 (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Josiah for correcting the article to reflect reality. 68.33.34.2 (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Additional source - here 188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Date formats
U-Mos is correct in this edit summary that I didn't intend to undo his cleanup work. However, one thing that was intentional was my change of the date format from the ugly and rarely used (outside of Wikipedia) YYYY-MM-DD format to the more common and more comprehensible "1 June 2010" format. The article currently uses both formats; WP:MOSDATE says that articles should be self-consistent in this regard, and also says "Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." I was the first major contributor back in 2007, and initially used the YYYY-MM-DD format because at the time it was required in citation templates, and used to be converted for display preferences. Neither of those is the case any more, so I think that the article should use the standard British date format. Anyone mind if I change it back? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 12:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- No problem at all, I noticed that in restoring my cleanup I had undone the date alterations, although unfortunately as they were performed in the same edit they will have to be changed back manually. Was going to tackle said task at some point myself. U-Mos (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would concur that the "1 June 2010" format is the easiest for me to parse, so would prefer that, assuming there is no technical imperative requiring the YYYY-MM-DD format. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nope — there's no technical requirement for the YYYY-MM-DD format. I'll make the switch. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Eighth Doctor
What about the Chinese dude? 75.165.106.238 (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- That was Chang Lee. For most of the episode he works with the Master against the Doctor, though the Master (or the diamonds) convinced him that the Doctor was the bad guy. If the series had been picked up, then I believe Chang Lee would have joined Grace and the Doctor.Parmadil (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Rosita — overcited?
Do we really need eleven citations establishing Rosita as a companion? Surely this can be cut down to the two or three that we consider most reliable. I suggest that we cut this back to just Confidential and the second Daily Telegraph reference. Anyone disagree? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Following the earlier discussion I was considering removing those that didn't mention 'companion' - i.e. referr to her as assistant. I agree, we don't need that many. Edgepedia (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Most of them don't seem to really add anything, I think pruning it back to those two would be fine. I think most of them are also used on The Next Doctor page anyway, which is the place for any detailed analysis of her role that is required. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- No objection here. U-Mos (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- No objection here. U-Mos (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Companion classes
OK, I think I've figured out the best way to categorize all these people: Companions, Associate Companions, and Guest Stars.
The companions would be Susan, Ian, Barbara, Vicki, Stephen Taylor, Katarina, Sara Kingdom, Dodo Chaplet, Polly, Ben, Jamie McCrimmon, Victoria Waterfield, Samantha Briggs, Zoe Heriot, Liz Shaw, Jo Grant, Sarah Jane Smith, Harry Sullivan, Leela, K-9, Romanadveratralundar, Adric, Nyssa, Tegan Jovanka, Vislor Turlough, Kamelion, Perpugilliam Brown, Melanie Bush, Ace, Dr. Grace Holloway, Chang Lee, Rose Tyler, Adam Mitchell, Captain Jack Harkness, Micky, Martha Jones,Donna Noble, Amelia Pond and Rory Williams.
The Associate companions would be those who regularly (but not continuously) took trips with the Doctor. So that would be the Brigadeer (did Benton and Yates ever even enter the TARDIS?), Jackie Tyler.
The Guest Stars would be those with a significant role in the programme but not enough to be a companion, for example, none of the actors in the Specials were ever planned for anything more than a one-off. So that would include Astrid Peth, Jackson Lake, Lady deSousa, Adelaide, Rosita and Wilfred Mott.Parmadil (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmadil (talk • contribs) 03:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- that would be OR. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- OR what?Parmadil (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- O(riginal) R(esearch). If you can find a reliable source that says any of the above, then feel free to cite it, otherwise it's OR. 19:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- My aplogies for not giving the full expression - the policy is here: Wikipedia:No original research. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- O(riginal) R(esearch). If you can find a reliable source that says any of the above, then feel free to cite it, otherwise it's OR. 19:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- OR what?Parmadil (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
So I'm guessing my inclusion of Samantha Briggs as a companion counted as original research too, since I haven't seen anyone else ever suggest it.Parmadil (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, if its not been stated in a reputable source, it would. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't waste your breath. The editors of this page obviously have no interest in making this page accurate and have no interest in listening to folks who actually know what 'the companion' means in reference to Doctor Who. They would much rather quote various news articles and press releases that use the term 'companion' in order to garner a little publicity for the given episode. Until they become aware that their beloved references are misinformed in their use of the term this article is worthless. There are thousands of references which refer to the main character of the show as "Dr. Who" rather than "The Doctor" yet for some reason they have no issue ignoring those incorrect references and don't refer to him that way in his article, but when it comes to incorrect "companion" references they just lap them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.222.247 (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm one of those "folks" who know what "companion" means in reference to Doctor Who. At least, I think i do. Do you? You probably think that you do too. The problem is, your idea might be different from my idea. So who's to say that your idea is better than mine...or my idea is better than yours? You know what, I'm going to say that my idea is better than yours. Yep, that's what I'm going to do. But that doesn't give me the right to put my idea in this article. I'm going to be the better person and not demand that my opinions are worthy of an article. I wonder if that's the reason for WP:verifiability and WP:cite. DonQuixote (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
So apparently the definition of a companion has changed from, "A costar of the show who travels with The Doctor in the TARDIS for more than one episode" to - "Anybody referred to in any media article as either an assistant or companion." If you believe the second definition then sure this article is accurate, but who got to decide on the latter definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.43 (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Short answer: the producers of the show have always defined who a companion is. And the media helped too. Compare "the four time-traveling companions" (the Doctor, Susan, Ian and Barbara) vs "the Doctor's new companion Vicki"...and any of the later iterations including "assistants". DonQuixote (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hein?
What is going on here ? Why does someones consider jackson lake, rosita and adelaide as companions ? They've done only one adventure with the doctor and did not ask or been ask to go further so why consider them ? This is crazy! It is not becose their names are in the credits that they should be companions ! Mehdioa (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- They have been designated as companions by several sources. Check the refs. — Edokter • Talk • 19:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
They figured as companions because in these episodes the doctor hadn't companions. But really they aren't companions ! —Mehdioa (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is not up to us to decide if they are companions or not (see the whole discussion on this page). We can only put here what other sources say, and they say they are companions. — Edokter • Talk • 19:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What sources ?–Mehdioa (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- The ones linked to, next to the companion's names. — Edokter • Talk • 22:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? This is your sources? I want sources like BBC! Mehdioa (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- There are, just not for every companion. Others come from news stories, interviews with producers, actors, etc. We source from what we can find and what conforms to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. — Edokter • Talk • 23:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
a companion
Guys you really have a problem because you don't now what is a companion ! A companion is somebody who continusely help the doctor, have travelled with him more than a time or have been so good that he has been asked to join the crew ! If he is dead helping the doctor and have been asked to join him so he is a companion ! If he helped the doctor a lot of time and travelled with the doctor one time so he is a companion. So the companion that we should not contest at all are: rose tyler, martha jones, donna noble, captain jack harkness, mickey smith, amy pond and rory williams. Now comes the others, adam mitchell he is a companion, certainely in his second adventure he messed up but he helped the doctor in the first one and had travelled in the tardis for a second adventure. Jackie tyler is a companion, the doctor is not proud of it but it is the case, she helped and supported the doctor a lot of time and travelled in the tardis twice. Wilfred mott is a companion, he supported the doctor a lot of time also and had been able to help him once and to travel with him in the tardis. And we have also lynda moss,reinette, astrid peth and jenny that are companions. They have been formidable, the doctor judge that they could come with him but because they died it ended there but if it didn't happened so they would be with him travelling around the universe. Finally there is Lady Christina de Souza, the gorgeous one and she is a companion.She was so brave, so exellent and even the doctor recognize it. She asked to come but for a specific reason and despite him, the doctor refuses but they formed a wonderful team. So, and in any case, we should consider Jackson Lake,Rosita Farisi and Adelaide Brooke as companions. Jackson and rosita never travelled with the doctor in the tardis and were never proposed or asked to it, adelaide was meant to be dead, the doctor shoudn't helped here but he never asked her to come with him or neither she does so why we want them to be companions ?—Mehdioa (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're right, we really don't know what is a companion is! As wikipedia editors our opinions do not count. My opinion, yours or Edokter's what a companion are likely to be different so how are we going to have an article if they did? We rely on reliable sources as per our guidelines and policies. The first line of this says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". Companion status for each character is sourced to a reliable, published source. Please also read the policy on Original Research, which is what you are doing above. Edgepedia (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
An original research ? If you say so. Mehdioa (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Appearances stats
I note that the number of appearances is counted as number of stories in the lists for companions of Doctors 1 to 8, and counted as number of episodes thereafter. This could be a bit misleading and a fairer comparison would be number of stories throughout IMHO. Counting multi-episode stories as a single appearance also correlates better, but not of course perfectly, to screen time. Otherwise, the different method of counting should be made clear in the text.
Also, there is a reference in the text to "standard definition" of a companion, which might lead the reader to think there is a special definition of a companion of the Doctor elsewhere in the article. Or does it just mean the dictionary definition of "companion": someone who accompanies someone else (in this case between stories)? I would have thought there might be some authority that attempted a concise, quotable definition. --93.96.136.249 (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- In the absence of objections, I've implemented the first change, I hope without introducing any errors. Wilf was recorded as 1 appearance as a companion already. I don't have enough DW non-fiction to investigate reliable attempts at a definition, although there has been much discussion in DWM.--93.96.136.249 (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would oppose this I'm afraid. The classic and new series are treated differently because they're very different. In the old, serial-based DW it makes far less sense to use number of episodes, as the seperate episodes are rarely if ever divorced from their serials. (Plus there would be great difficulty in counting episodes, with companions particularly in the black and white era regularly missing single episodes) Nowadays the series are referred to by number of episodes, and so to only count once for each story is I would say far more misleading. The End of Time is counted as one appearance because of its single title. U-Mos (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK. I've just made a couple of edits that should be uncontroversial: firstly a clarification and reference for the reasons for Katarina's death that I'd put in earlier; and secondly an explanation that the appearances with the Sixth Doctor do not correspond to the number column in List of Doctor Who serials. That's not a change in policy, just a clarification, as casual readers may not have the same understanding as the editors as to what constitutes an "appearance".
- For whatever reasons for treating the 2005 revival differently (and User:Ckatz reverted presumably because there wasn't positive consensus to standardise in this way), I would suggest in the interest of accuracy to casual readers that this is pointed out - as I said, "Otherwise, the different method of counting should be made clear in the text." I still think it's a bit awkward, eg around The End of Time which could easily have gone out under two separate titles. The third possibility, which I'd also have no problem with, would be to have an episode count for all companions. --09:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.136.249 (talk)
- I would oppose this I'm afraid. The classic and new series are treated differently because they're very different. In the old, serial-based DW it makes far less sense to use number of episodes, as the seperate episodes are rarely if ever divorced from their serials. (Plus there would be great difficulty in counting episodes, with companions particularly in the black and white era regularly missing single episodes) Nowadays the series are referred to by number of episodes, and so to only count once for each story is I would say far more misleading. The End of Time is counted as one appearance because of its single title. U-Mos (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethtbridge Stewart
Hey There -
Earlier today I put the Brig into the fray based on something I believe I read in a 1970s book, my edit was undone and I was requested to add a discussion here. Sadly I haven't got my copy to hand as its in Sunderland sitting in my caravan right now.. however - something commonly debated is whether the Brig counts as a companion. Because I can't find out exactly what my book says I can't use that as a reliable source at the present time but I did check the official DW website and it does indeed list him as a companion on their official list. I believe that justifies him companion status? It also lists Captain Mike Yates and good old Sergeant Benton aswell. Can be viewed here; http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/companions/
So, should we put the three UNIT troopers into the list?
--Connorthomha (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Howe and Stammers Doctor Who Companions lists the Brig, Benton and Yates as companions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, here's some previous discussion on the matter Talk:Companion_(Doctor_Who)/Archive_2#Brigadier_Lethbridge-Stewart and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_21#The_Brigadier.2FYates.2FBenton_-_companions.3F GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Rory's mitigated deaths
Another editor included Rory's deaths in Curse of the Black Spot & The Doctor's Wife in the section of mitigated deaths. U-Mos suggests that neither were actually deaths to begin with, but I disagree: In "Curse" Rory is removed from life support and then resuscitated - I think that qualifies as a mitigated death… In "Wife" all we have is what is shown on-screen; there's no evidence that it was a mind trick, though that's what Amy assumes. What we see on-screen is Rory, dead, Amy reacting to that, and then we see him restored to life. Any assumptions about whether it really happened outside of what is shown on-screen would be OR. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- OR could also be any assumption that he did die. The instance in The Curse... is a case of jeopardy more than a genuine case of companion death. The whole concept of "mitigated death" smacks of OR, unless there is a source that uses the phrase. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am starting to like the mitigated section less and less too, although Peri's death is a tricky one as it's a good few episodes after her exit when we get the cop-out that she didn't actually die. As for the points in hand, though, for me "Curse of the Black Spot" at least is a no-brainer. Rory doesn't die. He literally doesn't die. He nearly dies, but that's it. If we're going to list every time a companion nearly dies we'll be here till Christmas. In "The Doctor's Wife" all we have is the appearance of a death, and a very brief one at that. We neither see him die, nor see him restored to life, and Rory's assertion that House is "playing with our minds" (from memory) strongly suggests that he has been wondering around the TARDIS the same as Amy and hasn't starved to death and miraculously been revived. In the narrative of the episode there is no death to be mitigated, and it's OR to suggest otherwise. U-Mos (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- How about dropping the subsection title and using actual prose instead of a list of examples to describe the cases where the character apppears to be dead but isn't (wasn't?). I'd also like to see a better referencing for Amy being dead, rather than nearly dead, at the end of Pandorica - my understanding being that the Pandorica prevents death rather than "resurrecting" the dead. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree about dropping te "mitigated" subsection… just list the deaths (whatever the consensus view is of the ones that are actual deaths, any almost-deaths shouldn't be included there). Let the explanations of whether a death was reversed somehow be explained within the prose as Gaeme suggests. A good rule would be whether we actually see the death happen on-screen. And I'm with Graeme on this too… Amy didn't die, she was preserved in a "near death" state; totally different. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- How about dropping the subsection title and using actual prose instead of a list of examples to describe the cases where the character apppears to be dead but isn't (wasn't?). I'd also like to see a better referencing for Amy being dead, rather than nearly dead, at the end of Pandorica - my understanding being that the Pandorica prevents death rather than "resurrecting" the dead. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Revisiting Dr Song
Okay, so she's currently listed as a Future Companion — someone who will/did travel with the Doctor. Except we've been seeing her travels with the Doctor... Shouldn't we list her as a companion of Eleven? We've seen her last 3 trips with him (1969, Pandorica, Byzantium) and it's heavily-implied that she had a fair few with him (11) before those. Surely that makes her his companion? DBD 13:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you can cite a reliable source, then she'll be added. DonQuixote (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- DBD, even though she fits the "definition" defined in the article, the rule at play here is that a reliable source must specifically call her a "companion" in reference to the current Doctor in order for her to be listed as such on Wikipedia. So far the only reliable source we have is from Doctor Who Confidential around her first appearance calling her a "companion-to-come." Obviously she fits the bill… as does Canton, but they haven't been officially bestowed by the BBC with the label yet, and that's all that matters to the rest of the editors here. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- The trouble with that is that the BBC website for series four (still available) had a list of "companions" including Astrid Peth and Lady Christina, but the website now has a list of "characters" including Amy Pond. The word "companion" is not used. Is the BBC the only reliable source? Abigailgem (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- IMHO the first line of this article is wrong, and I've been meaning to propose a change for some time. The better and referenced section Companion (Doctor Who)#Definition starts with "There is no formal definition of what makes a companion." Therefore saying someone is a companion because ... doesn't work. The recent companions on this list all have a reliable sources (except Amy, but there's ref 5 on her page). No the BBC is not the only reliable source. Edgepedia (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I removed "a term primarily used in fandom" but it still doesn't make sense. If there's no strict definition then there wouldn't be such restrictions on who is included as a companion in this article… so, clearly there is. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- IMHO the first line of this article is wrong, and I've been meaning to propose a change for some time. The better and referenced section Companion (Doctor Who)#Definition starts with "There is no formal definition of what makes a companion." Therefore saying someone is a companion because ... doesn't work. The recent companions on this list all have a reliable sources (except Amy, but there's ref 5 on her page). No the BBC is not the only reliable source. Edgepedia (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- The trouble with that is that the BBC website for series four (still available) had a list of "companions" including Astrid Peth and Lady Christina, but the website now has a list of "characters" including Amy Pond. The word "companion" is not used. Is the BBC the only reliable source? Abigailgem (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- DBD, even though she fits the "definition" defined in the article, the rule at play here is that a reliable source must specifically call her a "companion" in reference to the current Doctor in order for her to be listed as such on Wikipedia. So far the only reliable source we have is from Doctor Who Confidential around her first appearance calling her a "companion-to-come." Obviously she fits the bill… as does Canton, but they haven't been officially bestowed by the BBC with the label yet, and that's all that matters to the rest of the editors here. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(←) There being no formal definition, we include characters who have been called a companion by a reliable source. We can't determine who is a companion and who isn't and I would expect my opinion be different to yours and other editors. Edgepedia (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- My point is that that IS a definition, or at least an essential part of it.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- But the underlying point is that, although you and I can define whomever as companions, we can't be cited because we're not reliable sources. Also, it would be original research regardless. DonQuixote (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is saying "We have no (reliable) way of working out who is or is not a companion so we'll wait for someone to tell us" a definition? Edgepedia (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's an element of it, and based on editing patterns, it's the most essential one. The article tells us there is not a definition, and then proceeds to tell us in great detail what the definition is, both by explanation and example, and every time one editor adds or subtracts an example, another editor chimes in with the rule about a certain source or another having the authority to name them as such. The article purports that the criteria for a companion is a complex issue, but the reality of how the character list is edited is a very, very simple one, and the two simply do not match up. You can argue with me all you want about this, but the reality of the quantity of edit warring and discussion page arguments make it obvious that the article needs major work in this area. If it's as simple as "a companion is anyone who the BBC or Radio Times say is one" then the article pretty much needs to say that, with very little further explanation except to describe their function within the fictional dynamic and a list of examples, and relying on the main DW article for everything else.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- We can describe the characteristics of a companion (define, if you will), but we cannot define a certain character as being a companion. That's original research. We rely on other people to do that for us (reliable sources). DonQuixote (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed about OR, etc etc… I think you guys are missing my point: The article reads as if "Companion" is a word, like "insect" with a definition which can be applied by anyone as they understand it. But it's not that at all - it's an official "designation" rather than just being a term. By comparison, one wouldn't need a reliable source to list a housefly as an insect in article about insects… it's an accepted fact based on the definition. But unless they have been officially deemed as such by a party with the authority to do so, a character in Doctor Who can't be a "Companion®™" ;) … what I'm getting is that the article does not make that clear. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 00:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- To that end, see last edit to intro para —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 00:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed about OR, etc etc… I think you guys are missing my point: The article reads as if "Companion" is a word, like "insect" with a definition which can be applied by anyone as they understand it. But it's not that at all - it's an official "designation" rather than just being a term. By comparison, one wouldn't need a reliable source to list a housefly as an insect in article about insects… it's an accepted fact based on the definition. But unless they have been officially deemed as such by a party with the authority to do so, a character in Doctor Who can't be a "Companion®™" ;) … what I'm getting is that the article does not make that clear. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 00:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- We can describe the characteristics of a companion (define, if you will), but we cannot define a certain character as being a companion. That's original research. We rely on other people to do that for us (reliable sources). DonQuixote (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's an element of it, and based on editing patterns, it's the most essential one. The article tells us there is not a definition, and then proceeds to tell us in great detail what the definition is, both by explanation and example, and every time one editor adds or subtracts an example, another editor chimes in with the rule about a certain source or another having the authority to name them as such. The article purports that the criteria for a companion is a complex issue, but the reality of how the character list is edited is a very, very simple one, and the two simply do not match up. You can argue with me all you want about this, but the reality of the quantity of edit warring and discussion page arguments make it obvious that the article needs major work in this area. If it's as simple as "a companion is anyone who the BBC or Radio Times say is one" then the article pretty much needs to say that, with very little further explanation except to describe their function within the fictional dynamic and a list of examples, and relying on the main DW article for everything else.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 22:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is saying "We have no (reliable) way of working out who is or is not a companion so we'll wait for someone to tell us" a definition? Edgepedia (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- But the underlying point is that, although you and I can define whomever as companions, we can't be cited because we're not reliable sources. Also, it would be original research regardless. DonQuixote (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
(←) Shada Ng, that's not my position, and I don't believe it's consensus. We need a reliable source to say a character is a companion. Recently this has come from the BBC, the authors and the press (the main sources we have). However we can't just rely on the BBC and the creators, that's Intentional fallacy. The intent of the author doesn't mean they succeded; for example if I write what I think in a comedy, it doesn't mean that it's funny. If(when?) a(n) (acceptable) book is printed that deals with Doctor Who and the recent companions, we can refer to that. I believe this is the position in the classic series. (However, I would expect a heated debate about how we include what the book says however. I may be being sceptical and say those who agree with the conclusions of the author will say it's a reliable and authoritive source and those who disagree will say that it's discredited and unreliable.) Edgepedia (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Again, I'm trying to make the article read in such a way that's consistent with the consensus viewpoint on this matter. The way the intro paragraph reads now is a huge improvement in my opinion, and is much closer to matching what you're saying. Do you agree? —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 14:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Several more changes made today by myself and Ckatz on the intro paragraph, and I think we've reached a point where it reads consistently with edit patterns. As for River Song (to get back to the subject of this section), the article now correctly lists her as a companion in line with this revised definition, so, for now, from my perspective, all of the above is case-closed. Thanks. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 04:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Once again this article seems to have decided it has the right to display contradictory information to the rest of wikipedia. It doesn't. This is not on people. I'm going to kick off a discussion at the project page so we can get an agreement that covers the whole project. U-Mos (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I've reverted your change simply because the BBC reference clearly states "Get an inside look at the Eleventh Doctor's Companions: Amy Pond, Rory Williams and River Song". Not sure how we'd argue against her being a companion given that ref. --Ckatzchatspy 23:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to revert straight away for fear of getting into an edit war, but please take it to the project page. We can't have this page saying one thing and every other page saying something else, which is what this change has meant. If River is a companion, we need to gain consensus on in which episodes, and how to deal with it across the project. Not just sneak it in under the radar in one article. In this spirit, I invite you to self-revert your edits while the discussion is ongoing. As for this source: it is from BBC America (ie. not the production team), it uses the term loosely and unclearly and does not in any way assert that River is a companion in any particular episodes themselves. It's a classic case of finding a source to fit your viewpoint, rather than the other way round. U-Mos (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- If other articles are inconsistent with clearly-sourced material in this article, then perhaps it is those other articles which need to be revised (by you, perhaps, ie WP:BB rather than complaining about it here). Nothing has "sneaked in under the radar" here, and I've made consistent edits on several other articles where relevant, all with legitimate source (and no, I don't see any reason to question BBC's "loose" use of the term; it's quite explicit).—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 19:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I am saying, if a consensus is made to consider River a companion in so-many episodes on the project page then it can and will be made in every relevant article. This is why I have started the discussion on the project talk page. Until then, there is no reason to have to project disagreeing with itself. U-Mos (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've responded on the discussion on the Doctor Who wikiproject page in detail to defend the edit, and the source. Again, if your concern is "the project disagreeing with itself" as it is inconsistently with verifiable details that are present in this and other articles, then the other articles in "the project" should be corrected. It's unreasonable to suggest (if you are) that verifiable details should be removed from relevant articles simply because it's not yet present in other, less relevant ones.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 02:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I am saying, if a consensus is made to consider River a companion in so-many episodes on the project page then it can and will be made in every relevant article. This is why I have started the discussion on the project talk page. Until then, there is no reason to have to project disagreeing with itself. U-Mos (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- If other articles are inconsistent with clearly-sourced material in this article, then perhaps it is those other articles which need to be revised (by you, perhaps, ie WP:BB rather than complaining about it here). Nothing has "sneaked in under the radar" here, and I've made consistent edits on several other articles where relevant, all with legitimate source (and no, I don't see any reason to question BBC's "loose" use of the term; it's quite explicit).—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 19:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to revert straight away for fear of getting into an edit war, but please take it to the project page. We can't have this page saying one thing and every other page saying something else, which is what this change has meant. If River is a companion, we need to gain consensus on in which episodes, and how to deal with it across the project. Not just sneak it in under the radar in one article. In this spirit, I invite you to self-revert your edits while the discussion is ongoing. As for this source: it is from BBC America (ie. not the production team), it uses the term loosely and unclearly and does not in any way assert that River is a companion in any particular episodes themselves. It's a classic case of finding a source to fit your viewpoint, rather than the other way round. U-Mos (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I've reverted your change simply because the BBC reference clearly states "Get an inside look at the Eleventh Doctor's Companions: Amy Pond, Rory Williams and River Song". Not sure how we'd argue against her being a companion given that ref. --Ckatzchatspy 23:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Once again this article seems to have decided it has the right to display contradictory information to the rest of wikipedia. It doesn't. This is not on people. I'm going to kick off a discussion at the project page so we can get an agreement that covers the whole project. U-Mos (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Several more changes made today by myself and Ckatz on the intro paragraph, and I think we've reached a point where it reads consistently with edit patterns. As for River Song (to get back to the subject of this section), the article now correctly lists her as a companion in line with this revised definition, so, for now, from my perspective, all of the above is case-closed. Thanks. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 04:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
On my first, and probably last, visit to this article I'm amazed to see that Astrid, Jackson Lake and Craig Owens have been somehow designated "companions", despite their having never even entered the Tardis, yet there is dispute over River Song, who was conceived in the Tardis.... A "companion" in my simple conception is someone who accompanies the Doctor on an adventure. Usually in the Tardis, but sometimes by other means (3rd Doctor especially here.) It's not someone the Doctor visits and has an adventure with where they already were. It seems that the BBC has hijacked the word to mean "co-star" when it's a big-name actor and there isn't a true companion in an episode. There are literally hundreds of characters who would qualify as well as Astrid, Jackson and Craig, from their actual role in the show. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but following the definition of "whoever the BBC wants to give prominence to" rather than one based on their role in the universe of the show, it's become a pointless distinction. Might as well merge the article with List of some Doctor Who characters or whatever. -- PS How is it that Kazran and Abigail (in "Christmas Carol") are not "Companions"? Both went with the Doctor on numerous trips, albeit mostly sightseeing. Do you have to fight an alien invasion to be a "Companion"? Barsoomian (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your original definition of "companion". Unfortunately that falls under original research. Regards, DonQuixote (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, duh. You think I didn't know that? Though I can't see how ANY definition isn't WP:OR, so you might as well decide on one that makes sense. But whatever the definition being used here is clearly dysfunctional and only the old-series section is consistent. Once the term was taken up by the BBC as a marketing tool it became more and more meaningless, until we reach the point I alluded to above; where one-episode co-stars who never see the Tardis are somehow "companions", and ones less well known (as actors) that make a dozen trips are not. It has been debased as much as the word "prequel" which is now used by the BBC in a way completely opposite to its original definition, because it sounds cooler than "prologue", presumably, but that's another rant. I suppose if I have a point at all it's that the BBC is not a WP:RS on this issue now, if it ever was. It's a fannish term not an official listed credit like "Special guest star" or "Gaffer" and to defer to the BBC on this may be a simple rule, but it makes the article worthless going forward. Barsoomian (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your POV. Please publish it in a reliable source so that we can cite it. Regards, DonQuixote (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't claim that I am an RS on this, (otherwise I'd have cleaned up the article already, which would have lasted all of 10 seconds) but I do question that the BBC is, as they clearly have no consistency and use it interchangeably with "co-star". The creators of a show are not automatically the authoritative source on its interpretation. If any press release by the BBC trumps all else, well, it's hopeless to even try to define the term, with the absurd results we see in the article. And yes DonQuixote, that is my POV, not to mention WP:OR, WP:SYN and definitely not WP:RS, so no need for you point it out. Barsoomian (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just like to point out that any press released by the BBC doesn't trump all else (which is poor practice--"cherry picking"). But no source has yet contradicted them. Please cite one if you can find it. Although, admittedly the Confidential episode that mentions Craig is a little ambiguous about the matter and can be discussed as to its reliability. As for River, her "status" was discussed because there weren't any unambiguous sources until just recently. Regards, DonQuixote (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't claim that I am an RS on this, (otherwise I'd have cleaned up the article already, which would have lasted all of 10 seconds) but I do question that the BBC is, as they clearly have no consistency and use it interchangeably with "co-star". The creators of a show are not automatically the authoritative source on its interpretation. If any press release by the BBC trumps all else, well, it's hopeless to even try to define the term, with the absurd results we see in the article. And yes DonQuixote, that is my POV, not to mention WP:OR, WP:SYN and definitely not WP:RS, so no need for you point it out. Barsoomian (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your POV. Please publish it in a reliable source so that we can cite it. Regards, DonQuixote (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, duh. You think I didn't know that? Though I can't see how ANY definition isn't WP:OR, so you might as well decide on one that makes sense. But whatever the definition being used here is clearly dysfunctional and only the old-series section is consistent. Once the term was taken up by the BBC as a marketing tool it became more and more meaningless, until we reach the point I alluded to above; where one-episode co-stars who never see the Tardis are somehow "companions", and ones less well known (as actors) that make a dozen trips are not. It has been debased as much as the word "prequel" which is now used by the BBC in a way completely opposite to its original definition, because it sounds cooler than "prologue", presumably, but that's another rant. I suppose if I have a point at all it's that the BBC is not a WP:RS on this issue now, if it ever was. It's a fannish term not an official listed credit like "Special guest star" or "Gaffer" and to defer to the BBC on this may be a simple rule, but it makes the article worthless going forward. Barsoomian (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Barsoomian, don't waste any more time trying to get these guys to make this article correct. They obviously have zero interest in making an accurate resource on Doctor Who Companions. If some article somewhere in existence calls somebody a companion then they are a companion according to the editors. Using that reasoning the star of the show is "Dr. Who" not The Doctor because plenty of news articles call him that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.141.84 (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion and criticism. But I would like to point out that without the guideline of citing reliable sources, this article would be in constant flux and criticisms such as yours would be a daily occurrence rather than once every so oftem. Regards. DonQuixote (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- The only reason criticisms aren't a daily occurrence is because fans have just decided to give up and use a more accurate source. The definition of companion that you follow here is wrong. I check in every few months to see if you've finally come to your senses and fixed your broken definition but alas the masters of this page apparently just enjoy spreading misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.141.84 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your definitions of "fan" and "companion". However, this is your personal view and falls under the category of original research. Unless you can cite a reliable source that defines "fan" and "companion" the way that you want, we cannot include it here. Regards. DonQuixote (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- The only reason criticisms aren't a daily occurrence is because fans have just decided to give up and use a more accurate source. The definition of companion that you follow here is wrong. I check in every few months to see if you've finally come to your senses and fixed your broken definition but alas the masters of this page apparently just enjoy spreading misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.141.84 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
River Song's Death
There seems to be some disagreement about if this should be in the "Death of a companion" section. Rather than change the article, perhaps we should discuss this here. Edgepedia (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- If she is a companion, she belongs there. If she isn't, she doesn't. The question we need to solve is whether she should be classified as a companion or not (see next section as well). Regards SoWhy 16:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- The argument appeared to be that she wasn't a companion in that episode. I'm unsure if this matters. Edgepedia (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm happy to go with any consensus, but don't think she should be added without one. If she is included, it opens a whole can of worms as to whether she belongs in the mitigated section or not because although she appeared again after her death, the death itself was final. U-Mos (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I tended to agree with U-Mos on this previously, but Avanu makes some interesting points [as my comments were moved to this section by another editor see the section titled "Regarding River Song's Companion Status" below in which I originally commented in response to the aforementioned Avanu's points]… here's how I see this: she has been verified to be a companion of the Eleventh Doctor, and her death takes place after that in her chronology. So, knowing what we know now, is that, then, the death of one of the Eleventh Doctor's companions? Does the point in the story at which it appears matter more than seeing the information as a whole in hindsight as we can now? (These are not rhetorical questions, I'm actually asking). —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also, as the whole subject of River's time travel confuses the issue, let me ask this for comparison: How would we treat the death of a companion had it occurred after their main tenure as such? I don't think there are any real examples unless I'm forgetting, but, imagine that Jamie had died in The Five Doctors or if The 7th Doctor traveled to Gallifrey and witnessed the death of Romana. Would those be a "death of a companion?" —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 18:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- In the hypothetical examples above, I'd say that they should only be included if they died as a companion. If Jamie had died in The Two Doctors then he was a companion of the Second Doctor there, so yes he should be included. If Donna had died in The End of Time she shouldn't be. But that's my opinion. U-Mos (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- River Song is an obvious exception among companions. Her timeline for some reason works itself out backwards (and circuituously) from the Doctor's. She begins her tenure as a companion at her conception, and continues it later as Mels stealing the TARDIS at gunpoint and regenerating into her familiar self. She and the Doctor seem to have been on dozens of adventures (per the blue journal), and while some editors seem to be hellbent on making her fit into a forward sequence, her timeline works in reverse. She was a companion to Ten and he just didn't realize it. He very strongly cared for her even in the episodes in the Library, and while they had a brief time together, it was HIS screwdriver that she had. -- Avanu (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- In response to Avantu, there is no formal defination of what is a companion and to argue that someone is a companion, you need to have a defination in mind. We all have opinions here and I would imagine they all differ. Therefore, we reflect what reliable sources say, rather than interpreting what we see on the screen, otherwise this encyclopedia would be impossible to edit. Edgepedia (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- The section is called "Death of a companion", not "Death of an active companion" or "Death of a current companion" or "Death of a companion while travelling with the Doctor". On the other hand, the text in the section reads "During the course of the show's history, there have been rare occasions when companions have died while on adventures with the Doctor." So we should change one of them and then decide based on that. As Shada Ng said above, we need to figure out what that section is for: If the section is only for companions who die during their "tenure", River shouldn't be added. If it's for companions who died in the narrative, even after their "tenure", she should be added. I know there are discussions whether River was a companion in SitL/FotD but there are no sources to classify her as such for that episodes, so it's irrelevant that that's not relevant for the discussion. Regards SoWhy 18:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- We now have a real example of my hypothetical scenarios above: the Brigadier's death. I suggest that whether or not that remains in the "companion deaths" section should be the litmus test for the issue of River's death, per above discussion, as it's an example of a companion death in the show, past that character's tenure as a current companion.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 19:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- River Song is an obvious exception among companions. Her timeline for some reason works itself out backwards (and circuituously) from the Doctor's. She begins her tenure as a companion at her conception, and continues it later as Mels stealing the TARDIS at gunpoint and regenerating into her familiar self. She and the Doctor seem to have been on dozens of adventures (per the blue journal), and while some editors seem to be hellbent on making her fit into a forward sequence, her timeline works in reverse. She was a companion to Ten and he just didn't realize it. He very strongly cared for her even in the episodes in the Library, and while they had a brief time together, it was HIS screwdriver that she had. -- Avanu (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- In the hypothetical examples above, I'd say that they should only be included if they died as a companion. If Jamie had died in The Two Doctors then he was a companion of the Second Doctor there, so yes he should be included. If Donna had died in The End of Time she shouldn't be. But that's my opinion. U-Mos (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also, as the whole subject of River's time travel confuses the issue, let me ask this for comparison: How would we treat the death of a companion had it occurred after their main tenure as such? I don't think there are any real examples unless I'm forgetting, but, imagine that Jamie had died in The Five Doctors or if The 7th Doctor traveled to Gallifrey and witnessed the death of Romana. Would those be a "death of a companion?" —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 18:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I tended to agree with U-Mos on this previously, but Avanu makes some interesting points [as my comments were moved to this section by another editor see the section titled "Regarding River Song's Companion Status" below in which I originally commented in response to the aforementioned Avanu's points]… here's how I see this: she has been verified to be a companion of the Eleventh Doctor, and her death takes place after that in her chronology. So, knowing what we know now, is that, then, the death of one of the Eleventh Doctor's companions? Does the point in the story at which it appears matter more than seeing the information as a whole in hindsight as we can now? (These are not rhetorical questions, I'm actually asking). —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm happy to go with any consensus, but don't think she should be added without one. If she is included, it opens a whole can of worms as to whether she belongs in the mitigated section or not because although she appeared again after her death, the death itself was final. U-Mos (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- The argument appeared to be that she wasn't a companion in that episode. I'm unsure if this matters. Edgepedia (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I apologize
I edited this page but made a tiny mistake...
With Jack Harkness as a companion it said "First episode" Utopia. I thought to myself "Wait, didn't he first join in The Empty Child" because I am an idiot I didn't pay attention and missed that they were in sections for different doctors and that he was already listed under 9.
I goofed... I replaced "Utopia" with "The Empty Child" until I realized my idiotic goof so I immediately changed it back. I just wanted to inform you incase you're wondering what just happened. I'm sorry. Dartpaw86 (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Dartpaw86
- No big deal. That's how we all started on Wikipedia. — Edokter (talk) — 18:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Timeline of Doctors and Companions
I would like to make a graphical timeline of all the doctors and companions on Doctor Who, similar to the ones that exist for band members in AC/DC, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple. I would use one color for the doctors, and another color for the companions. All eleven doctors would be on the timeline, and all companions who made more than one appearance would also be on the timeline (e.g. Astrid Peth would not appear). The primary purposes of this would be to show how long each companion was on the show for, when there were multiple companions, and when the doctor actor is replaced, but a companion stays on the show. I just need to know if there is there community consensus that a timeline would be helpful. Woknam66 talk James Bond 22:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, but we already have templates with that exact same thing. DonQuixote (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- If by that you mean this:
- then I mean something different. This template separates the companions by Doctor, mine would show all the major companions on one timeline (with "major companion" being defined as a companion who appears in at least half of the stories in any season). I would also be okay with just adding it to the above template, as opposed to adding it to this article. Woknam66 talk James Bond 04:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that's necessary, it would have to do something different (and useful) to what already exists. U-Mos (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I note that Woknam66 linked to illustrative maps of the timeline, rather than a navbox and that makes sense. Things can be drawn a lot better in illustration that wikimarkup can manage (though Timeline of British aerospace companies since 1955 does a fair job) - the ability to compress or expand the passage of time, flexiblity in coloration etc. I suggest Woknam66 gives it a go and takes feedback on what they present. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- The issue is that the band member templates have the distinctions of different colours for different roles, ie. vocals, guitar etc. There is no such distinction for companions, as I certainly would be very reluctant to support classing characters as "major" or "minor" companions as you suggest above. And leaving out one-off companions again seems like a bad idea to me. And what about River Song? I dont think it is a format that would work, but as Graeme says feel free to sandbox it and prove me wrong. U-Mos (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'll make the timeline and put it here. I still could and include one-time companions. Woknam66 talk James Bond 18:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I put the preliminary timeline in my sandbox. I actually have two slightly different versions of the timeline. Woknam66 talk James Bond 02:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'll make the timeline and put it here. I still could and include one-time companions. Woknam66 talk James Bond 18:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- The issue is that the band member templates have the distinctions of different colours for different roles, ie. vocals, guitar etc. There is no such distinction for companions, as I certainly would be very reluctant to support classing characters as "major" or "minor" companions as you suggest above. And leaving out one-off companions again seems like a bad idea to me. And what about River Song? I dont think it is a format that would work, but as Graeme says feel free to sandbox it and prove me wrong. U-Mos (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I note that Woknam66 linked to illustrative maps of the timeline, rather than a navbox and that makes sense. Things can be drawn a lot better in illustration that wikimarkup can manage (though Timeline of British aerospace companies since 1955 does a fair job) - the ability to compress or expand the passage of time, flexiblity in coloration etc. I suggest Woknam66 gives it a go and takes feedback on what they present. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that's necessary, it would have to do something different (and useful) to what already exists. U-Mos (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- then I mean something different. This template separates the companions by Doctor, mine would show all the major companions on one timeline (with "major companion" being defined as a companion who appears in at least half of the stories in any season). I would also be okay with just adding it to the above template, as opposed to adding it to this article. Woknam66 talk James Bond 04:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Numbers of appearances
Where does the number of appearances come from - or is it OR ?
It seems to me that the original series counts each story as an "appearance", whilst the new series counts each episode as an "appearance" - i.e. counting each episode in the two-part stories separately. This seems hard to justify, surely ? -- Beardo (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Regarding River Song's Companion Status
You do realize that only the nerdiest and lamest news outlets will dwell on such an esoteric thing as whether or not River Song was or was not a "companion" of the Doctor from their first encounter. With that in mind, such a new character will not be in some "Companions of Doctor Who Compendium" or similar publication. So the baffling thing to me is why we are not all in agreement that she is a companion and has been since her conception. This would include her appearance in the Library.
For those who would argue, consider that the Doctor was *immediately* won over by her whispering his name into his ear.
As the Doctor looks down at her blue journal, she comes along and they exchange the following: "Sorry, you're not allowed to see inside the book; it's against the rules. What rules? Your rules."
He gave River Song his sonic screwdriver, which he claims he would never do for anyone.
Things don't have to be cause and effect in a show like Doctor Who. "Time can be rewritten." Literally anything can happen in that show. We have an episode with a woman who the Doctor doesn't know, but who he comes to love and trust within the span of one episode.
It almost seems unbelievably hard headed for our editors to make rules about how to sequentially document the adventures of a time traveler. -- Avanu (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- All valid points but they are OR points. Whether she is a companion or not is only determined by reliable sources and that's we need. It's annoying sometimes but unfortunately WP:V does not make exceptions for such things. Regards SoWhy 15:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I predict that several books will be published and disagree about who is a companion. Edgepedia (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- At the time, she was called a "future companion" or "companion-to-come". I have never seen a source that calls her a companion of the Tenth Doctor, and even if there was one it would probably be considered an exceptional viewpoint. She appeared in the same capacity in series 5, and in series 6 there was a slight change in her narrative role and, far more importantly, reliable sources started to refer to her as a current companion. This has all been discussed at length and decided upon. U-Mos (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I predict that several books will be published and disagree about who is a companion. Edgepedia (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
If she can't be labeled a companion in Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead, maybe Jackson Lake and Adelaide Brooke shouldn't be considered either. They ALSO at the time only appeared once, yet River was in a two-parter. The rule is, if you have an adventure with the Doctor and he respects you enough, you're a companion! Dartpaw86 (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Dartpaw86
- Where did you get that rule from? Edgepedia (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
"Primary companion"
The article initially defined Rose, Martha, Donna and Amy as the "primary companions" in the revival series. I added Rory Williams to this list. Not only due to the actor receiving star billing since the 2010 Christmas special, but if you look at the number of episodes listed for each companion, you'll see that Rory appears in more episodes than either Donna or Martha. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Oswin Oswald
Okay, folks, let's not go mad. Oswin Oswald has appeared in one episode and did not travel with the Doctor. Yes, she is portrayed by Coleman, but we do not know that she is the companion yet. Remember Eve Myles' two separate (related) characters? Good. Let's hold off then. DBD 20:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- It has been confirmed that Coleman will act as the Doctor's companion, but I do see the point that you're trying to get across. For example, she may be acting as different character related to Coleman (similar to Freema Agyeman in "Army of Ghosts") or the like. :) Rhain1999 (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what "confirmed" means, but imdb.com and tv.com have Coleman credited as being "Clara" in episodes 6 through 15. For what it's worth, as of about when I watched episode 7.1 (on the US west coast), Coleman was not credited for Oswin Oswald in either imdb.com or tv.com. I assume you have a source for her appearance? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- imdb is not a reliable source; don't know about tv.com, what sources do they quote? Coleman is credited in the end credits of "Asylum of the Daleks". Edgepedia (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I know they're not reliable, but they're both usually correct about the cast. I consider the ommission from the (then) imdb entry significant, as it may have indicated that that credit was not announced until the actual broadcast. But it's not directly relevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- imdb is not a reliable source; don't know about tv.com, what sources do they quote? Coleman is credited in the end credits of "Asylum of the Daleks". Edgepedia (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what "confirmed" means, but imdb.com and tv.com have Coleman credited as being "Clara" in episodes 6 through 15. For what it's worth, as of about when I watched episode 7.1 (on the US west coast), Coleman was not credited for Oswin Oswald in either imdb.com or tv.com. I assume you have a source for her appearance? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Usually correct" means that they're also wrong on occasion. Wikipedia needs sources that are as close to 100% correct as possible. And both imdb and tv.com are run by volunteers, so anthing they say or don't say should be taken with a grain of salt and not considered to be significant in any way. DonQuixote (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Or Romana II, for that matter, who deliberately took on the appearance of Princess Astra at her regen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.59.83 (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why many editors are so obsessed with jumping the gun and incorporating stuff that hasn't aired yet. It is particularly disastrous when it comes to Doctor Who, whose production staff have long enjoyed misleading the public in advance with great success. Mezigue (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps the table entry should be removed completely until the (first) episode airs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- A better idea: why not someone just add a footnote indicating that Coleman debuted in Asylum of the Daleks as Oswin Oswald, but it remains to be seen if she will be playing the same character when she returns to the series later this season. Simple and allows "TBC" to be maintained. No official source (BBC, Doctor Who Magazine, cast/crew) has confirmed "Clara". Thus far the only official name associated with the actress is "Oswin Oswald." We also don't know if she indeed will appear again in the Christmas special or if she might make more appearances in the interim. Again, a footnote as I describe here covers that eventuality as well. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not really a better idea. It is much simpler to just mention stuff that has aired and wait for the rest. I have also removed the "Time of the Angels" references, which made the episode count for the characters involved complete guesswork. I know it's a time-travelling show, but editors should leave future stuff out. Mezigue (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- A better idea: why not someone just add a footnote indicating that Coleman debuted in Asylum of the Daleks as Oswin Oswald, but it remains to be seen if she will be playing the same character when she returns to the series later this season. Simple and allows "TBC" to be maintained. No official source (BBC, Doctor Who Magazine, cast/crew) has confirmed "Clara". Thus far the only official name associated with the actress is "Oswin Oswald." We also don't know if she indeed will appear again in the Christmas special or if she might make more appearances in the interim. Again, a footnote as I describe here covers that eventuality as well. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Funny to see people sitting here arguing over when is the right time to put Oswin on this page when this wiki is already full of people who were merely guest stars, and not companions like Astrid. Knock yourself dead and enjoy fighting for hours over your inaccurate resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.103.139 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- So, feel free to contribute reliable sources so that we can make this article better. DonQuixote (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was just browsing the article and thought "where's Oswin?". However thinking about it, she hasn't actually appeared as the companion yet. What's the big deal? We'll add her after she's been on the Christmas Special. Cls14 (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just a note to say I've readded her after the Christmas special. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Beat me to it. This page really is a pile of dog doo though. Most of the people mentioned on here aren't companions as most people would think of them. Since the series re-started I can count Rose, Martha, Donna, Amy, Rory and now Clara is companions. That's six. Astrid Peth, Christina De Souza and Craig Owens though? Jog on Cls14 (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion, however the characters are considered companions by the published independent sources cited. Edgepedia (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Martha's appearances
I should note that it states Martha was a companion for 18 episodes but appeared in one episode not one.
The thing is, Aside from "The End of Time Part2" She also appeared in Time Crash for a few seconds. Since it is declared canon yet is not an actual episode does that count? In fact do any of the shorts count? Space/Time, Unnamed 10th Doctor regeneration segment. Dartpaw86 (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Dartpaw86
Rita
Just so you know, in the "Companion Deaths" I mentioned that Rita from "The God Complex" though not an official companion was already chosen by the Doctor to be one before her death. So I don't know if that would technically count.
Well actually yeah... the thing is she would have been a companion but the fact is, she wasn't. I'll remove it. Dartpaw86 (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Dartpaw86
- We should not be deciding who is or is not a companion. We should be referring to independent sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. The BBC has official lists of who are considered companions, and there are numerous books that do the same as well. To declare a character a companion in this article would be original research and a no-no. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Episode counts
We should be including the mini-episodes in the counts. As Craig's 3rd episode (the mini-sode "Up All Night" from the Series 6 DVD set) wasn't included (it is now), the question has to be asked as to whether the counts for Rose, Mickey, Amy, Rory and River (all of whom participated in minisodes - including the Tardisodes of 2006) are accurate. Does it include Children in Need, Time Crash, Space/Time, Good As Gold, Pond Life and the Night and the Doctor mini-episodes? I think we can get away without counting the two Meanwhile in the TARDIS as those were simply additional scenes and defined as such, not standalone stories. Something to also bear in mind if Vastra, Jenny and Strax are upgraded to companions. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, they're not. And no, they shouldn't be. Full episodes only. I had never given any thought to the original Children in Need ep with Rose, but I will remove that now. It gets very complicated otherwise. U-Mos (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
"Guest star" or "companion"
I expect it's a debate that rages endlessly, but I'm surprised to see a lot of one-off guest stars being added to this list as companions. The term gets thrown about without much thought in the media, but surely to qualify as the Doctor's traveling companion, a character has to throw their all in with him and join him for several consecutive adventures? Even a co-star credit in the opening titles for an actor making a one-off appearance doesn't turn their character into the Doctors ongoing companion. Not every recurring character is a companion of course - we could call Lytton a companion if we did that.
A bona fide Companion has to be part of the *regular* Tardis team at some point, surely? That's why Sara Kingdom in particular has always had rather tenuous companion status that only just makes the 'grade'. Like Pluto ;) Am I really being too strict?
--PRL1973 (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- We don't get to decide who is or isn't a companion. We cite reliable sources, such as the producers. So the better question is, "what constitutes a reliable source?" DonQuixote (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Chris & Roz
Added Chris & Roz, but not sure if there is a specific order for the companions. I put them in what would be chronological order.
Also I'm not sure it makes sense to separate "Television" and "Spin Off" Companions, since the 7th and 8th Doctor books weren't actually spin offs but the main continuation of the story. But the way it is now is cleaner if a bit inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:100E:9:A10E:AB11:2DD4:81E4 (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Brian Williams
Looking over the number of one-shot companions, shouldn't Brian Williams (Rory's father) be added to the list for the Eleventh Doctor? He appeared in two episodes ("Dinosaurs on a Spaceship" and "The Power of Three"), traveling in the TARDIS for the first of those episodes. What do y'all say? --Tikatu (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I consider Brian Williams to be a companion; I think of Jackie Tyler as a companion for the same reason. Both of them traveled in the TARDIS, and both played more-than-supporting roles. If Rosita is a companion, then in my opinion, they qualify. EJSawyer (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
YOUR WELCOME AND THANKS
HEY, FIRST OF ALL YOUR WELCOME FOR ADDING THE TWELVTH DOCTOR! ALSO THANKS FOR MAKING IT ONE OF THOSE LIST THINGS INSTEAD OF WHAT I DID WITH A TON OF SPACES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.117.238 (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Childhoods of companions
There should be a mention of Clara Oswald and her childhood as portrayed by a young actress in "The RIngs of Akhaten" (at least, there may be more) but actually there should be more said overall on this page about Clara.
- Clara has her own article. DonQuixote (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Jackie Tyler
Jackie Tyler is missing from the list. She did 15 episodes and should be listed with doctors 9 and 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.41.33 (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Some comments
- It should perhaps be clarified that the reason Asylum of the Daleks isn't listed as the first episode for Clara is that she doesn't really fulfill the role of companion in that story, and not that the character is different -- otherwise, the choice of The Snowmen as the actual first episode is illogical.
- The "List of spin-off companions" section should include a description of the type of media, as at the moment it is difficult to work out what kind of work is being referred to, particularly for those items that don't have a link to an article about the story.
- The "Deaths of companions" section states that "[s]ince the series was relaunched in 2005, the Doctor believes himself to be the only Time Lord to have survived the Last Great Time War, indicating that Susan Foreman and Romana were killed." This seems to me to need two qualifications:
- It isn't explicitly stated that he has actual knowledge of this, and as he was mistaken in the case of the Master he may have been mistaken in either of these cases.
- The ending of The Day of the Doctor may well change this situation, relegating them to alternative timeline deaths.
212.159.69.4 (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Disputed companions
Under the Third Doctor there is a section for disputed companions like the Brigadier, Mike Yates etc - they are considered disputed due to sporadic appearances. However under the Tenth Doctor there are 'companions' that made sporadic appearances, or even one-off appearances. Surely they deserve a section for 'disputed' or 'one off' companions. It's silly to consider Rosita a companion when the Brig isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.225.51 (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- We go on sources, and the sources provided describe all of the Tenth Doctor's companions as such. (Although personally I've never considered Rosita a companion, we have to go along with it.) U-Mos (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Which sources are "official"? John Nathan-Turner wrote a 1986 book about the companions, and he included the Brig. It seems that, despite efforts to make this objective, it remains highly subjective. EJSawyer (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, the BBC Companion guide (http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/companions/index.shtml) lists Benton, Yates, and Lethbridge-Stewart as companions. EJSawyer (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- The three UNIT companions are "disputed" because there is no clear consensus of sources whether they are companions or not. The one-off companions are almost invariably described as such, and those that don't (for instance, best companion polls) often deem it necessary to explain their absence. U-Mos (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- You are so hung up on sources that you make this page worthless. You can have all the sources in the world, but if you are including people like Rosita or Adelaide I would say you have a serious definition problem. Even the loosest definition of the term would not include those characters. If your source is saying they are, your source is wrong. So if you want, put them in a disputed area, leave them out all together, or continue to make this page inaccurate and a worthless resource by leaving them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.217.75.77 (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fans have different views on what a companion is. That is why wikipedia uses the BBC site instead. 176.27.6.119 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
"Deaths" section
so we have a section about companion deaths and then a comprehensive list of companion deaths. They are both essentially the same information. Should the first section just be a general discussion about how deaths are handled and then followed up with a comprehensive detailed list? As it stands now it seems redundant. Esprix (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- most of the deaths listed are not really companions. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- And a lot of it is synthesis if not original research and should be cut. The fannish nature of this whole article is troubling. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Jamie's count
Jamie is listed as having "21 (20 as companion)" appearances with the Second Doctor. Similarly, Zoe is listed as "9 (8 as companion)". The discrepancy appears to refer to The Five Doctors, where both appear to the second Doctor as illusions. He appears in 20 stories in the 60s (Highlanders to War Games), but doesn't Jamie's apperance in The Two Doctors also count as a legit companion apperance with the Second Doctor? So shouldn't it be "22 (21 as companion)"? 31.186.113.106 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think we should count "The Five Doctors" as an appearance as if I recall we don't count Adric's cameo in "Time-Flight" or Amy's cameo in "The Time of the Doctor" as an appearance. So keep it at 21 appearances for Jamie and 8 for Zoe. BlueBlue11 (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Rigsy
Are we counting Rigsy as a companion? BlueBlue11 (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we should, since he's had as many appearances as Craig (who's listed as a companion) and he never even saw the TARDIS. Although maybe it's more appropriate to list him as Clara's companion rather than the Doctor's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.103.35 (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- The current consensus is to cite a reliable source so that we avoid original research and POV. DonQuixote (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- What consensus? There was one reply to this discussion. Alex|The|Whovian 18:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Review the various talk page archives. This has been discussed numerous times. DonQuixote (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- What consensus? There was one reply to this discussion. Alex|The|Whovian 18:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
One episode or one story
I've moved as astrid death as with as serial show like doctor who it doesn't make sense to use one episode as a dividing line As characters whuood be decided between the seacshons depending on whether they appear in a multiple part story or a one parte as withe shera kingdom and astrid peth where the only real difference as companies is the number of episodes in the story they appear in 2.103.93.46 (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Companion deaths
ive moved clara from mitigated deaths as hell bent did not undo face the raven 88.107.190.133 (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- How did it not? Alex|The|Whovian 12:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- as as it is stated that it is a fixst point in time and that Clara will have to go bake in the episode no mater how long she an Ashildr spend traveling in there tardis aswell as the fact that she is frozen just before her death88.107.190.133 (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, there was at least one previous "fixed point in time" which became unfixed, that is the death of The Doctor at Lake Silencio, which became unfixed in The Wedding of River Song. I don't think the Teselecta would fool the Quantum Shades, though, but I could imagine a resolution not resulting in a permanent death for Clara. Perhaps Me did it at the time, even though she said she couldn't.
- But this is all speculation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- as as it is stated that it is a fixst point in time and that Clara will have to go bake in the episode no mater how long she an Ashildr spend traveling in there tardis aswell as the fact that she is frozen just before her death88.107.190.133 (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Clara's death in face the Raven was not uone done in hell bent as the events of the episode and her time traveling with me are stated to take place during the last seconds be for her death from Claras point of view. where as the other deaths in the mitigated are ether in alternative realties dreams or strat fowed resurrections rivers death is mitergat not because younger version of the character appears but because her mind is uploaded to a computer and even appears after the death from her point of view 2.103.93.46 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- It is very difficult to understand what you are saying - please make some efforts with capitalisation, spelling and grammar. None of the recent edits were improvements. Mezigue (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Clara's death
Clara's death in face the Raven was not undone done in hell bent as the events of the episode and her time travelling with me are stated to take place during the last seconds be for her death from Clara’s point of view. whereas the other deaths in the mitigated are ether in alternative realties (the older Amy pond in the girl who waited) dreams (Rory in Amy’s choice) or strait forward resurrections (grace in the tv move) rivers death is mitigate not because younger version of the character appears but because her mind is uploaded to a computer and even appears after the death from her point of view all of this means that Clara still dies on trap street in face the raven.2.103.93.46 (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. She is no longer properly dead in the next episode and still not by the end of the series. I don't even understand quite what you are arguing but you make no sense. Mezigue (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- But Clara’s death is the only one in the mitigated section that in the description says that she will have to go bake to that death eventually. Plus the fact that Clara’s death cannot be changed and the doctor cannot accept it is why the doctor’s memory of Clara has to be erased in the episode the only different after hell bent is that Clara and me have adventures in there own tardis before Clara goes bake to hear death.2.103.93.46 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- You are making things unnecessarily complicated. Everyone dies in the end but Clara is not dead once the story ends, which is what matters when writing about fiction. Mezigue (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- But as a result of time travel we have see her die and then at an earlier part of the story of Clara Oswald it’s not that different to how river song showed up in the wrong order meaning it was still a permeate death shown on screen 2.103.93.46 (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- as shown on the tardis wiki page about clara http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Clara_Oswald this may not be a source accepted by Wikipedia but it dose accurately reflect what happens in the episodes2.103.93.46 (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. You are making no sense and your edits are poorly written. Could you please stop this? Mezigue (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- But as a result of time travel we have see her die and then at an earlier part of the story of Clara Oswald it’s not that different to how river song showed up in the wrong order meaning it was still a permeate death shown on screen 2.103.93.46 (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- You are making things unnecessarily complicated. Everyone dies in the end but Clara is not dead once the story ends, which is what matters when writing about fiction. Mezigue (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- But Clara’s death is the only one in the mitigated section that in the description says that she will have to go bake to that death eventually. Plus the fact that Clara’s death cannot be changed and the doctor cannot accept it is why the doctor’s memory of Clara has to be erased in the episode the only different after hell bent is that Clara and me have adventures in there own tardis before Clara goes bake to hear death.2.103.93.46 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Spin off daths
Should spi off's even be in the death section as they are not metond any where else on this page 31.90.223.171 (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)